An Unbiased Analysis of Gun Crime vs. Gun Control? 3042
"Just so everyone knows where I stand, and why I am asking this, I offer the following. I enjoy guns and regularly compete in shooting matches and hunt occasionally. I am a member of the NRA, not for political reasons, but due to the fact that most competitions are closed to non-members (which I do think is screwed up). Having said this I am undecided on what a logical path for the future is. I do believe that an unarmed nation is a bad idea, but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has. All of the statistics that I have seen about countries that have altogether outlawed guns have been manipulated by those extreme groups. As such I find it hard to believe anything that either side presents.
Thanks, I look forward to reading all of your comments and the references that you provide."
Somewhere in the middle.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Or something like that.
Personaly, we could use more common sense than less guns....but since I dont see that happening.....well, maybe a little more control would be good....but who the hell is the government to tell me what I can or can't do....and round and round goes the hamster wheel.
Wow, a whole posting, yet really no info the poster requested.....time to submit now.
Center for Disease Control (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Possible (Score:4, Interesting)
My thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore, gun control is a reactionary measure proposed by people who fail to understand the motivations behind gun crimes. They are trying to oversimplify. Guns bad...ban guns, doesn't work though.
The biggest problem is this though...you cannot take rights away from Americans. Prohibition taught us that. You can give more rights to Americans...if it's not something we've become accustomed too, you might can take it away. But something we've lived with as a standard for years. You can't take that away.
Craenor
Uh Oh.. (Score:2, Interesting)
2. Put foot in it.
3. Go where angels fear to tread.
4. Rinse, repeat every few years.
Seriously, I was intrigued during the sniper incident in the DC/Northern Virginia area, that for all the arms that people have constitutionally secured (according to the NRA), they didn't do any good. Fortunately, neither did they appear to cause any harm, by well meaning citizens putting holes in other well meaning cititzens. On this account, good old fashioned police work saved the day.
The best way not to need arms to defend oneself against one's government is to pay some damn attention to who's running and get out and vote. Besides, it saves money on bullets and janitorial services for the wall after the revolution comes.
You're never going to get an honest answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I'm wondering too- though for what it is worth every time I read arguments about freedom in regards to softare/tech stuff I am stunned by the parallels in the gun control arena.
Should hardware or software that COULD be used to circumvent the law be illegal? Even if there are other uses that are not illegal?
What about personal responsibility?
And for my opinion on the question itself. I will add what I believe to be a fact that would add a lot of reason to the debate.
Gun control cannot work in America without the citizenry of the U.S. giving up a lot more of their personal freedoms. It is too easy for Americans to come and go as they please- to keep things private in their homes and buy/sell things in private- unregulated transactions.
As long as this is true gun control will be unworkable. If you doubt this look at how incredibly innefective gun control has been to this point in time.
The parallels to the war on drugs are also interesting but I've gone on enough already.
.
Correlation Analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
Then I took the number of violent crimes, homicides, &c per capita (FBI statistics for the same year as the survey) and put them in separate columns. Looking at the correlation matrix I found that there was no correlation (R^2 <
A principle component analysis revealed a further lack of dependancy of one variable on the other.
This study was by no means complete--I didn't correlate it against the years or anything along those lines, but a search on the net for other research while I was performing the research for this project indicated that other studies--using various methodologies and some of them much more formal and complete than I had been--had come to the same conclusion that I had.
If you don't believe me, download a copy of R (http://www.r-project.org/) and check it yourself with those criteria you think would be accurate. I would be interested in the results.
Re:Sorry for the Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
And contrary to how the media would have you believe, holding a gun DOES NOT actually turn you into a crazy murderer. There's something about making a decision to kill people, and taking responsibility for your actions, but those concepts just go over the heads of most Americans.
We'd rather blame an inaminate object because that means we don't have to deal with motivations and changing behaviors. So much easier.
Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:2, Interesting)
One problem is that you can't find statistics on how many crimes are prevented because someone pulled a gun. Those types of incidents are rarely reported. It's only when someone actually pulls the trigger that it becomes a statistic.
Re:We need to change the constitution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh boy... (Score:2, Interesting)
We deal. You're right, they were Christians and Deists. This is well known. Anyone who says different is selling something. I'm an athiest. No one I know has ever said differently. I'm not really sure why you felt like mentioning it.
Posting at 1. Please don't upmod me.
Re:Not Possible (Score:1, Interesting)
:
Outlawing weapons of mass destruction won't disarm rogue nations. They are criminals, and won't respect new laws any more than the ones we have now. Outlawing weapons of mass destruction will only raise their price on the black market. Anything demanded will be supplied. That is basic economics. Even if we could create a world where only the United States is armed, do we really want to?
Ban Stones Now. (Score:3, Interesting)
England (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to get involved in gun-control arguments, but...
Could anyone post a link supporting this? I've seen lots of England-vs-America gun arguments and the one conclusion I always noted was that England has a pretty low rate of gun violence. Despite their relatively high crime rates in other areas.
Facts (Score:5, Interesting)
What more do you need to know? Whether you're more likely to kill someone because you carry a gun. Sure you are. Whether you're more likely to get killed because you carry a gun? Debate that all you like, but if you have it, you have the choice whether to use it.
Nerds don't kill people... (Score:2, Interesting)
My thinking on the matter is: if no one has guns I would feel safe, knowing that if someone wants a gun they can get it makes me not feel so safe, so I need to get a gun too, given that bare hands are little match for a 38 special if the need ever did arise
I certainly see a need to limit the spread of weapons in this country, but I don't think it will limit crime, only gun related crime. Last time I checked, lots of people were killed with knives *and* blunt objects (try limiting those).Viewpoints (Score:2, Interesting)
My favorite viewpoint, heard on the BBC (tho I'm a US citizen) several years ago, was a british one: Owning a gun, sporting aside, is considered rude. It states that you do not trust your neighbor and must defend yourself against him/her. Indeed. To venture dangerously into other waters, this does IMHO conflict with various intra-faith beliefs, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Re:News for Geeks? Stuff that Matters? (Score:5, Interesting)
A gatling gun?
I guess it's not quite parallel though, is it. But, you have loading, firing, and cooling all running simultaniously.
My opinion of the "Guns Kill People" theory. I have guns. I haven't killed anyone.
If my life is threatened, I will use those guns. Otherwise, those guns are as safe as any other paperweight. If my life is threatened and I don't have a gun, I'll defend myself the best I can. Hopefully the other guy won't have a gun. Throwing a paperweight at a guy with a gun just makes him mad.
Cars kill people. Floods kill people. Lightning kills people. Lunitics in airplanes kill people.. Why don't we have people protesting against the existance of cars, airplanes, and the weather?
Americans claim we're safer if we don't have guns.. Guns were an essential part of the American Revolution. We as Americans gained our freedom by fighting for it. Without guns, we'd be a heavily taxed bastard colony of England still.
So, yes, I have guns, and I will keep them. I will remain safe.
For Y2K, people were asking to come stay with me, because I could be well defended. You all hate guns until you need one to protect you.
Re:Look at how it's affected crime in the UK (Score:2, Interesting)
btw, remember i said "pretty sure" not 100% positive.
Re:Guns (Score:5, Interesting)
No correlation (Score:2, Interesting)
Take two extremes (and this is anecdotal evidence) - Japan where guns are strictly controlled and Switzerland where almost everyone has a semi-automatic weapon from National Guard duty. Neither of these countries has the violent crime problem that is found in the USA. The real question is not one of how prevalent guns are in the particular society, it's one of how prepared the population generally is to use those guns that are in the society in a violent manner.
The only thing that can be said about gun control is more accidental deaths occur from gun related injuries if there are more guns in the general population.
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of "evidence" which shows crime going up and down as you look at changes in gun laws which also conveniently ignores other social changes in the same time. I'm sure you'll see people arguing that guns are needed for self defense and that guns aren't a defensive weapon, but effectively a counter offense.
Personally I don't carry a gun (statistics do seem to show that carrying a gun means you have a higher chance of being killed in the US) but I believe it's the decision of a society as a whole as to what degree its citizens should be allowed to arm itself.
An interesting aside, I believe (IANAL - could have my sources mixed up) that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the interpretation of the constitution to guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, instead affirming the view that the 2nd amendment refers to state controlled militias. Those that swear by the constitution as a defense of the right to bear arms should be aware that the Supreme Court's view is that you do not have that right in the US.
John Lott (Score:3, Interesting)
The criminals mindset is self-preservation. If he doesn't know if Joe Blow off the street is carrying a handgun in his jacket or grandma has a pistol in her purse, is he really going to chance robbing the person? Statistics in the book show that in states with concealed handgun laws, the probability is less.
Have you ever been to Taiwan? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:rap music without guns? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I know that the collective
Re:Guns (Score:4, Interesting)
It's probably a combination of (I'm probably forgetting some):
1) Social welfare: There are less really desperate people in Canada with "nothing to lose"
2) Gun control: It's still possible to get a gun, but much harder (I personnaly have no idea how I could get a gun if I wanted one)
3) Over-crowding: The population density in Canada is smaller
4) Cultural: The US has a "gun culture" (with the civil was, 2nd? amendment,
Re:Guns (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite our higher per-capita ownership of firearms, Canada has a fairly low population density. When you start dealing with differences in income spread across small blocks of neighborhoods, or simply the stress of living in a city where people are routinely jammed shoulder to shoulder like sardines in a can, then numbers may appear higher.
But search long enough and you could find lots of factors elsewhere.
Most Canadians own firearms that are primarily used for hunting, not home defense. When a Canadian is pissed off at you, he punches you in the head or swears a bit and stalks off to cool down with a beer. He can't reach into the back of his pants and pull out a handy Glock 9 because it's a bitch to get handguns in this country.
I've been wanting to see 'Bowling' for a bit, but haven't seen it on the local playbills yet. Does Moore cover the density of handguns vs. rifles across the population centers as well?
If Guns don't stop crime, why do police carry them (Score:4, Interesting)
I usually jump into these debates.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are some of my offtopic threads on slashdot on the matter:
[slashdot.org]
Movielink Snubs DRM-less Macs
and another:
[slashdot.org]
ACLU campaign challenges patriot act
Now, I personally do not think the right to keep and bear arms should hinge on the utility of it, but you can read more on my stance in the threads linked to above.
Literature
It should be noteworthy that some researchers- Gary Kleck and John Lott, I think- started out their research seeking to prove gun control lowers crime, and found just the opposite. Being intellectually honest, they switched sides.
For some good reading, with some solid factual basis & unrefuted citations, read Richard Poe's Book "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" (ISBN 0-7615-2558-0) or Chapter 10, 'Gun Control Advocates- Good Guys with blood on their hands'of "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America", a book by noted Libertarian Larry Elder. (ISBN 0-312-26660-X)
Poe's book condenses the research of Kleck and Lott into a more palatable format, while combining it with his own research and observations. An excellent read. Lott has statistically shown that in states with more liberal concealed-carry laws, crime rates against persons drop significantly. This is offset by a slight increase in property crimes in these locations, which is only rational & definately preferable to confrontational crimes. Kleck's research shows that guns are used legally and defensively to stop crimes anywhere between 800,000 to 2 million times per year. Gun control advocates estimate around 200,000 such uses per year, which is still more than enough to show the positive impact.
Larry Elder's writing style is a bit too conversational at times, but that stems from his main job as a radio talk show host. Although I don't agree with everything he wrote in the aforementioned book, Chapter 10 is right on target. Either way, the book is an excellent read.
The most notable book from the Gun Control advocate side was Michael Bellesiles' (formerly of Emory University) book "Arming America", however, he has been thoroughly discredited [washtimes.com] (Note: The linked article is very tongue in cheek, but nonetheless details his downfall at the hands of his equally liberal but intellectually honest peers.)
Now the Gun Control Advocates have nothing. Why? Because they have to lie. There are many who say in this thread, "The sides are equally valid, you can't have an unbiased analysis." This is wrong.
Gun control advocates must rely on distortions or outright lies to prove their point, because the facts are not behind them.
This is a harsh statement, but I will defend it anecdotally. My opinions I've formed from the aforementioned books, and from such sites as packing.org and guncite.org, and from the occasional spot check of their accuracy. If you want supporting documentation for my opinions, look to what I've already given you.
1. Gun control advocates often cite "Gun deaths" when talking about the need to control guns. The assumption is that by removing the most efficient means to cause death, the deaths will not occur. What they don't tell you is that about half of the "Gun deaths" are suicides. While this is tragic, the dedicated suicidal person will often use the most abrupt way to end their lives available. Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often. Compare that with Japan- a nation with almost no Gun Homicides- yet three times the suicide rate of the United States. Cultural differences aside, the means available to commit suicide do not affect the suicide rate.
2.When Gun Control advocates speak of all the children who die each year to gun violence, they include inner-city gangbangers as old as 24. While their deaths are tragic as well, they cannot be honestly compared to the suburban nuclear family with two responsible adults, actual children (ie, at most 18 years old), and a handgun for protection. If you look at gun homocides and accidental deaths for children under 14, you'll find that far more children drown in swimming pools than die to guns.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms. Their utility, however, is unquestionable, so we allow their presence despite how often they kill people. The utility of guns is not so obvious, even with the 800,000 legal defensive of guns each year that Kleck estimates, because most of the time, a shot isn't fired, and it isn't reported, because the citizen is afraid of running afoul of the confusing labrynth of gun laws in any particular state- and they've already solved the situation.
Well, I think I've written enough for now. I've cited most of my sources in this thread, or the threads I've linked to above, so don't ask me to defend them, as I already have.
That being said, I enjoy debate and will reply promptly to any intelligent reply/challenge.
Gun Control is hitting the bullseye
Some groups of interest:
Jews for the Preservation of Fire Arm ownership
(remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising!)
Second Amendment Sisters
Pink Pistols
(Gays for Gun rights. They rightfully need to defend themselves from some of the morons wandering around this nation. The Matthew Shepard incident would have been a footnote in the local police dossier if he had been armed and able to defend himself.)
www.packing.org
(Concealed Carry information for all 50 states)
Sorry for no links, but you all know how google works.
Underlying issues (Score:2, Interesting)
First, the problem is not guns per se, but violence and violent crime. The causes of these are well known: poverty and economic and social injustice. You can pull all the guns off the streets, but it won't do a damn bit of good unless the underlying causes are addressed. I don't think you could ever argue that guns cause people to be violent, or that someone is more likely to commit a crime simply because they obtain a gun. The logic isn't "Gee, I have this gun, now I have to think up a crime to commit." The logic is really "I want to commit some crimes, so I should get a gun."
Gun control is not totally odious either. In California, in order to buy a hand gun, you need to obtain a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate which you get by taking a test similar to the test you take to get a driver's license. There's a ten day waiting period for all purchases (including gun show purchases), and you undergo a background check. These are all reasonable to me.
There is one other point that I'd like to make. A lot of people who advocate gun control have so little knowledge about what the process is to obtain a gun, and what you can and cannot legally buy, that it hardly advances their case. Every time I hear some shrill advocate talk about 'automatic weapons in the hands of children', I cringe. Likewise for the old saw about someone going around the corner to a gun shop and walking out of there the same day with a gun to kill their wife. It just doesn't happen. If you're going to advocate a position, it's really a good idea to understand the topic you're discussing, otherwise, people like me who know what the deal is just think you're an idiot.
Black market firearms are a problem, and if law enforcement had the the resources to go after illegal gun dealers like they go after drug users, the problem would be well on its way to being fixed.
more laws don't prevent gun violence (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem is that if this were true how come these states don't also have problems with gun violence?
Are we to belive that D.C. residence are more violent that the surrounding states? I don't think so.
One thing to consider is that someone that is going to use a gun to commit a crime is not likely to care that the fact he has a gun is illegal.
It's political (Score:4, Interesting)
As I mentioned [slashdot.org] the other day, the core of the problem is not guns, it is people. Guns have become the target because it is easier to make blanket decisions about the intermediary than to try to address the real problem of trying to figure out how to pick which people do not deserve to have them.
On the other side, people choose to fouus on banning abortion clinics and the idea of abortion for the same reason. These are easier targets to deal with. It is more difficult to try to deal with the issue that women who decide to have abortions are the problem.
In either of these cases the real problem is people, and ploiticians who want to "take things away" do not want to focus issues on individuals, or stratified groups, because it looks like discrimination and is bad for them politically. So they target the intermediaries... guns, or abortion, or some other soulless impersonal thing or idea.
Single data point? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Guns (Score:2, Interesting)
Canada has _both_ extreemes cut off. They don't have the number of PhDs we do, no space shuttle, nor the number of people killing themselves. The Omish people (in the US) have both extreemes cut off as well.
Now I cannot say that the US is better than Canada because we have a space shuttle any more than I can say Canada is better than the US for having a lower murder rate.
References (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:3, Interesting)
About the only "special interest" groups I dislike are those who have a clear political bent that doesn't fit their members. Things like the AARP or many unions which use members money to do things that the members frequently disagree with. But at least there I can make a case for *how* it is undemocratic.
Be pro-gun or anti-gun. But this whole anti-NRA rhetoric really confuses me and makes me wonder about the mindset of those speaking.
Re:Safety. (Score:3, Interesting)
A sad story indeed, and I don't mean to be disrespectful by saying this but .... what would you have done?
I have difficulty seeing you driving the car, noticing the guy on the street corner pointing a gun at the car and somehow withdrawing your own weapon, aiming (from a moving vehicle) and killing that guy before he shot you.
Outside of the Matrix, how does that work?
The whole "guns for self defence" argument seems to be based around the idea that you can kill your attacker faster than he can kill you, but if your attacker has a gun, then he can kill you pretty much instantly without you even being aware they are there anyway. Where's the benefit?
Re:Guns (Score:3, Interesting)
If there were no guns a substitute would simply be found, like a knife. If you want to stop crime you have to try to focus on something that can be influenced in the equation, the person.
What if you take everything away from a man. He could still kill you with his bare hands.
Re:Oops! (Score:1, Interesting)
IIRC, Duggan uses "Granger Causality" in his study (not specifically mentioned, but he discusses lagged changes affecting gun homicides). Granger Causality, IIRC as well, posits that a correlation between two events, differing in time, show a causality. So, in this case, (and based on Duggan's proxies), that an increase in gun ownership Granger causes an increase in crime, which in turn, IIRC from the paper, Granger causes another increase in gun ownership.
Of course, there are problems with Granger Causality, one example of which is Christmas lights and Christmas. Given that Christmas lights (barring some dorm rooms...) are strongly correlated with Christmas, and occur beforehand, one could state that Christmas lights Granger cause Christmas. I'm fairly sure Duggan addresses the correlation/causation issue.
Of more interest perhaps is Duggan's choice of proxy for gun ownership, which is sales of "Guns & Ammo" magazine. Lott (see Guncite) questioned the use of this proxy, based on the size of the sample and its appropriateness (i.e. it covers long guns half the time). Keep in mind, however, that relatively small sample sizes aren't always a killer, and Duggan explains and tests the appropriateness of the proxy.
Perhaps the upshot of all of this is that you can't trust any scholarship whatsoever
Re:Guns (Score:2, Interesting)
Gun control: You're missing my point. There might be places where there are guns but no murders. However if there are no guns, you can't shoot someone (OK, I'm simplifying a bit). In Canada, it's simply illegal to carry a gun with you (except for cops). That means only criminals have them and many are caught simply for "being in possession of a gun".
One other side effect with gun control: I'm guessing that people with a gun in the US (either cops or criminals) will have a higher tendency to "shoot first" because they're afraid (nervous) of being shot. Another effect is that when there are "incidents" in bars or public places, if people have guns with them, they'll be tempted to use them (if only in self-defense) and the result is many shots to be fired. In Canada the worse you here is people using knives, which are still far less lethal... (mostly for people around who have nothing to do with the fight).
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:3, Interesting)
If Americans are, in fact, more incined to violence than other cultures, then that presents, by itself, a strong argument to ban guns in the U.S.
By that argument, most things would be banned. Americans are more inclined to get shitfacedly drunk. Does that mean alcohol should be banned? No, just keep the laws that already exist to punish people that drive while intoxicated (the most common situation where a drunk can kill you).
So should guns be banned, or should we keep the punishments in place for felons that illegally own guns, people that flash guns in public places (yes, illegal), and other similar situations that are more likely to result in gun deaths? Rather than a gun ban, how about stricter laws on how your guns must be locked up? A law requiring that you pass gun safety courses before you can purchase a gun? Those are laws that make sense. Banning guns doesn't make any sense.
Re:Amen (Score:2, Interesting)
The ability of the people to protect themselves from any government, including their own, was one of the main reasons the second amendment is in the constitution. Try the Militia of Montana [militiaofmontana.com] website for some more information.
Justin Fitzsimons
Re:Anthropology and violence (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good Book (Score:2, Interesting)
Another good book, The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker:
Re:Oh boy... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what the source for this is, right?
Oliver Wendall Holmes thought that ditributing pamphlets opposing US involvement in WWI (widely regarded by current historians as a stupid war) and encouraging people to resist the draft via legal means was not free speech, because (mumble mumble) crowded theatre (mumble) national security. It was, in my view, a markedly poor decision.
Re:I usually jump into these debates.... (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, I disagree with some of the anecdotal evidence that you cite to support your argument.
1.
When stating this fact, cultural differences should not be put aside. Suicide in Japan is historically (though hardly universally anymore) seen as a way of redeeming one's honor in a hopeless situation. In western culture, suicide is nearly always looked down upon as selfish and wasteful.
Guns are indeed a very efficient method of committing suicide. If you know where to point, it's just a simple twitch of the finger- and to me it seems that the gravity of the decision to pull the trigger is far more distant and less real than that of many other means of suicide. Suicide is not always something that a person makes up their mind about ahead of time and cannot be stopped after that. In fact, I'd not be surprised if (though I don't know where to go to find numbers to back up this statement so take it with a grain of salt) the vast majority of suicides involve an extended period of indecision, punctuated with a perhaps split-second decision where something happens that pushes the person over the edge. I don't want to think of what may have happened if there were a gun in the house when someone close to me attempted suicide a while ago.
2.
The statistic about under-24 gun deaths seems to prove a point (assuming that it's true.) However, the statistic about more children drowning in swimming pools than dying to guns doesn't reinforce your argument in my mind at all. A death by gunfire or a death by drowning in a swimming pool are certainly both tragic occurances, especially for small children. To me it seems that, while tragic, a child drowning in a swimming pool could potentially be a frequent mishap. And the way you state the fact does more than just bring the deaths into perspective, it implies that the deaths that happen as a result of gunfire are excusable since the frequency is lower than some other causes of death.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms.
Same as my comment to #2- by comparing gun deaths to some other, entirely unrelated cause of mortality does nothing to reinforce your argument. The fact is irrelevant.
Anyway, I hope I have demonstrated the moral and ethical dilemma present in this argument. As we already know, statistics and facts can often be distorted or presented with a slant that can make them say pretty much anything. As a previous poster has said, the decision about gun control comes down to ethics and the extent of personal liberties.
And while the threat of an armed attack does frighten me, I would be even more frightened to know that the governent had begun systematically disarming the citizens. One reason that the right to bear arms is guaranteed is to give the people the right to rise up against oppression. Non-violence is obviously the best solution, for example, sit-ins during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, with gradual erosion of individual rights, to me it's comforting to know that there are people out there who are equipped and have the mentality to take a stand against it when it becomes necessary, whether it ever happens or not.
Re:Anthropology and violence (Score:2, Interesting)
For What It's Worth (Score:2, Interesting)
Felons cannot own firearms. You have to go through a (nearly) instant background check to see if you have a criminal record prior to purchasing a firearm. If the instant check comes back "criminal", well, a friendly state cop or deputy sheriff will be in the room with you shortly.
Assuming you have a clean criminal history, $19 will get you a license to carry a concealed firearm. I've had mine for nearly two years now..my carry pistol has never jumped out to bite anyone. The responsibility I accept while carrying greatly limits my ability to party; the pistol gets locked up on my designated party nights.
The stigma attached to guns amuses me as much as the stigma attached to drugs, or 'Open Source Software.'
My life is mine to defend. Noone else is obligated to protect me, and I wouldn't ask them to be. Nor can I afford a professional bodyguard. Police? Love 'em, most of the ones I know are great guys..but they have no legal obligation to protect me as an individual, nor am I obligated to beg Mr. Rapist/Mugger/Batterer for my life until the police arrive.
I hope that I never have to hurt another person in my life. It's not my desire, nor is it my intent.
I will do whatever is necessary to protect my life from unwarranted aggression, however, up to and including the use of lethal force.
I hope you care enough about your life to do the same, but it's your choice to make. Noone's mandating that you carry a concealed firearm. It's the responsible thing to do, but it's your choice.
The extremist gun control advocates lamented that PA would turn into Dodge City when we went 'shall issue' back in '95 or so. Hasn't happened. Most shootings are related to the same things they were back then..the "war on drugs" and the criminal enterprises the 'war' fuels.
Where I used to live (Westmoreland County), one in eight people held a concealed carry permit.
I've never felt safer - except at one of the mega gunshows held bimonthly outside of Pittsburgh.
Re:Good Book (Score:2, Interesting)
What about states in the east like Pennsylvania and Florida? In each of those states violent crime decreased (or in the case of Florida, certain types of violent crime still increased but at a lower rate than they had before the concealed carry laws were reformed) after they passed reformed concealed carry laws.
I was granted a carry permit in Pennsylvania when I was 21. One funny thing is that when you have a permit and learn the proper way to conceal a firearm, it makes it much easier to tell when someone else is carrying. I'm a fairly large man, I am over 6 feet tall and weigh 205 pounds. I can conceal a Glock 21 under a T shirt. If you're 5'6" and weigh 150 pounds, you should find a smaller pistol to carry. Problem is that some people don't think that much into it.
Re:Arguing aginst your own point (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree on the number of people qualified to handle a weapon well- and on the frequency with which fire arms save lives- or at least help stop criminals. But I doubt either position can be 'proved'.
You are absolutely right. Just going out and buying a gun is not enough. That is just the very beginning. (Actually it should be part of a process that started well before owning the gun but still- it's at the beginning somewhere).
But I really believe more people should stop shirking there responsibility and start taking the necessary steps to be able to be proactive in their community. It would help lessen the amount of violent crime in this country.
If you don't know of any cases where armed civilians have done good things with their firearms you have not looked too hard. It happens on a regular basis. Often it does not make it to the news as it is a non-event.
I personally watched a friend (he is now a police officer but was not at the time of the event) run out to a traffic accident - draw down on a man who was about to take a bat to a kid who had caused the accident- and keep a beating from happening. One that could have been lethal.
A close friend of mine witnessed an estranged boy friend in the process of kidnapping his ex girlfriend from a grocery store parking lot. (He didn't know the situation at the time- just saw a guy grabbing a screaming woman and throwing her in a truck). He drew his pistol- tried to stop the guy and got hit by the truck.
He didn't save her then and there- but he did his best. The whole scene got a call put through to the police and they were able to stop the truck and apprehend the man. He had a knife and had told the girl he was going to kill her.
I could go on all day. You would be unwise to take my word for it (and I don't think you would) but if you dig a little you'll find that you are mistaken when you say this never happens.
If there is such a thing as an average person I am it. Average people can handle guns in a manner that is not dangerous but rather beneficial. I am not rare among gun owners. I would say that many more of us than you think take our freedom very seriously and weild it accordingly.
.
Re:We need to change the constitution (Score:2, Interesting)
It so very much comes down to the whole point of the 'moment'... people who are otherwise fantastic people can have moments where they really want to hurt someone else... it may be due to alcohol, it may be due to them having some real anger management issues... but the thing is... if they don't have a handy gun or other weapon on them, then the worst that will probably happen is the other party gets a black eye or broken nose... when the agressor comes to his senses he may have ruined a friendship, or maybe can even make up with the other party... if it were a gun toting angry person, then the other person is dead... no way to make it up to them, no way to mend your mistakes, because they're dead.
Unfortunately for Blackmonday. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
They are *always* a political issue. Guns are power. As an old union orginizer said to a judge when asked "Why are you before me *again?*"
"Well your honor, because the gentleman over there has a gun."
When was the last time you saw any, from *any* source, strictly unbiased data on any subject that was both highly emotionally charged AND politically charged?
Joshua ben Joseph is reputed to have said, " A man cannot serve two masters." By this he meant to say that one must choose allegeince between God or one's country, wife, etc.. This is the basis for priests and nuns having to remain celebate. They have made the explicit choice that God is their master. A spouse would only serve to damage their relationship with God, and their relation with God as master would make any marriage nonviable.
He is also reputed to have said, " Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
Or, as Deep Throat put it in the contemporary vernacular, " Follow the money."
Who is the master of those who make such studies? God or Caesar? Invariably it's Caesar. Studies are expensive. Someone has to pay for them.
With guns, smoking, sex, or other such subjects which people get so worked up over they're literally willing to kill and die over, or which personal power relies on having being viewed in a certain way, it's always those with vested interests who fund the studies.
This is not to say that studies funded by special interests are *inherently* biased, but that's the observable trend. The Golden Rule is, "He with the Gold makes the rules," and outfits that do such studies, even academic institutes, know who butters their bread.
At the absolute best what happens is that an outfit funds a study, the study is done properly and objectively, but *the funder owns the results.* They've paid for them. If they don't come out the way they want they go in the circular file.
You might be surprised at the percentage of studies that are actually done get treated in this manner.
In this manner Science ( with a big "S") is not for sale, but science ( little "s") is. The majority of science these days is never published because its ownership does not want it to be released. The scientists, by accepting the gold of Caesar owe the very results of science to Caesar.
Once upon a time the great private Universities were the last bastion against this sort of thing, but now they too have effectively sworn allgience to Caesar, and society is the poorer for it.
KFG
Re:Guns (Score:3, Interesting)
2) The Nazi's did get rid of the Jew's guns, yet murdered millions of them. Why didn't your simple explaination work in that scenario?
The primary reason that the population should be armed is to avoid government oppression. People have grown so used to the political stability in the US that they simply can't imagine it breaking down. Yet from Europe to Asia to Africa lots of countries have experienced extreme political unrest. Political strife is the leading cause of murder in the world, and having an general right to keep and bear arms in a country that democratically elects its leaders is the surest way to guarantee that the People do not suffer tyranny.
I would much rather suffer living with a few John Malvo's etc... than a single Stalin or Hitler or Pinochet or Milosovich or Hussein, etc...
To answer your question (Score:2, Interesting)
You asked for unbiased sources. I did a search of the comments (over 1,400 so far) and did not find this:
The PBS (Public Broadcasting System, the government-sponsored TV network in the USA) had an excellent program years ago on its FRONTLINE series. It was hosted by the late Jessica Savich. This was the most objective and informative program I have ever seen on the topic you ask about. I hope you can obtain a videotape of the hour-long documentary; it is fundamentally useful, and it is absolutely NOT dated today.
Next: in that program, a book was mentioned, and the author was interviewed. Sorry, I don't have the bibliographic data at hand, but: the author was, as far as I can recall, at the University of Chicago. His research on gun crimes and crime prevention was seminal and, as far as I could tell, dispassionate.
Also: there is some legal scholarship available on the supreme court's interpretation of the second amendment. Look in particular for the ruling, in the 1870's if I recall correctly, that made gun ownership a collective or social right, as opposed to an individual right. The case involved freed former slaves who resorted to firearms to defend themselves from night riders, lynch mobs, the KKK and other murdering racists. Since the southern states could not tolerate this, laws restricting gun ownership were passed and enforced against blacks only. This is the root cause of the legal confusion over the dispute today.
Your attempts to find good data on the internet are not surprising--I have interests that take me back to articles published twenty, thirty and more years ago, and the results of Google searches are dismal, to say the least. Perhaps this tendency to ignore the past, or not archive it properly for search engines, accounts for the fact that no one has mentioned the excellent sources I give you here. You will have to dig. Contact PBS and ask for help getting a copy of the FRONTLINE documentary; they may help you. Good luck, and persist!
Case in point: Kennesaw, Ga. (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking from personal experience, I can think of absolutely no gun-related crime reported here in the last eight years I've lived here. Nor have I heard of any of the "accidents in the home" that gun-control advocates trumpet as a risk of gun ownership.
In the state of Georgia, there are very few barriers to gun ownership. Provided you're not a convicted felon and haven't been in a mental institution recently, you can buy and keep a gun in your home, car, or place of business. If you pay the fee in your county and don't mind being fingerprinted, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon pretty much anywhere besides a school, church, gov't building or public gathering. What's more, the police are very supportive of personal carry.
Lest you think we have a society of trigger-happy vigilantes, the law does provide some of the stiffest penalties in the nation for crimes committed with firearms, including a mandatory, non-negotiable five-year prison term for any crime committed with a firearm. This is the right kind of gun control: let law-abiding citizens protect themselves while providing stiff penalties for those who break the law.
Do a google search for "Kennesaw gun law," and you'll find the statistics, which pretty much speak for themselves.
Re:Guns (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Canadians need to improve their aim?
Actually it has more to do with the massive gun culture in the States. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Well they made their choice and now they are dying.
Canada has no paranoia that the government will knock on our door and take our guns away. We don't give a darn if they do, because we can still fight with our gloves off and our sticks on the ice. It strikes me as odd that guns are the saviour of the militia man, but why then do they worry if the government comes to take the guns? The whole point of the millitia is to fight off the government if they try that! Admitting that you can't fight the government anyway is admitting you have already been defeated, so you might as well have a safer home while you're at it.
Re:Michael Moore got it wrong with Canada. (Score:1, Interesting)
Interesting, because I'd say that about sums up the attitude of Australians too. Guns are for shooting at targets and at pesky ol' wabbits (or other animals). After the Port Arthur massacre (35 dead, 18 injured by one madman with a semi-automatic rifle) the Australian government outlawed semi-automatic weapons (with an amnesty period with gun buy-back by the government) -- a move which was quite reasonable from most Aussie's point of view, because why on earth does one need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon to kill defenceless animals with? Using guns in self-defence simply doesn't cross our minds. That's what the police are for. And if the police are not sufficient, then that's a sign, not that the Barbarians Are At The Gate, but that they've knocked the gate down and are here already.
Don't think I'm an anti-gun loon. I'm very proud of Australia's great record at target-shooting -- in the Olympics. (grin) People should be allowed to own guns -- and use them to do things other than kill people with them. (Though I think hunting with a bow and arrow is probably more interestingly challenging than hunting with a rifle. (grin) Then again, we don't have any large predators here. But watch out for the venomous snakes and spiders...)
I find it fascinating that the statistics quoted by many in this discussion point out that the USA is simply more violent, with or without guns, than most Western democracies. This sounds like a fundamental social problem, or perhaps a fundamental socioeconomic or sociohistorical problem. Which means that banning guns is not going to solve the problem.
So why are USians more violent? Violence, fear and anger. Anger about what? Lots of things. I was appalled to find out how ridiculously low the minumum wage is in the US, how pathetic the US health system is, how inadequate the US welfare system is, how huge a gap there is between rich and poor -- and the silly attitude towards Unionism as an arm of Subversive Communism. Bah! From my point of view, unionism is something which aids social justice; it's one of the checks and balances which make for a better society. (All power can be abused, so therefore Unions shouldn't get too much power either -- but that doesn't mean that All Unions Are Bad).
With all the Wars on this and that -- On Drugs, On Terrorism... the US is at war against itself.
Y'know, what the US needs is another war. A War Against Poverty. Y'think that would go down well with all the warmongers?
OT: Money (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, this is a little bit offtopic but here it is anyway.
In Canada, the gun registry system was supposed to cost only 2 million dollars, because gun owners were suposed to pay 30$/year for their permit. After three years, it has cost 600 millions and not even all guns have been registered.
At 2 millions dollars the lifes_saved:dollars ratio was pretty high, but at 600 millions (and counting), it would have been better to invest it in hospitals or something like that...
Ref: http://cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/12/03/auditor0212 03 [cbc.ca]
GFK's
Re:Guns (Score:2, Interesting)
Shootings do not necessarily kill people.
People that are killed are not necessarily shot.
Getting rid of guns will prevent all gun shootings but will do nothing to prevent shootings with crossbows or that type of things.
Getting rid of Americans will only prevent shootings where Americans are the shooter.
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't feel obliged to keep guns out of the hands of children. I feel obliged to put guns INTO the hands of children.
You don't see country kids who have been shooting with 'Pa since they were so big doing drive-bys in their Chevy's (Ford's!), do you?
Obviously there is an urban/rural factor here, but the fact is that a well armed, well educated populace is the safest group of people in the world.
Oh, and 17 year olds can't legally posses a handgun unsupervised in most jurisdictions anyway, so gun laws are completely irrelevant. (Oh, an there even more irrelevant since most of these sort of crimes go down in major cities, where no "common citizens" (aka the Sovereign People) may posses any firearm outside his home.)
Oh, but no 17 year old could ever get a handgun if there was "just one more" way in which it was illegal . .
Got of the point there a bit, but to summarize all of the above: Trying to "keep guns out of the hands of" anyone merely empowers those who flout the law.
Or, in the common, trite form "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns."
A crook once put it this way:
-Peter
What about everyone else? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Safety. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Growing up in Gun Control Paradise (Score:1, Interesting)
No guns in Puerto Rico?
Try again. The first thing me and my friends did when getting a cab to go into the non-tourist areas of PR was to make sure the cabbie was packing heat. Ours had a
otoh, when we ported in St. Martin and got lost in our rented Suzuki Samari, we ended up getting momentarily stuck in dirt (soft soil while making a u-turn) while being chased by a machete weilding (and swinging) mob from one of the local non-tourist towns we ended up in. While it wouldn't have come to a shooting, my friend who pissed his pants would probably have appreciated the
That was about 15 years ago. Even though guns then were illegal, and probably still are, most cab drivers, and most males in general who value their life and who live in the rough areas pack. There are even more guns there now.
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you propose to get rid of all the guns? Make everyone pinky-swear that they won't get one illegally? Jebus. Haven't people learned anything from prohibition and the drug war? You can't keep people from smuggling illegal things into the country. Even when it comes in massive quantities. It simply isn't possible to get rid of all the guns. Did you see the news a few months back about how many weapons the FBI has "misplaced"? Banning guns is just idiotic.
Actually, Americans are very peaceful... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a rather large homicide rate in the US - among some ethnic groups. But that is mainly because the US accepts people from other cultures and doesn't require them to give up their culture. Nearly all homicide is committed by perpetrators of the same ethnic group as their victims.
It gets especially interesting when you break down US murder rates by ethnic group.
For all the major component ethnic groups of the US the murder victimization rate is lower in the US than in their ancestors' countries of origin. For instance:
- A US citizen of English descent has a lower likelihood of being murdered in the US than an Englishman (of similar ancestry) in England.
- A US citizen of Japanese descent has a lower likelihood of being murdered in the US than a Japanese (of similar ancestry) in Japan.
- A US citizen of African descent has a lower likelihood of being murdered in the US than an African (of similar ancestry) in his ancestrial region of Africa.
- A US citizen of Spanish-American descent has a lower likelihood of being murdered in the US than a Spanish-American (of similar ancestry) in the relevant Central or South American country.
And so it goes.
It's easy to show that the effect is not genetic, by the way. An African-American who has achieved a reported income in the middle-class range and has assimilated into the US middle-class has the same murder victimization rate as a US citizen of European ancestry.
Of course that's totally neglecting the MILLIONS that get blown away in Europe's periodic tribal warfare.
In the case of the US citizen of English ancestry, things have changed drastically since the relevant studies were done. It seems that the Brits banned guns - and now have the highest violent crime rate of the English-speaking world. (Even their gun-homicide rate skyrocketed. Seems there are PLENTY of guns available - to the crooks - on the black markets of Europe.) The English murder rate may not have passed the murder rate of the general US population (yet). But the murder-victim gap between US citizens of English ancestry and Englishmen has become a gulf.
When comparing homicide rates, by the way, you have to account correctly for different reporting methods. For instance:
- The US counts a murder when there's a body and signs of foul play, while England counts one when there's a conviction.
- If hubby grabs a knife or gun and does in mom, three kids, and himself, the US counts four murders and a suicide, while Japan counts five suicides ("family suicide").
The difference in homicide rates between members of ethnic groups in the US vs. their country in origin might seem strange, given the higher level of civilian armament in the US. But higher armement has been shown to LOWER murder rates (along with other crime rates) - by an amount that's about right to explain the difference.
What a coincidence! B-)
Re:Guns (Score:3, Interesting)
1. DATE RAPE was in fact a problem, and
2. the easiest way to prevent DATE RAPE was not to date.
Of course I was being sardonic, in order to point out that the problem with DATE RAPE is not the date part, but the rape part. My larger point was that the term DATE RAPE is something of a red herring. What need to be discussed was "modern"(i.e. promiscuous) attitudes toward sex, which is the root of the problem with so called DATE/ACQUAINTANCE RAPE.
What does that have to do with gun crime, and gun control? Well the problem is often referred to as GUN VIOLENCE.
In a similar vein the problem with GUN VIOLENCE is not the gun part, it's the violence part.
Re:I usually jump into these debates.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mentioned in some other comments is a comparative study by the American Department of Justice between crime rates in the UK and the US, most notably after Britain introduced stricter gun laws in the '90's. Admittedly, the American DoJ can't (IMO) be seen as a unprejudiced source, but for the sake of argument, let's consider their data correct. The comparison showed that while, surprisingly, the number of violent crimes was higher in the UK ( I can't find an exact figure for this, though ), the number of murders in the states was significantly higher ( more than 5 times actually ). It would seem to me a very logical conclusion that the easy availability of deadly arms combined with a tradition of self-defence in the US would pretty easily explain this significant differance. What are your thoughts on this?
Also, as far as your (numbered) opinions go, I would like to point out some things:
1. Japan has AFAIK one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Most people that have survived a suicide attempt state that they regret having tried it in the first place. Thus, the availability of instant-death tools, like guns, would seem to me to increase the number of succesfull suicide attempts, thus increasing the total number of suicides. The comparison with Japan neatly covers this, but I would say the total rate of suicides in the US is higher than need be because a relatively larger number of suicides succeed.
2. I agree that inner city gang members deaths by deadly arms should not be compared to suburban deaths by gun accidents, but it might well be argued that the easy availability of guns ultimately results in a higher death toll in gang wars. It is easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or with your bare hands, and yes, even if guns could be obtained illegally, this would be more difficult. Also, the higher availability of guns will probably mean that more guns are in circulation in the States, resulting in a higher availability of guns illegally. Also, I think that comparing death by gun accidents to death by swimming pool accidents is bogus. Sure, it's always possible to find something that kills more children than guns, but this is IMO besides the question, because the only valid comparison would be to the number of child lives saved by guns. Only then can you make a rational decision if gun control will, on a balance, save more child's lives or cost more.
3. This argument is invalid for the same reasons as your last comparison. For one thing, doctors save lives or fail to save lives. They may fail to save a life by accident, but the number of lives saved by doctors exceeds the number of lives they are unable to save, therefore medicine is efficient in saving lives. I'd be very surprised if someone comes up with figures that show me that the number of lives saved by guns is higher than the number of lives taken by them.
Responsibility (Score:2, Interesting)
However, outside of this there are a large number of illegal firearms which continue to be brought in to the country. These guns come into the country from places where there are lax gun controls, usually by boat into. It is impossible for us to check every man / woman / child / aircraft / boat or other vehicle which approaches upon our borders. If more countries did the right thing and controlled firearms, then we would have alot less deaths.
Alot of the gun supporters in America complain that while we have locked down the control of guns, we still have high numbers of murders (or homicides if you prefer) which are gun related.
I've heard alot of people use the saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people", I find no merit in that statement, it's true that a gun needs to be operated (handled or mishandled) by a person, but the gun is certainly an effective tool which makes the job of killing alot easier, after all, that is what a gun is designed for "to kill", in the same way that a bomb is designed "to kill" even if a controlled explosion does make an impressive display of destruction, the primary function of the device is still to kill, you dont see alot of people carrying around bombs for "their protection" do you?
A gun is a weapon designed for death, if you live in the country, hunt for your own food and tend your own table, you have cause to have a fire arm for use to assist you in your need for survival.
If you live in a city, there is nowhere to hunt, you dont need to carry a weapon into a supermarket so you can kill your own chicken, if your carrying a firearm in a city, you have it for the purpose of killing or maiming another human being (whether you beleive it to be in self defence or not) and by carrying it you have justified to yourself that it is ok to do that.
While you Americans may say that you keep a gun for defending your property and your home, what good is your property or your home if youare not alive to enjoy it? In this country, the majority of thieves do not carry guns, they dont need to because no law respecting household keeps such a weapon, if someone breaks in it is more likely to happen when you are not at home, in the unlikely event that you are in the house, you may lose some of your belongings, but when are belongings worth losing life over? I would prefer to keep my life rather than protect a family heirloom.
Oh, I got this one. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is an easy one. Mostly the reason that there are no problems like that in Switzerland is that they are ALL SWISS. Cmon people, this is fucking so simple that a five year old can get this one figured out. All the Swiss are on the same page. They all think alike, in their peaceful little chocolate making ways.
Bet you can't say the same thing about Haitians. Look up thier history. Use them as an example of the peace lovers that have guns. How about the Somalis? Italians? Russians? Hindus? Pakistanis? Before you post... Think about it.
You take a nation that is relatively at peace, like the US was, then you imbue it to the boiling point where every culture in the world has a different viewpoint about how to reach nirvana, and then (surprise!) when you get a whooole bunch of people from violent cultures who end up running over the border or taking the nearest boat in, you might (gasp!) get a little of the side effects.
You think that one of those poor, uneducated, illiterate Haitians that think that America is the land of the free won't be able to get a job because in a highly technological society he can't read or speak English, and just maybe he might end up in the back of a squad car because he triggered someone in the back for pocket lint?
Anyone else here smart enough to see it coming? I certainly do.
So before anyone gives me any crap... gun ownership is fine. I know too many neighborhoods in America where being a law abiding person with a job is already a threat on your life. I'm a news photographer, so I see EVERYTHING BAD through a microscope. So don't hold up a culture that has is together, because you start spinning that Swiss shit and I'll throw out 3:1 cultures that you really need a gun to save yourself.
From an Australian researchers perspective.... (Score:1, Interesting)