Foederatus
Gun Control
This thread will be to discuss the forum's views on gun politics.
Topics such as whether an armed citizenry is generally good or bad, the interpretation of the United States second amendment and firearm laws of other countries and why they are in place, what should be done -if anything- to regulate or deregulate use, manufacture and distribution of firearms, how individual armament relates to security and freedom, et al, should be subject to discussion here.
Σοφία
Re: Gun Control
Guns for regular people: No.
Access only for those who need guns to do their job such as police officers, the military and professional hunters with a license.
Primicerius
Re: Gun Control
/thread. This is the most logical way to approach weaponry. I don't see why regular people should have guns. If they don't feel safe then their local government isn't doing a good enough job.Originally Posted by Astaroth
Fear not, crusader, Prester John will save you from the wrath of the Devil.
Compliance will be rewarded
Re: Gun Control
You might feel differently if your house is ever robbed.
The police aren't perfect. And they don't always have quick response times.
We have several guns in my house. I feel a lot safer knowing that we have them. I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves.
Take what happened a few months ago in Texas. A recently widowed woman had a man breaking into her house. She had her young baby with her, as well as I believe two guns. She called 911 and even asked if she was within her rights to defend herself. The operator told her to do whatever she had to do to protect herself and her child. So, naturally, she shot and killed the intruder.
Now, are you telling me she would have been better off without a gun?
Things I trust more than American conservatives:
Drinks from Bill Cosby, Flint Michigan tap water, Plane rides from Al Qaeda, Anything on the menu at Chipotle, Medical procedures from Mengele
｡◕‿◕｡
Re: Gun Control
According to this every adults should have a license, since they're the guardians of their own lives and properties.
Praefectus
Re: Gun Control
I think this is illogical: your gun doesn't remove force from the equation if the other person also has a gun. It just escalates the risks.
For me personally, I'd rather just give up my wallet to a mugger than risk shooting him, possibly killing/maiming him unnecessarily for life, or accidentally doing that to an innocent bystander, which is even worse.
Σοφία
Re: Gun Control
You forgot several important aspects, such as this one: criminals might not be able to force you, but they can still hurt and kill you.
If I were to be a robber with a (concealed gun) and you, instead of giving me your wallet, tried pulling a gun on me, chances are that I'd try to shoot you (simply because you would probably try to shoot me as well, citing self-defense). If I'm a bit faster or have a mate with a gun of his own, chances are that you'll die or get seriously injured.
If you had simply given up your wallet you could've walked away unharmed.
Sure, maybe you would've won the "firefight", but criminals often have advantages over legal citizens, no matter whether the latter are armed or not. Criminals often come in bigger numbers, have better weapons (no matter whether you have a gun of your own) and have the surprise element.
If someone ambushes you from behind, a gun won't help you. If you are outnumbered and/or outgunned, pulling out a gun won't increase your chances of survival but decrease them severely.
So really, having a gun does not "level the playingfield" at all. All it does is escalate conflicts that could've ended with a lost wallet or a bloody nose into murder and severe injuries. Because criminals have guns, too. And if you pull a gun on them they might not hesitate to use it. If you don't have a gun, a regular robber usually has no reason to hurt or kill you.
Last edited by Astaroth; July 31, 2012 at 05:39 PM.
Too Human
Re: Gun Control
Care to site any studies in support of these ludicrous claims?
While the "level playing field" argument may seem on the surface to be ridiculous, consider the home invasion. Do you think home invasions are more likely to happen if the criminal element knows the house is unprotected?
In the case of conceal carry laws, do you think it logical that criminals are more or less likely to mug someone if they believe they are or are not carrying a gun?
The problem with gun control is it places the individual at the mercy of two parties: the State who wishes to remove the gun from circulation to "prevent" crime while not answering the allegation that the State cannot provide adequate protections for individual rights once those guns are removed; and, somewhat less importantly, the criminals, who benefit the most from gun control laws because it allows them to operate with impunity, or, in the very least, operate with the criminal freedom they are most daring to exercise.
The charge that matters could be escalated works in contrary to your argument. A criminal worried that he may be maimed or killed while in pursuit of a few bucks will select only those targets that are "soft." That helps potential victims, not criminals, in contrary to your thesis.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, directed, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, and commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, wisdom, nor virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, taxed, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, admonished, reformed, corrected, and punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted, and robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, abused, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, and betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, and dishonored. -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
｡◕‿◕｡
Re: Gun Control
Not a problem, just punish murderers with something far worse than death. Since gun shots = death penalty effectively and could happen when you rob or steal or anything, the punishment of crimes should be made much more severe.
Re: Gun Control
I thought it was illigal to infringe gun rights sa la constitution?
Praeses
Re: Gun Control
There is always going to be that option. The difference is that they do not have as much of an advantage with an armed populace and the risk of armed robbery is greater.
Shootouts between two people are pretty rare. Usually when confronted with a firearm the criminal will flee, even if he has one himself. Statistics show that engaging an attacker with a firearm reduces your chance of injury compared to any other method of defense, including not defending yourself. You also have a much better chance at resisting multiple attackers. Don B. Kates, Jr. author of “The Value of Civilian Arms Possession” has collected a lot of survey data on defensive gun usage. He discusses how handgun armed defenders succeed in repelling criminals in 83-84% of the cases.
Criminals do not typically roll around in large gangs armed with AK47s and body armor. This is not predator 2. They also typically do not have any form of training or much experience operating their weapon. Sure they may have the advantage of surprise, but unless they know their intended victim, they often will not know who is concealed carrying until that person pulls their gun, which tends to be a big surprise for the criminal who may not be aware due to tunnel vision. We have a plethora of videos showing criminals holding up stores only to be surprised when someone CCW pulls a firearm and engages them. When faced with a higher risk then the intended reward they usually choose to flee. Either way a firearm evens the odds for all ages and sex.
A gun is not some magical wand always going to protect you. It is a tool that can better your chances of survival in an encounter. They key is to have situational awareness so that you do not get into these situations and can escape/evade possible danger. Having a firearm does not mean you have to use it, and it is not always advantageous to go for your firearm first. If someone pulls a knife on me, the first thing I am going to do is to try and control that blade until I can create enough distance to draw my firearm.
You are assuming that the criminal is level headed and does not intend to cause any harm to their victim. He may think he is just knocking you unconscious with that pipe, but what he really did was cause traumatic brain injury leaving you in a vegetative state, he may just shoot you to leave no witnesses, or he may be high on bath salts and eat your face off. Your assumption that all he wants is your wallet could be a fatal mistake. For women not resisting when faced with armed robbery could also end up with you getting raped and possible infected with HIV/STDs.
I do not care what the intent of the criminal is because I always assume the worst and hope for the best. I will respond to anyone threatening me with bodily harm with lethal force until that threat is neutralized because I do not have the luxury of hoping that all he wants is my wallet and all he is going to do is take it while leaving me unharmed. The statistics just do not support your line of reasoning.
The US Bureau of Justice Statistics on the other hand points to the opposite. They show that defense with a firearm actually results in fewer injuries to the defender. A defender armed with a firearm will sustain injury 17.4% less then armed with a less powerful option (knives, 40.3%; other weapon, 22%; physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.), as well as much fewer injuries then no defense at all."
Sorry but the same constitution that guarantees us the right to have firearms also prevents the government from cruel and unusual punishment.
Last edited by Gelgoog; July 31, 2012 at 10:38 PM.
Σοφία
Re: Gun Control
Actually, they do.
See here as well.
And here.
Guns don't make you safer. They endanger your life, your wife, your children and innocent bystanders.
Last edited by Astaroth; August 01, 2012 at 12:52 AM.
Dux Limitis
Re: Gun Control
Really? I have proved this wrong earlier, guess i will have to prove it wrong again.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gener...hip-state.html
Thats from a pro-gun website. Statistics are from 2009.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf
Thats the Census showing violent crime rate by state.
Now lets look at those sources. Alaska has the second highest gun ownership rate. 57.8%. According to the Census the homicide rate in Alaska is 3.2. Compared to the homicide rate in other states, they don't rank really high.
Lets look at Wyoming. Highest gun ownership rate in the US at 59.7%. It's homicide rate is 2.0. Very low compared to other states.
Now lets start comparing states with similar gun ownership percentages. Both South Carolina and Virginia have a gun ownership percentage at 42%. However, their murder rates are very different. South Carolina's murder rate is 6.7 Thats high. Vermont's murder rate however is 1.3. That murder rate is the lowest in the US.
But hey lets keep comparing states. If we take a look at Iowa and Oklahoma, we can see that they both have nearly the exact gun ownership percentages. Iowa with 42.8% and Oklahoma at 42.9%. But once again their murder rates are very different. Iowa ties Vermont with the lowest murder rate in the US at 1.3. While Oklahoma has a murder rate of 6.5. A high murder rate.
What is my point? Gun ownership rates and murder rates do not correlate.
Praeses
Re: Gun Control
Ahem.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
as for your second link.
"The researchers recommend that firearm owners take steps to make their homes safer. “Removing all firearms from one’s home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of suicide,” says Miller. "
Yes suicides are typically more successful when you use a firearm. There is no causal link to access to firearms and increased change of suicide. The article tries to confuse you by saying that there are more suicides when firearms are successful, instead of saying that suicide attempts are more successful, but the number of suicidal people making suicidal attempts does not change.
You do not combat suicides by removing fireams, that is ridiculous. You combat suicides by identifying the person at risk and getting them help. Guns do not drive people to kill themselves, any study suggesting that is immediately suspect. People who are serious about killing themselves will find a way, those who are doing it as a cry for help usually fail in their attempts because that is what they intend to do.
So no, none of those links you posted prove that guns do not level the playing field. The study did not even differentiate between those who were legally carrying and those who were not (criminals). Here is a hint for you, criminals shoot at criminals all the time, that is the vast majority of gun violence. So yea if you are a gang banger you are much more likely to get shot. You can also say that black and hispanics are disportionately more likely to get shot then white people, because that is what the data says.
If you want to see where kids might be the most at risk for violence, then all you have to do is look at the figures posted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics which shows that homicide rates national are around 9 per 100,000. This rates has changed very little in 25 years. Now you compared the homicide rate for teens of all races in rural areas are they are nearly zero. In contrast black males age 15-19 in core urban areas have a homicide rate of 160 per 100,000. These statistics are very puzzling when you consider that it’s the rural kids who have the most ready access to firearms while the black males in the core urban cities are most likely living under very strict gun control laws.
Ill point out again. . A defender armed with a firearm will sustain injury 17.4% less then armed with a less powerful option (knives, 40.3%; other weapon, 22%; physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.), as well as much fewer injuries then no defense at all.
When we look at actual usage of firearms, they are far from the brazen shootouts that we see on TV. Most incidents in which a victim will defensively use their firearm, almost never involve both the attacker and victim in a shootout. About 24% of the incidents will actually involve a victim firing their gun. With only 16% of victims firing at the perpetrator. This points to the notion that just the presence of a firearm or the discharge of it( not at the attacker) takes place the majority of the time. Since only 4.5% of the incidents involve the offender shooting at the defender, with only 3% of the incidents in which defenders engage in a shootout. We can conclude that movie style gunfights are better left to fiction as they rarely occur in real life (Edel, 1995).
Victims often face multiple attackers which can compound the problems in most situations. Daniel Polsby (1995) found that victims will face multiple offenders in about 24% of all violent crime. This in contrast to victims who used a gun will face multiple offenders in 53% of incidents. No gun owners do not draw crime to them if that is what your thinking. The statement simply means that victim is far more likely to use a firearm in a serious situation like facing multiple offenders, and a gun allows you to do this in ways that other means of self defense do not.
Here is an important one for you. Edgar Suter (1995) has a different view of the economic costs of cutting short the careers of violent offenders with the use of self-defense. Suter looks at a study done in 1990 in which 67% of homicide “victims” had a criminal record, on average, of 4 arrests and 11 offenses. Dr. Faria (2001) speaks about the health costs of firearms to society. He states that 25-75 lives are saved for every one lost each year due to firearms. Medical costs saved by a gun are around 15 times that of what are incurred by criminal usage. Faria goes on to state that the $20-40 billion dollars referenced in another study concerning the cost of killing criminals in self- defense is grossly inflated. Researchers have included estimates of a felon’s lifetime productivity as if those criminals were to become upstanding members of society.
One of the most often used reasons for getting rid of firearms, is that we have an effective police force that is here to protect us from any and all dangers that a firearm would. So let us examine how well the police perform in lieu of what would be a person’s first line of defense. Gary Mauser (2007) points out that in 1997 alone, there were 18,209 murders, 497,950 robberies, and 96,122 rapes that the police failed to prevent. How law enforcement is supposed to improve upon these mind numbing statistics may prove to be a difficult task. Disarming the law abiding public will not help diminish criminal occurrences. The fact remains that most European nations who have enforced strict gun laws and bans have seen a dramatic increase in crime all across the board with the exception of firearm crime.
Now that we have seen how the police, as a reactionary force, can do little in the ways of stopping crime acts from happening, we should take a look at what actual obligations the policing authorities possess. In most states, police have no legal duty to even come when you call and owe no legal duty to protect you from criminal attack. One famous case is that of three women in Washington D.C. March 16, 1975 who summoned the police while their friend was being sexually assaulted. In this particular case the metropolitan police never arrived and the subsequent kidnapping, rape and beating of all three women over a 14 hour period resulted in a lawsuit again the city. The United States Supreme Court dismissed this case with the verdict that police had no duty to respond to their calls or protect them. Should the public expect law enforcement to look out for our safety? In the advent of stripping us of our personal security and the law enforcement community with no legal responsibility to provide us with the services, we are at the mercy of career criminals (Duffy, 2003).
Another fact of the matter, is that the low density commercial, and residential development in the United States has taxed law enforcement to the point that sheriffs can often be more then 45 minutes away from the time they receive a call to the time when they actually arrive on scene. Counties are often so sparsely populated that they are forced to contract to other counties for police protection and emergency response. In many cases, a quick response to any emergency is just not a reality. Having a firearm around for these people is just as necessary for immediate self defense as a medical kit would be for a severe injury.
Along with the notion that police are here to be our only sanctioned protectors comes another institutional attack on citizens. Those individuals, who decide not only to be responsible for their individual defense, but also when need arises to offer that protection to others, has come a myriad of labels. When an individual stops for a car accident to offer aid they are labeled “Good Samaritans”, yet when someone stops a criminal act in progress with a firearm, they are often labeled a “vigilante.” Could it be an underlying belief that civilian crime fighting somehow threatens the foundation of law enforcement agencies? There has long been a distancing of police and civilian cooperation, even when community policing is encouraged. Officers will be the first to state that you should call them prior to attempting to give aid. Don B. Kates (1991) points out that in a study done by “Psychology Today,” that 81% of “Good Samaritans” that have responded to a crime victim or prevented an attack are gun owners with a concealed carry license. One could conclude from this article that gun owners are more likely to rush to the defense of others instead of passively standing by and calling the police.
There is also a common statement uttered by police in their attempt to prevent civilians from engaging in direct conflict and armed resistance to crime. The officers prefer to state that they are looking out for everyone’s safety, even those civilians who would voluntarily put their lives on the line to stop a crime. Maybe for a good reason, it’s thought that police are better trained to use their firearms in a self-defense nature, then the ordinary armed citizen. Yet, when looking at the data presented by Dr.Edgar Suter
(1995) in “Violence in America - Effective Solutions.” you can see how evidence might point otherwise. He states that good citizens use their guns about seven to ten times as much as police to repel and apprehend criminals, yet they do it safely. His figures state that about 11% of police shootings kill an innocent bystander compared to 2% of armed civilians. This difference can be explained by the lack of information police officers have upon arrival at the scene, but it also illustrates the good record of armed citizens during the event of using their weapon.
Florida, one of the first states to adopt loose concealed carry laws in 1993, had 188,106 licensed permit holders and not one innocent person killed in the subsequent 6 years after its introduction. Only 17 licenses were revoked for misuse (.01 percent). Now think about any area of life that requires a license and try to find that extremely low level of abuse to match Florida’s concealed carry. Simply put, those citizens who indeed legally carry around a firearm are typically good Samaritans who cast another level of security over society. The amount of good done surely can not be accurately measured without criminal events occurring. However, the amount of abuse is virtually non-existent.
That should give you a pretty encompassing look on firearms and crime. I've got a lot more if you want it.
Re: Gun Control
I'd like to see gun control for government. Lets start by getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. I certainly don't trust anyone with the power of utterly destroying human civilization.
Last edited by Enemy of the State; July 22, 2012 at 05:20 AM.
Σοφία
Re: Gun Control
I agree. But unfortunately, it is impossible to force all states in the world to get rid of their nuclear arsenal. Not to mention terrorists etc.
Therefore, I prefer it if both North Korea and say the US have nukes rather than only North Korea having them. MAD is still a better scenario than being held hostage at the mercy and whim of Kim-Jong-crazy and others.
Comes Limitis
Re: Gun Control
I completely agree.
So why don't you apply the same principles to small arms.
My opinion on gun control is that guns exist, people are going to shoot each other, and we have to live in that reality. As a result we the good guys should be armed because they the bad guys will be. Hopefully it will deter all but the most dangerous people and hopefully it will be enough to stop them. There is a general uncertainty of the future. Such is life.
A few million dead Americans and Japanese in WW2 may have been preferable to a world with nuclear arsenals. The fact of the matter is that the cat is out of the bag. We can't put the cat back in the bag. We can't change history. What happened happened, and dreaming about other possibilities is futile and idle. If it wasn't atom bombs it would have been bacteria, viral, or poison weapons.
Guns ftw
Last edited by Col. Tartleton; July 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM.
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
Civis
Re: Gun Control
Even if you somehow solve the problem that you just can't trust EVERY citizen of your nation, you can expect some vigilantes to turn your own neighbourhood into mini battlefields, with criminals on one side and victims who are defending themselves on the other!
Please leave the Judge Dredd scenario to the movies.
Re: Gun Control
And you can trust the police? The military? They're people, just like us.
Ducenarius
Re: Gun Control
Haha, it's the old fat guy that saves all the young fit people.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
