Gun Control...

[Doom Shepherd]

That's an excellent example of overcomplicating a problem by adding an excessive amount of suppositions, but it didn't answer the questions posed.

[Vapymid]

That's an excellent example of overcomplicating a problem by adding an excessive amount of suppositions, but it didn't answer the questions posed.

 

Some questions just should not be answered literally or in terms of yes or no - for example: did you stop beating your wife?

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

That's an easy answer... Always answer yes, later they can think what you want, but you can always just mean that you now let her win at Parcheesi...

 

Still, taking away guns from people doesn't affect people who want to get and use them for crimes... It isn't possible in the real world. I agree that it would be nice if it was, but it isn't, and trying to pretend that making laws affects people that don't follow the laws is the Democrat's forte...

[Ross Scott]

I don't have a deadset view on gun control, but my general thoughts on it are to have a balance between what is practical v. what will lower accidental deaths. I don't really a problem with shotguns or up to semi-automatic rifles. Those are obvious, deliberate weapons with a purpose.

 

Besides law enforcement or special case permit scenarios, I'm not so sure what the advantage is to keeping handguns legal. I think handguns probably increase accidental deaths substantially, plus I think they make impulse shooting easier. I've had times where a driver has thrown a beer bottle at me while I'm on a bicycle that I would have liked a handgun, but probably would regret it later. Does anyone have stats for what kinds of legally registered guns are most used in accidental or heat-of-the-moment shootings? My guess is the majority would be handguns. Moreover, I also think that the number accidental deaths from handguns probably far outweigh the number of scenarios where someone is saved against an assailant by a non law-enforcement individual who happens to have a handgun on them. Unless someone has stats to disprove me, I think you can make the argument that less innocent people will die with handguns being banned than with them not (assuming criminals have access to them either way).

 

For automatic weapons, I'm not really sure of what the practicality is. You can make the "overthrow corrupt government" argument, but if the military or police want you dead, your automatic weapon isn't going to save you. Besides, somebody tell me what the practical application of a TEC-9 is besides shooting up old cars or else murdering somebody in a drive-by?

 

Also before people read into this too much, I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, mainly because I think America has way, WAY bigger problems than gun control.

[BTGBullseye]

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

 

It cites sources at the bottom. Kinda blows your assumption about handguns out of the water...

[Ross Scott]

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

 

It cites sources at the bottom. Kinda blows your assumption about handguns out of the water...

 

Not necessarily, I found this fact sheet also:

 

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

 

Problem is more data is needed. Here are some of the problems noted:

 

-Your source says about 1,500 criminals are killed by civilians with guns (they didn't cite what kind of guns, and which crimes either.)

-The source I found says in 2010, guns were used for about 11,000 homicides, but it doesn't say which kinds of guns, nor whether the homicides were committed by legally registered ones (as opposed to people who were already criminals).

-The source I found also cited that homicide rates are much higher in areas with higher levels of gun ownership, but it isn't stated as to how much.

 

I need apples-to-apples data comparisons to really change my mind on this, as opposed to "here's a bucket of apples"

[Doom Shepherd]

, I also think that the number accidental deaths from handguns probably far outweigh the number of scenarios where someone is saved against an assailant by a non law-enforcement individual who happens to have a handgun on them. Unless someone has stats to disprove me, I think you can make the argument that less innocent people will die with handguns being banned than with them not (assuming criminals have access to them either way)

 

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

 

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

 

Note that for a gun to be used defensively, according to these studies, does not require that the gun be FIRED (which is how the liberal statisticians usually skew their surveys - when you see a study that claims to "debunk" Kleck's study, they ALWAYS only talk about actual shootings/justifiable homicides.)

 

If someone accosts me, and I put my hand on my pistol holster, and they run away, that is a DGU. If someone breaks into my house, and hears me chamber a round in my shotgun, and runs away, that's a DGU, even though no bullets are fired and no one is injured.

[Ross Scott]

If someone accosts me, and I put my hand on my pistol holster, and they run away, that is a DGU. If someone breaks into my house, and hears me chamber a round in my shotgun, and runs away, that's a DGU, even though no bullets are fired and no one is injured.

 

Regarding the 2.5 and 1.5 million number, I did a search on google for "civilians guns defended criminals per year" and this was the second article that came up:

 

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-self-defense-self-delusion/

 

The short version is they're saying the numbers don't really add up to the claims. Also there is this quote:

 

"the FBI’s Crime in the United States report for 1998 found that for every instance that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 50 people lost their lives in handgun homicides."

 

That's coming from the FBI, so I would need to see some analysis showing that figure is wildly misleading. Granted, a substantial portion of those homicides are probably from existing criminals, of which a certain portion will get guns anyway, but the rest would be from accidental deaths or heat-of-the-moment homicides. 50:1 is a big number to drop to 1:1 or less.

 

Again, I'm not arguing against shotguns or most rifles; I think those combined with non-lethal self-defense measures would get you a long way towards the criminal deterrent argument.

[BTGBullseye]

The problem is, can you carry your shotgun or rifle around with you all day to protect you from harm? That's what handguns are for.

 

Just because some assholes start using crowbars to beat people to death, should we ban the ownership of crowbars? (I know of no instances where people have used crowbars for defense, but plenty where people have been beaten to death, ratio of around 100:0) Don't even get me started on cars...

 

Singling out firearms for this sort of ban or restriction is wrong, especially when the average person who owns one will never use it for anything outside of the range.

[Doom Shepherd]

 

Regarding the 2.5 and 1.5 million number, I did a search on google for "civilians guns defended criminals per year" and this was the second article that came up:

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-self-defense-self-delusion/

 

i wouldn't say that article is spun... but if you put it on the Kepler, we could keep hunting planets for another 20 years.

 

"the FBI’s Crime in the United States report for 1998 found that for every instance that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 50 people lost their lives in handgun homicides."

not disputing that. But like I said, it's a skewed number because civilians don't have to shoot someone to prevent a crime.

And even the DoJ says that a large percentage of actual crimes (over 1/3) go unreported.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

So how many Prevented crimes go unreported? Nobody really knows, but in every survey that actually attempted to find the answer, it always appeared to be a very large number.

 

My brother used to deliver pizzas. Pizza guys are preferred targets, because they carry cash. Out on deliveries, he was several times approached by "suspicious" characters. During these events, he would casually brush his jacket aside, which would reveal his holster. His testimony was that the people approaching him would rapidly find reasons to be somewhere else.

 

As no crime actually took place, nothing was recorded. Therefore his... I believe it was three incidents, would never show up in anyone's statistics, much less the FBI's homicide stats.

 

Lastly... Any article that calls a contrary point of view "delusional" is most certainly a violently skewed propaganda piece, and not a good example of scholarship OR journalism.

[Doom Shepherd]

I can imagine my 5'1" mother carting around a shotgun while she walks the dog... Mind you, I need a LOT of alcohol in my system to imagine it... Rather than the .38 she actually does carry. :rolleyes:

[Vapymid]

Wouldn't it be infinitely better if your mother could just walk the dog without feeling the need to carry a piece with her at all times?

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

It would, but until you have a way to do that, (taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't do it) we have to have a way to defend ourselves.

[Vapymid]

It's all in the head. The majority of population in the "developed" world daily walks about, minding their business, without needing or wanting to have any guns on them and they seem to be doing fine, your 'umble servant included.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

So just because 60% feel like they don't need it, the other 40% can't have them? (might be a bit of an exaggeration) Majorities aren't the issue here.

 

I don't get why people think that the constitution doesn't apply anymore... They didn't exclude pistols when they added the right to bear arms... (and they had plenty of them back then, and 99% of them were for self defense)

[Doom Shepherd]

Wouldn't it be infinitely better if your mother could just walk the dog without feeling the need to carry a piece with her at all times?

 

Regards

 

Yes, just as it would be nice if there hadn't been several strings of home invasions/burglaries in recent memory in my parents' neck of the woods, if the police weren't a half-hour away or more (rural area. What, you think only cities have crime?), and if as a relative of a union leader, she'd never been threatened before.

 

But we live in the real world, not Fantasyland.

[BTGBullseye]

xKMgxuHBasI

[Vapymid]

Yes, just as it would be nice if there hadn't been several strings of home invasions/burglaries in recent memory in my parents' neck of the woods, if the police weren't a half-hour away or more (rural area. What, you think only cities have crime?)

 

There is a big difference between keeping a shotgun at home if you live in a remote area and having to carry a hand gun with you at all times.

 

The former is a reasonable precaution while the latter is a clear sign of a totally disfunctional society.

 

As I said earlier, I personally think that private gun ownership is not a bad thing per se but you must be very careful in who you give the guns to.

 

@BTGBullseye - that was funny but not convincing. It clearly is an opinion shared by a lot of people in your country but I saw no cogent arguments substantiating it. And, unfortunately, the main argument - that you need guns to keep your government in check - is demonstrably weak. You already have so many guns yet you, Americans, always complain how your government is f*cking you over all the time. Guns didn't seem to have helped at all...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

There is a big difference between keeping a shotgun at home if you live in a remote area and having to carry a hand gun with you at all times.

How?

 

The former is a reasonable precaution while the latter is a clear sign of a totally disfunctional society.

And this is news since when? Cuba went for 49 years of tyranny under Castro because the rest of the world wasn't affected enough to do anything about it... There are countries in the world who are being systematically dismantled by their leadership without the country even knowing. (Greece is a good example)

 

As I said earlier, I personally think that private gun ownership is not a bad thing per se but you must be very careful in who you give the guns to.

Background checks in the USA to get guns are more thorough than the background checks to become royal guards in England.

 

that was funny but not convincing. It clearly is an opinion shared by a lot of people in your country but I saw no cogent arguments substantiating it. And, unfortunately, the main argument - that you need guns to keep your government in check - is demonstrably weak.

Unfortunately the US government has found a way to get around our rights many times, but people are lazy right now... They want safety, but don't want to give up the freedoms required for that safety. (disclaimer: I don't want the safety, I would be perfectly happy in the wild west or the Frontier) The lack of freedom is what the government wants, so they have the media subverted to help show them in the best light, and to help spread fear. (you might want to watch the movie V for Vendetta to see an extrapolation of what the people in power will do once they have fear on their side, or just look at the PATRIOT act that passed without opposition because people were afraid of another attack on the US)

 

You already have so many guns yet you, Americans, always complain how your government is f*cking you over all the time. Guns didn't seem to have helped at all...

Guns don't keep the government in check when people are unwilling to fight for their rights because they're afraid of something that the government is supposedly protecting them from. And I do mean supposedly, I can put a small explosive device in every civilian plane in the country without being noticed, and detonate them without ever being caught. (I just need a good reason and the explosives themselves, neither of which will ever occur) Security overseas is an even bigger joke since I know how (haven't done it, and probly won't) to move nuclear weapons, and other banned weaponry through their airports without being caught.

 

You feel safe without a gun... Give me your address, and I'll come over and break your legs without using a gun, and won't have any fear of you using a gun to defend yourself. (it's about the only thing I can think of that would be able to stop me)

[Vapymid]

There is a big difference between keeping a shotgun at home if you live in a remote area and having to carry a hand gun with you at all times.

 

How?

 

Because the risk of an attack (by burglars or bears or aliens or whoever) in a remote area is *supposed* to be higher than in public places. If you have to carry a gun in a city on daily basis - that's a bad place to live in. It shouldn't be like that in any place that claims to be "developed" or "civilised".

 

Here in the UK even cops on the beat don't carry firearms and I definitely prefer it that way.

 

Give me your address, and I'll come over and break your legs without using a gun, and won't have any fear of you using a gun to defend yourself.

 

Well, don't expect a walk in the park, even without guns

 

But if I wanted to attack you and knew you might have a gun, what is to stop me from bringing a bigger gun with me and still attack you?

 

Regards