Gun Control

[Blaesiken]

Bah...
Criminals don't care what the law is...
they will use guns even if they are banned,
& will always be able to get them at black markets.
Only law-abiding cilvilians will not use guns,
& that will give them a MAJOR weakness vs. criminals.
I say...
EVERYONE GET A GUN!!!!!
& BE SMART ABOUT OWING ONE!!!!

 

[Surgo]

Wow Gravity Beetle, I'm glad you're so good at reading the thread where these points have already been brought up and partially addressed (on both sides).

 

[Vineon]

Criminality being higher in the United States clearly demonstrates people having guns is hardly a deterrent.

Doubting it is even that useful for protection. If anything, a gun puts a much bigger target on your back. If you are dangerous to a criminal, you are definitely putting yourself at higher risk.

 

[Blaesiken]

Wow Gravity Beetle, I'm glad you're so good at reading the thread where these points have already been brought up and partially addressed (on both sides).

That's why they like to call me...
OBIVIOUSMAN!!!!!
Hehehehehehe.......

 

[Deck Knight]

Deck Knight, the kid who had the gun had it because of your logic. That is terribly hypocritical argumentation.

The kid was insane and shouldn't have been admitted to that university in the first place, but the fact remains is that if everyone were trained properly in self-defense and respect for firearms the second he started showing signs of aggression he'd be either threatened into submission or killed before he could pull his own trigger. The insane kid would have found a gun either way, he'd have simply broken into a police officers house instead and possibly killed an officer.

Furthermore, your argument that people will get them no matter what is patently fraudulent. Ordinary people will not be willing to go to the length of using a black market/whatever to get guns. Ordinary people who get guns and then do something criminal now do it because of ease. Desperate people or very driven people might still relentlessly pursue access to guns otherwise, but not ordinary (lazy) people. Getting rid of the guns everyone already has certainly would be a highly expensive and impossible task though.

Ordinary people aren't criminals though, are they? Truly lazy criminals don't bother breaking into people's houses. Petty criminals employ the five finger discount and the small-time ponzi scheme. If you intend to commit a murder but need to execute a flawless burglary of a location with a known firearm first, you are not an ordinary person. Followed to its logical conclusion you are a murderer in the first degree.

Criminality being higher in the United States clearly demonstrates people having guns is hardly a deterrent.

Doubting it is even that useful for protection. If anything, a gun puts a much bigger target on your back. If you are dangerous to a criminal, you are definitely putting yourself at higher risk.

If everyone is dangerous to a criminal rather than the single beat cop at the university, isn't the threat of likely death going to ward them off?

Unless they are literally insane like the Virginia Tech Kid, then yes. Criminals do illegal things, not irrational ones. It is irrational to rob a bank if everyone in the bank could be concealed carry. If they put up a "firearms free zone" it's like inviting Erik the Red to your Playboy party and complaining when he screws your girlfriend and pillages your posters.

Now lets have a quiz:

Can you define an assault weapon? I mean, without using the terms "big and scary."

 

[Janenmori]

Criminality being higher in the United States clearly demonstrates people having guns is hardly a deterrent.

Doubting it is even that useful for protection. If anything, a gun puts a much bigger target on your back. If you are dangerous to a criminal, you are definitely putting yourself at higher risk.

I heard a statistic a while back, that in states like Arizona where many people carry visible side-arms, the crimerates are lower. Any potential criminal is likely to weigh in that if he robs a 711 that another customer could be packing a Glock with more than enough power to kill him. The problem is that people DO NOT have guns and do not carry them. And if they do, they are gang bangers who do not even know how to operate the weapon to its fullest efficiency.

How would a gun put a bigger target on your back? If more people were dangerous to criminals, there would be no problem at all. If 3 of 5 people carried, and 1 of those three was a criminal, the criminal would be out-numbered and outgunned, and I doubt he could detect that both people were carrying and even if he did I doubt he could take them both out without the other noticing.

 

[Vineon]

Criminals do illegal things, not irrational ones. It is irrational to rob a bank if everyone in the bank could be concealed carry. If they put up a "firearms free zone" it's like inviting Erik the Red to your Playboy party and complaining when he screws your girlfriend and pillages your posters.

"Criminals do illegal things, not irrational ones", right. Which means a criminal robbing a store has in mind there might be one behind the counter, putting the clerk at much higher risk, he is not going to take a chance to lose control. The robber will be more nervous and more likely to shoot the clerk if he shows any sign that might indicate he is not going to passively let him steal and get out. The clerk does not need to try to grab his gun to get shot, all he needs is make a gesture the robber might interpret as such.

If they put up a "firearms free zone" it's like inviting Erik the Red to your Playboy party and complaining when he screws your girlfriend and pillages your posters.

Entire countries should be considered firearms free zones, we surely don’t see this tendency materializing in them. Do you simply have no respect for your trained law force?

 

[moot]

Can you define an assault weapon? I mean, without using the terms "big and scary."

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns (lol) with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine

The earlier term assault rifle, refers to rifles that are selective fire, firing intermediate-power rounds (such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, or 7.62 x 39 mm), which along with fully automatic pistols, provided the pre-cursor for the term "assault weapon." In contrast, the term assault weapon as used in civilian and U.S. legal usage refers to a semi-automatic firearm with certain features, as listed above. The ban did not cover "assault rifles" but merely the new category of "assault weapons" which did not include automatic firearms of any type.

Just as reference before this topic gets confused with the definition. Derived from the Federal Assault Weapons banned, a la Wikipedia. Enjoy.

 

[Vineon]

I heard a statistic a while back, that in states like Texas where many people carry visible side-arms, the crimerates are lower.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

Not according to those numbers, having Texas's crime rates above average in every category.

Any potential criminal is likely to weigh in that if he robs a 711 that another customer could be packing a Glock with more than enough power to kill him.

Making criminals more prepared and more dangerous. They know there is more at stake. If guns are a deterrant to crime, why don't numbers show that.

The problem is that people DO NOT have guns and do not carry them. And if they do, they are gang bangers who do not even know how to operate the weapon to its fullest efficiency.

Most western countries have that alleged problem. Somehow, their criminality rates are much lower than America's.

How would a gun put a bigger target on your back?

Because you are danger to them. If you are, they will attempt to take you out by whatever means. You are of hardly any danger to them without it.

I really hate the idea of civilians playing the police.

If more people were dangerous to criminals, there would be no problem at all. If 3 of 5 people carried, and 1 of those three was a criminal, the criminal would be out-numbered and outgunned, and I doubt he could detect that both people were carrying and even if he did I doubt he could take them both out without the other noticing.

Ah come on, you hardly ever see a robbery made by one person alone while there are many people in the store, armed or not. It is usually done at night, while there are a limited amount of people inside, sometimes only the clerk. The first thing they do is make sure they take whoever they rob by surprise before they get a chance to react.

 

[Surgo]

The Federal Assault Weapon Ban is pretty dumb and should not be used to define an assault weapon. Qualities include crap like the shape of the grip, which has pretty much nothing to do with the destructive potential of the weapon.

 

[Jenigmat]

I really hate the idea of civilians playing the police.

This.

I'd have no problem with someone like Deck Knight exercising his right to own a gun; even though I disagree with him and think he's an idiot, deep down he's not. He's intelligent enough that I think that he wouldn't necessarily be a threat to me.

On the other hand, looking around at the people around me, I don't think I'd trust any of them with a weapon that would make it any easier for them to kill me. Yes, there are many weapons they can use, yes, it's easy to improvise something that could be used to kill me, but guns are much better at killing me than most other weapons that the average idiot could get their hands on. If you look at people like Amadou Diallo, I'm not even sure I trust cops to do police work, let alone some guy with a handgun who's bought the gun for the purpose of defending himself from external threats, real or imagined.

 

[CaptKirby]

The kid was insane and shouldn't have been admitted to that university in the first place, but the fact remains is that if everyone were trained properly in self-defense and respect for firearms the second he started showing signs of aggression he'd be either threatened into submission or killed before he could pull his own trigger. The insane kid would have found a gun either way, he'd have simply broken into a police officers house instead and possibly killed an officer.

Ordinary people aren't criminals though, are they? Truly lazy criminals don't bother breaking into people's houses. Petty criminals employ the five finger discount and the small-time ponzi scheme. If you intend to commit a murder but need to execute a flawless burglary of a location with a known firearm first, you are not an ordinary person. Followed to its logical conclusion you are a murderer in the first degree.

I highly doubt he somehow got into the university undeservingly. This is again you using sophistry to try to back up your claims, which is just a waste of time. One gets into schools from test scores and little else, not how stable one is. Ordinary people snap, ordinary people become criminals, and ordinary people shoot other ordinary people. Most people are liars, cheaters, swindlers, and all around jerks. It does not take a great application of these qualities to commit a crime, let alone one with a weapon involved since they are made so freely available.

Certainly him breaking into a police station to steal a gun would be a possibility, but a very remote and ridiculous one that you are using to try to artificially shore up your position.

 

[moot]

The Federal Assault Weapon Ban is pretty dumb and should not be used to define an assault weapon. Qualities include crap like the shape of the grip, which has pretty much nothing to do with the destructive potential of the weapon.

Unfortunately it's really the only thing that defines the difference between a personal firearm/military-grade weapon/assault weapon.

That I could dig up, anyway. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

 

[jamespicone]

Two important things need to be brought up here. First, the concept of defence in depth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth

Yes, if gun ownership is illegal or heavily restricted (And quite frankly, even the most gun-control happy country only heavily restricts gun ownership) criminals can still get guns and still do get guns - the odd shooting in Adelaide proves that well enough. However, keep in mind that there are now /two/ crimes someone must commit to shoot somebody - first, they need to illegally acquire a gun, and then, some time later, they need to shoot someone. People get caught attempting to illegally acquire guns. And having to acquire the gun illegally puts a bit more of a roadblock in the way of people who might otherwise consider gunning someone down. There's two chances to catch someone.

Second, there is the Rincewind Principle. This has been brought up in the thread previously, but it's important - in short, weapons make you a target. If you're robbing a convenience store, and you're pretty sure they don't have a gun, there's much less incentive to shoot the poor bastard on the till then if it's entirely possible that there's a shotgun under the till. And Eris help him if he (or any of the customers) actually /draws/ a weapon.

Oh, and finally, much as gun control doesn't eliminate guns from criminals, it certainly drastically reduces their presence. Firstly because they don't need them nearly as much, secondly because the weaker the controls are the easier it is for a gun to just be bought legally.

EDIT: Oh, and while it's still relevant: http://www.xkcd.com/504/

 

[Ancien Régime]

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

This link is useful for statistics presenting arguments against gun control (and before anyone screams "It's a conservative think tank!!!11!", it's a conservative think tank.) They didn't do the research though.

From what I can tell, the statistics, while they may not support "more guns less crime", they clearly and unequivocally refute the premise of "more guns, more crime".

Let's compare the U.S. and Canada in terms of per capita violent crime rates since 1962 to 1991

Year US Canada
1962 ~185 ~250

1967 ~250 ~390

1972 401 507
1973 417 534
1974 461 564
1975 488 597
1976 468 596
1977 476 583 (Notice that Canadian crime rates decreased slightly prior to the passage of Bill C-51)
1978 498 591 (This is when Canada adopted its first set of gun laws)
1979 549 621
1980 597 648
1981 594 666
1982 571 686
1983 538 686
1984 539 715
1985 557 751
1986 618 808
1987 610 856
1988 637 898
1989 663 947
1990 732 1013
1991 758 1099

By 1991, the per capita murder rate in Canada was 25% higher than in America.

References:

http://www.statcan.ca/Documents/English/Pgdb/State/justic.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr

This report from BBC reports a 40% increase in handgun related crime in the UK following a legal ban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm

In short, the statistics do not support the idea that guns positively correlate with crime, as even if you doubt the implication of the statistics (that gun control increases crime), there is no way that you can turn that into an implication that it decreases crime.

 

[Deucalion2]

The reason the BBC records an increase in hangun related crimes following a ban is because there are now more illegal things to do with a handgun following the ban. That's flawed evidence.

 

[Deck Knight]

I highly doubt he somehow got into the university undeservingly. This is again you using sophistry to try to back up your claims, which is just a waste of time. One gets into schools from test scores and little else, not how stable one is. Ordinary people snap, ordinary people become criminals, and ordinary people shoot other ordinary people. Most people are liars, cheaters, swindlers, and all around jerks. It does not take a great application of these qualities to commit a crime, let alone one with a weapon involved since they are made so freely available.

Certainly him breaking into a police station to steal a gun would be a possibility, but a very remote and ridiculous one that you are using to try to artificially shore up your position.

You believe police officers live at the station now? I said house, not police station. One is where police live, the other is where they report before starting their beat. I'm sure you just misread it but I'm just checking.

Furthermore you are the one employing sophistry in pursuit of your argument, which basically boils down to "I don't trust human beings, therefore they are incapable of reasonably handling a lethal weapon." Cho Seung Hui was an unstable and unbalanced person and was let into the university anyway, he had various odd and telltale behaviors of instability before his killing spree that nobody acted on. This was clearly reported at the time of the incident and does not become false merely because you wish to accuse me of engaging in sophistry.

There are two ways you can treat other human beings: as adults or as children. Conservatism tends to treat them as adults, and Statism tends to treat them as children. "Be responsible, respect the weapon, keep it locked and unloaded" vs. "Guns are dangerous! You can't have them! We must confiscate them and end the scourge of guns!"

One last question:

If: "Ordinary people snap, ordinary people become criminals, and ordinary people shoot other ordinary people. Most people are liars, cheaters, swindlers, and all around jerks. It does not take a great application of these qualities to commit a crime, let alone one with a weapon involved since they are made so freely available. "

Then: Why do you support enabling a government comprised entirely of such people to disarm you?

RE Vineon:

The criminal is going to be armed either way. Is your solution merely to pay tribute to every criminal who wrongs you for fear that if you pose a threat they will be that much more prepared?

What a miserable way to live life. Cowering in fear of every criminal and paying tribute because you refuse to defend yourself. What happens when criminals switch from taking stuff to taking lives? You can (and usually do) placate a thief with treasure but a murderer demands blood, and the only kind he should receive is his own, preferably from a wound fixed between his eyes.

 

[Lexite]

You dont have to have a gun to kill people. If guns were removed then we would just see an increase in deaths by other means. A knife can be just as deadly in a close proximity conflict. A bank can be robbed with a knife aswell as with a gun. Heck, people can revert back to bows and arrows if they cant get to a gun. People will still be murdered, that will never ever be change.

You cannot ever completely get rid of guns, it is impossible. Make it harder to get yes, but you will never be able to get rid of guns.

 

[Trax]

In short, the statistics do not support the idea that guns positively correlate with crime, as even if you doubt the implication of the statistics (that gun control increases crime), there is no way that you can turn that into an implication that it decreases crime.

I'm pretty sure you can, given my stats that I provided on page 1 are more current and also more objective in that they specifically define the % of homicides committed with a firearm. I don't know if you realize this, but unless the criminal is found (and perhaps not even then) - replica weapons count as gun crime for the purposes of things like armed robbery even though they're not really guns.

As a rule when you outlaw something, crime using it goes up because of smuggling operations and possession charges which are infinitely less serious crimes than murder.

You believe police officers live at the station now? I said house, not police station. One is where police live, the other is where they report before starting their beat. I'm sure you just misread it but I'm just checking.

I could be wrong about this, but at least over here I'm fairly sure our officers leave their gun securely locked in the station before going home - and if they don't, it would be safer for everyone if they did.

Additionally, stealing a gun from a police officers house is infinitely more challenging than walking into a shop, waiting 3 days and then buying one.


Edit: Deck Knight.

You cannot use a gun for self defense unless you're going to use it preemptively and risk being on the wrong end of a homicide charge.

A murderer is just going to kill you if they see you reach for a weapon - that or they kill you outright before you can draw. It's not like you see someone coming and know they're going to pull a knife or gun and try to kill you, it's going to be a surprise, and it's going to be quick. Life is not a movie where everything happens in ridiculously slow motion to build drama.

You don't know someone is trying to kill you until a weapon is leveled at you, or you're physically assaulted, and by that time - you don't get time to draw your weapon.

Your best weapons against an unplanned assault are your hands, elbows and knees because you never have to draw them. And in a planned Homicide, they could probably kill you before you even see them, so guns have zero self defense value there.

 

[highstakespkmn]

I never knew that I was filthy or retarded for being a liberal and wanting reasons to rid the United States of rampant gun ownership. After all, I shower quite regularly and attend a university..where, pray tell, did I go so wrong!

When you voted for this guy (the exact reason why many Americans want a gun):

Anyway, to quote myself, Trax:

2. One of the big arguments for being allowed to own guns is for responsible citizens to defend themselves. If crime rates are low, you have little to no reason to carry a gun for self-defense. So yeah, it would make sense that the places with more murders, people are more likely to want to own guns for their own self defense. So what is causing what? The gun ownership causing murders, or other incentives for murder causing murders, which in turn causes gun ownership?

3. Note again, number of intentional kills with firearms. Why do you think they are graphing that rather than number of total murders? Cause if someone wants to kill someone that bad, they are probably going to do it anyway, and they probably couldn't get as good of a correlation with that or the correlation didn't exist at all. Just use some common sense. The majority of people dont say "WOO GUNS ARE LEGAL NOW LETS GO SHOOT SOME PEOPLE". That's not how murders happen. Incentive to murder causes murders, not guns. Cut down on poverty, take away the illegal drug markets by legalizing drugs. That's how you lower murder statistics.

Still applies to your great statistics.

 

[Deck Knight]

Let's compare the U.S. and Canada in terms of per capita violent crime rates since 1962 to 1991

Unless possession and smuggling of firearms are classified as violent crimes the protestations of AR's detractors have little merit.

Also, you don't just walk into a shop and wait 3 days for your gun to arrive, in those 3 days they perform a thorough background check and any criminal activity or civil restraints immediately disqualify you. If your very first crime is premeditated murder I'd say ordinary you ain't, and "snapped" you haven't as the gun shop owner is probably trained not to even bother sending applications of people who come in seeking bloodlust and revenge or are otherwise overtly angry.

 

[Luduan]

You dont have to have a gun to kill people. If guns were removed then we would just see an increase in deaths by other means. A knife can be just as deadly in a close proximity conflict. A bank can be robbed with a knife aswell as with a gun. Heck, people can revert back to bows and arrows if they cant get to a gun. People will still be murdered, that will never ever be change.

The problems with this argument are rather obvious. First, it is easier to defend oneself against a knife than a gun. While it is possible to kill someone with practically any implement, speeding projectiles travelling at hundreds of feet per second are exceedingly effective. It is also easier to disarm someone holding a knife, especially in a presumably crowded area such as a bank, than someone wielding a semiautomatic (or automatic) weapon. The former requires close proximity and physical overpowering, the latter requires a pull of the finger and decent aim. Furthermore, a gunshot wound (especially from, say, a hollow point round) is harder to recover from than a knife wound and may very well kill instantly, immediately terminating resistance. Bows and arrows aren't exactly very easy to conceal, as was mentioned earlier in relation to rifles and shotguns. There should, at least, be extensive background checks and possibly psychological examinations for those wishing to purchase weapons. Had more stringent policies been in place that homicidal maniac at Virginia Tech would have at least had to exert some effort into obtaining a weapon, although the readily-available-no-questions-asked firearms marketed at gun shows -- ubiquitous in the South, not sure about other areas of the country -- would likely have yielded the same results.

 

[Syberia]

It's easier to defend yourself when you're using more force than the person who's attacking you. If someone pulls a knife on you and you pull out a gun, they'll be the one to back off. If you're both forced to use knives, or you're unarmed and try to disarm them, odds are you'll both get hurt.

 

[Phantom_IV]

Already noted, but guns have a large tactical advantage over knives or most other weaponry actually. A single automatic weapon can be used to hold up a bank as well as preventing anyone from leaving. Such a feat is hardly practical with a knife, as at best you would be able to wound a few (assuming you're fit enough to catch them) as the rest either run or gang up on you.

And Ancien, your statistics are misleading or wrong. How does Canada have 1099 violent crimes PER CAPITA? That's a billion violent crimes per million people. Each person would need to commit an average of 3 violent crimes per day.

And no, Canada does NOT have more violent crimes per capita than America.

Gun ownership is fine, but handguns/ semi-automatic/ fully automatic weapons should be banned. If responsible gun owners are such great shots and so very educated about guns, they should just one-shot the criminals with their rifles.

Final thing, if I were to rob a bank, and knew that even a quarter of Americans carried concealed weapons, I'd be inclined to shoot everyone immediately and grab the money/valuables afterwards... Not the kind of outcome we'd want, considering that currently very few bank robberies involve homicide.

 

[b0b3rt]

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp)
Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303]. In addition, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent.
In 2004, with a population of 554,239, there were a total of 7,590 violent crimes committed in Washington D.C. However, in Vermont, with a population of 621,233, there were only 713 violent crimes in the same year. While D.C. had a full ban on handguns, Vermont is known for its lack of gun control laws. ( http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/000830.html)
James Wright and Peter Rossi note that most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police. According to Wright and Rossi’s study, eighty percent of criminals agreed that a smart criminal always tries to find out if his victim is armed. Sixty percent of criminals agreed that they were more concerned about meeting an armed victim than apprehension by the police.

In Israel, with the constant threat of terrorism, teachers are encouraged to carry guns and school administrators often hire retired police officers and military personnel to serve as an armed guard. Since that policy was adopted in the 1970’s, the number of school shootings in Israel has dropped significantly. In one case, three terrorists who attempted to machine gun a throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed.

Excerpts taken from a research paper I wrote. Meant to address most arguments made recently.