Gun Control, who needs it?

[sgrig]

Originally posted by knowltok2


You answered your own question about seld protection with those three little letters: IMO. Self protection is a big reason, and many people do not have the opinion that they are more at risk. It is also theoretically possible to scare someone with a gun without shooting them. If I am in my home and I hear someone downstairs I can yell out that I have a gun. If they don't leave immediately, I can fire what is called a 'warning shot' to let them know that I am not making it up. If they start up the stairs after said warning shot, then I have the option of shooting them.

That is just one scenario, but it is possible to have a different opinion about self protection than yours. Not that they are great things, but what is the purpose of a country's nuclear weapons? It really isn't to vaporize cities and armies, it is to keep other countries from doing the same to your country. A gun in my home is not for me to kill someone with, or to force them to do what I want, it is to keep them from doing those things to me. I may succeed and I may fail, but many people draw comfort knowing that they have the chance.

But what if the intruder gets his hands on your gun before you do? I bet it wouldn't be a very pleasant experience. Also, in a country where most people own a gun, the chances are quite high that the intruder also has a gun, and might be better at handling than you are.

Statistics suggest that the US has a far higher murder rate than Europe and most murders are carried out using handguns. (I haven't got the exact numbers on me, but I'm going to find them).
So if guns were banned and confiscated from the population, wouldn't the murder rate go down? I think you'll agree that it is far easier to kill with a gun than a knife.

Besides, how many deaths are there due to unsafe handling of firearms? Or 'accidental' shootings? Most could've been avoided if handguns were banned.

Think about school shootings in the US. Can you name any other country where school-kids bring guns to school? In the US this happens because access to firearms is very easy and simple.

Have a look at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm . It presents a well-justified argument of how gun control laws reduce crime.

 

[knowltok2]

All this for suggesting that education about guns was a good thing. I actually don't have a problem with restrictions. The thing is, that just like what was said, the ultimate goal is the outlawing of guns. As for the statement about the founding fathers wanting them to be able to blast someone's head off, I don't believe that was their intent. Given the beginnings of the Revolution and the effectiveness of citizens having guns, I believe that the founding fathers wanted them to be able to resist foreign and domestic oppression. You can argue that we have moved past that time period and that new rules apply, but I think that that is what is meant by the 2nd amendment.

Considering that the ultimate goal is the elimination of firearms, anyone who doesn't agree with this is going to oppose those who are looking to take the small steps towards that goal. It is the same in the abortion debate. Some people want to outlaw it comepletely. Other people don't want it outlawed completely. Those against push for each little step they can get towards their goal. Those for abortion rights oppose them because they believe that there is no compromise in these people. this may be right or wrong, but it is what they believe.

Many people are against a complete ban on guns, so why should they go along with your stepping stones? They don't think you will compromise and stop at waiting periods and an automatic ban. Next will come handguns. After that special liscensing for hunting and target. After that, complete elimination. I personally don't think this will happen, but there are plenty that do.

And: No, I do not think that a knife is as useful as a gun in defense. I don't mean to offend because we have been having a rather rational discussion, but this seems to be poor reasoning to me.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by sgrig


But what if the intruder gets his hands on your gun before you do? I bet it wouldn't be a very pleasant experience. Also, in a country where most people own a gun, the chances are quite high that the intruder also has a gun, and might be better at handling than you are.

Statistics suggest that the US has a far higher murder rate than Europe and most murders are carried out using handguns. (I haven't got the exact numbers on me, but I'm going to find them).
So if guns were banned and confiscated from the population, wouldn't the murder rate go down? I think you'll agree that it is far easier to kill with a gun than a knife.

Besides, how many deaths are there due to unsafe handling of firearms? Or 'accidental' shootings? Most could've been avoided if handguns were banned.

I guess you have to try and think about the types of intruders we are talking about. Someone breaking into your house to try and steal your possesions is vastly different from someone who is trying to do you personal harm. When I weigh the costs and benefits of having a gun vs. not for self protection in America, I find for having one. If an intruder gets to my gun first, they aren't any more likely to shoot me than they were before. If they meant to gain control of the situation and kill me, they will anyway. If they meant to get control and rob me, well, they have control, they won't need to kill me. If they have their own gun and are not scared away by my warnings and warning shot, I don't have much choice but to take my chances in a gun battle. Unless you think that someone who will ignore the warnings and take their chances being shot would have done me harm anyway. If they have a gun and get to mine first, well they are once again in control and can do whatever they were going to do anyway. The only uncertainty comes when surprise enters into the mix and they may shoot as a reflex, but in this case they likely had their own gun anyway, and that is a chance I am willing to take to have a chance when they enter my home with the intention of doing me harm.

Banning and confiscating guns may very well reduce the murder rate. In the long run. In the short run, criminals with guns are going to know that the public has been disarmed. There are also other crime statistics to consider. One step banning isn't going to work, and there are too many people who see too much of a danger in confiscating guns to go along with it.

I'll be taking a look at your link in a second.

 

[VoodooAce]

Well, I'll chime in here and say that I will not be teaching my son how to operate a gun. Something that I am fairly qualified to do, by the way. My father is a retired cop. He had guns in the house, so he taught me. I was also in the army (I learned much more from my dad, btw). I do think the analogy to teaching him how to use a needle is fairly apt, if somewhat flawed.

BUT, I educate him about both in the same fashion. Stay away! Do NOT touch! Drugs and guns are bad, mkay. And I drill into him why they are bad, and that only bad things can happen if you involves himself with either. Same with Cigarettes, alchohol, driving with friends that have been drinking, etc...

Sheesh, being a parent makes you paranoid enough. This thread is only making things worse.

I taught my son to swim, despite the fact that my ex-mother-in-law forbade it. They had a pool, and didn't want him to be too confident around it. But my refusal to allow him to stay the night at their house because his Grandfather was a gun nut (and had many guns of many types) made me a bad guy. With THIS subject, they advocated educating him. But not with the pool, though. That's too dangerous. Anyway, I always won the arguments cuz he was MY boy.

Once again. It boils down to the odds. The odds that my boy would shoot him self in a house with NO guns are pretty good at 0%. I don't know what the odds are WITH a gun, but I DO know that it is above 0%.

Its not because I don't want to breed any familiarity, and thus, confidence. I just fully and wholeheartedly believe that guns are as much of a cancer on America as drugs are.

Does anybody know what percentage of guns that are used in America in the commission of a crime are actually purchased, at least originally, legally?

I've heard that this is an astronomically high number. But its been a few years, it was on a news-talk show on CNN or Nightline....something like that.

I mentioned the percentage I'd heard, and was challenged for a source, which I've looked for and looked for and cannot find.

Guns that are bought legally are the guns that make their way into the hands of criminals. Its not like we're getting shipments from Iran of boats loaded with AK47's.

What I'm saying is if all of these guns floating around the USA were never sold.....well, gee, I've pointed out this little bit of obviousness before, and I doubt I've changed anybody's mind.

But I'll tell you what. If somebody owns a gun. And that somebody's child accidently shoots somebody elses child, ,that first somebody is guilty of murder, imho. Just like if you get behind the wheel drunk. You know the chance you're taking. You roll the dice, you pay the price.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola

The crocked statistiscians of the gun control lobby always leave the non firing use of lawfuly carried weapons when they compare accidentel shooting to lawful shootings.

Yup. Get your information straight form the horses mouth....the NRA. Gosh knows their information isn't at ALL crocked.

Just like when people always tried to tell me smoking was bad for me. I got my info straight from the source....the tobacco companies. My friends would scoff when they'd say "More scientific research needs to be done." (sound familiar? )

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Wrong, as usual Voddoo. There actually are 1 or 2 college based research studies on the use of private firarms to prevent crime. Should not be too hard for you to locate them, assuming you have the slightest interest in facts.

 

[VoodooAce]

That's great. I can be wrong even when I don't say anything or make any claims.

What am I wrong about? College based research on what???

Must be because I'm a liberal.

Try actually reading my post, Lefty, as opposed to seeing my name, assuming I'm a lliberal so I must be wrong, and hitting the quote button.

There's more to a debate than that.

 

[knowltok2]

Well, Voodoo, that is your choice, and it is likely that you know enough about guns to convey to your son that you know what you are talking about. I cannot argue with you about the chance of a gun accident in your home. My main concern was the chance in a different home. The sleepovers, etc. I had many friends whose parents didn't own guns and told their children that guns were bad, but when it came down to it, they didn't walk away when they saw a gun, they were fascinated. I was smart enough not to trust them, so I never let them touch the guns, but not all children who have access to guns will enforce the same restrictions.

I agree whole-heartedly on your point about responsibility. I do however clarify between an accident by a five year old and a shooting spree by a 16 year old. The person is liable in my book in all cases with the five year old, but if a gun is in a locked cabinent with ammo stored elsewhere, and a 16 year old defeats that security and willfully shoots someone, there is a difference. I place personal responsibility below the legal age of 18 for criminal actions.


Sgrig: I looked at your site, and while there was some interesting data, I did not find it as convincing. First of all, that there would be a decrease in crime when extra police are added to an area does not prove that it is a gun thing. I'm sure it didn't take long for the locals to realize that the police were out in force. More power to them for confiscating illegal weapons, but I'd say it was their presence more than anything else that kept crime down.

Also, I didn't find the correlation statistics between murders and gun arrests to be convincing at all. The correlation looked to me to be that areas with more crime make more gun arrests. I was expecting to see, based upon the slant of the report, that areas with high gun arrests would have low murder rates.

 

[VoodooAce]

I totally understand. And its in no way an easy decision to make. You never really know, when they go sleep at a friends, what they'll do...or find.

I guess I just hope that he'd know enough to stand up to his buds, say this is stupid, let's put the gun away and go play PS2 or something.

Obviously I'm biased on the subject, but I've actually vetoed him recieving some training. My exes dad wanted to take him and teach him. Maybe it was the man, maybe it was just plain stuborness on my part, but I refused.

Also, Knowltok, I kind of agree with you on the age/responsibility thing. Should be looked at case by case, but generally there's not a whole lot of difference between 16 and 20 when you're talking about knowing right from wrong.

However, if you're an adult, own guns and have a child that YOU are responsible for, you need to take WHATEVER steps may be necessary to insure that your weapons aren't accessible to them. If you are derelict in that responsibility, you are derelict in that responsibility, period.

If you need to take further steps as the child gets older and, uh, more inventive and curious, its your job as the parent to know this and deal with it however you need to.

I guess its just another personal responsibility issue.

 

[sysyphus]

I find very little justification in using self-protection as a defence for lax gun control.

It has been shown over and over again that reduced poverty equals reduced crime. There is no demonstration that violent crime has been reduced due to a large sect of a population being armed (quite the contrary actually).

The former U.S. Attorney General herself (I aplogise as her name slips my mind) even went so far as to compare crime rates in Toronto and Chicago, two cities of comparable size but distinctly different crime rates.

Canada's gun-control laws are similar to those in Europe, and although you can't credit gun-control entirely for Toronto's lower crime, but it does demonstrate that people do not need weapons for self-protection.

As for the "if the public isn't armed the government can turn into a facist state" argument, voter apathy is a bigger threat to democracy than anything

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by sysyphus
I find very little justification in using self-protection as a defence for lax gun control.

I would agree. I personally have no problem with gun control, I hesitate at gun banishment though. The American Criminal Justice system has serious problems with it irrespective of guns. When violent criminals recieve light sentences, and easy confinement, you are going to have more violent crime regardless of firearms in society. It's a whole other thread, but if America could get off its rump and enforce its current laws regarding guns and a host of other things, and also truely punish those it deems guilty, we could get a truer reading of how guns are affecting our society. It may well be negatively, but the root cause is possibly not the guns themselves, but the system that doesn't punish criminals enough.

 

[GeneralHotRod]

As for the Toronto Chicago crime-rate arguement...apples and oranges.
If you want to compare crime rates why don't try Paris and NYC, I think you might be surprised on which city you are most likely to be mugged.

 

[sgrig]

Found some data, but it's not very up-to-date. Year is in brackets. Figures are murders per 100,000 population.

USA (1999) - total murder rate 5.70, firearm kills 3.72 (39% own firearms)
Italy (1992)- total 2.25, firearms 0.72 (16% own firearms)
Belgium (1990) - total 1.41, firearms 0.60 (16.6% own firearms)
England/Wales (1997) - total 1.41, firearms 0.11 (4.7% own firearms)
Sweden (1993) - total 1.30, firearms 0.18 (15.1% own firearms)
Germany (1994) - total 1.17, firearms 0.22 (8.9% own firearms)
France (1994) - total 1.12, firearms 0.44 (22.6% own firearms)
Spain (1993) - total 0.95, firearms 0.21 (13.1% own firearms)

Percentages refer to number of households owning firearms.

Added:

Canada (1992) - total murder rate 2.16, firearms murders 0.76 (29.1% own firearms)

Link to data http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by GeneralHotRod
As for the Toronto Chicago crime-rate arguement...apples and oranges.
If you want to compare crime rates why don't try Paris and NYC, I think you might be surprised on which city you are most likely to be mugged.

Now look at the stats in the post above this one and look at the percentage of households in France in possession of a gun.

Like I said in my original post, there are other reasons why crime is lower in Canada than the U.S., but my ultimate point that an armed public does not make a safe public still stands.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by knowltok2


I would agree. I personally have no problem with gun control, I hesitate at gun banishment though. The American Criminal Justice system has serious problems with it irrespective of guns. When violent criminals recieve light sentences, and easy confinement, you are going to have more violent crime regardless of firearms in society. It's a whole other thread, but if America could get off its rump and enforce its current laws regarding guns and a host of other things, and also truely punish those it deems guilty, we could get a truer reading of how guns are affecting our society. It may well be negatively, but the root cause is possibly not the guns themselves, but the system that doesn't punish criminals enough.

We don't punish criminals enough??? We have the highest incarceration rate in the world (2 million plus!). Some states spend more on prisons than higher education (California, Vermont and 1 other). The bottom line is the criminal justice system cannot be used to reduce crime. Street criminals do not consider the possible penalty for a crime before it is done. We only catch these people about 20% of the time anyway. The way to reduce crime is to create decent-paying jobs for the poor. These people have the highest offense rate because they have nothing to lose. For some, prison is better then living outside because at least they get food and a place to live. We need to reduce the gap between wealthy and poor, improve education (especially in urban areas), and provide government assistance for those who cannot find work. It would also help to repeal at least some of the current drug laws as well as other victimless crimes. These laws have unfairly targeted African Americans (crack penalties much much higher than cocaine penalties), and have costed billions in expenses. Lets the police, courts, and prisons focus on the REAL criminals: murderers, robbers, rapists, etc. and not on things such as prostitution and drug possession.

The only people who can be successfuly detered from committing crimes are white-collar criminals, who ironically have some of the most lax sanctions for their crimes. These are intelligent corporate executives who rationally decide that the benefits of committing the crime against the public (fraud, embezzlement, etc.) outweight the potential penalty if they are caught. Many of these people will gladly serve 6 months in jail if it means making millions of dollars off the American people.

As for gun control, it may help to increase gun control efforts. Obviously we cannot make them outright illegal because a large number of people will get them anyway. We CAN raise the license fee for gun dealers, tax guns and ammunition more heavily, require safety measures for guns, and increase community policing so less people will buy guns for protection.

 

[knowltok2]

You have valid points, but I stand by my statement that we don't punish enough. 20 to life means out in 14, 10-20 means out in 6, etc. While in there, enjoy the cable TV and the camraderie of other criminals who will teach you what you want to know about more crime. Need bypass surgury? Rob a bank. Want drugs, those are easy to come by as well. Only the most destitute and desperate of individuals should consider prison a step up from their current lives.

We apparently have a rule that says three felonies, and you get life. Are these people seperated from the regular prison population? No, they are right there with everyone else. Why aren't these people doing hard labor somewhere unpleasant? I do agree with you about the white colar crime though. Put those bastards next to Bubba smashing rocks in the Alaskan wilderness.

I'm fine with evening out penalties too. If there is a disparity between crack sentances and coke sentances, fix it, but not by lowering the crack time.

The fact that we have the highest incarceration rate speaks to the fact that the system isn't working. We have poor and desperate people, but not nearly enough to justify the numbers we have in prison. That doesn't mean I don't think it is a problem. It is a problem, but it is not the only problem. All of these factors are interwoven. A poor underclass, Prisons that don't punish, and don't reform, low education levels, readily available weapons,....all of these and more are playing a part in America's crime problems.

I can agree on repealing the law on Marijauna, but I can't go along with other drugs. I'll give you prostitution too, but it should be regulated, because it is not always a victemless crime.

I can go along verbatim with your last two paragraphs as well.

 

[MrPresident]

You have valid points, but I stand by my statement that we don't punish enough.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, a person has three inalienable rights as a human beings; 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. When you are sent to prison you are robbed of two out of three (thats in England, three out of three in America). What more do you want to take from criminals? I'll tell you why 20 years usually means less. In prison there are rules that inmates have to follow for their safety and especially the safety of the guards. Why do inmates follow these rules? because they are reasonable members of society? no, because they get time off for good behaviour. However there are certain cases where a judge sets a minimum number of years a prisoner has to serve. Also a judge can indefinetly detain someone (for example Myra Hindley in the UK) if their crime warrents that punishment.

Personally I think that America punishs its prisoners too much. Besides from the whole death penalty issue, drug users can be sent to jail for crimes in Britain they wouldn't even get arrested for and are legal in the Netherlands. If you want to reduce crime there are three things you can do. Number one, legalise the crime, for example soft-drug use and prostitution. Number two, you can increase the catchment rate. A criminal will not commit a crime if they think they will be caught. Finally number three, improve the situation of the criminal so that they don't have a reason to commit a crime. How you wondered why certain groups of society are far more likely to commit a crime than others? Obviously these solutions do not work for all crimes but they certainly would have an impact of today's crime level.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by knowltok2
You have valid points, but I stand by my statement that we don't punish enough. 20 to life means out in 14, 10-20 means out in 6, etc. While in there, enjoy the cable TV and the camraderie of other criminals who will teach you what you want to know about more crime.

Please, this notion of prisons being like four-star hotels is one of the most over-played myths going.

Prisons are very violent and scary places. Most are underkept, and filthy. There is a pecking order and if you fall low enough on it you can forget about habing access to any of the "luxuries".

And even if they were so nice, if someone was to pay for you to stay in a four-star hotel for the next 10 years under the stipulation that you were not allowed to leave the building at all and would have to spend the greater part of your day in your room, would you take them up on it?

Originally posted by knowltok2
Need bypass surgury? Rob a bank. Want drugs, those are easy to come by as well. Only the most destitute and desperate of individuals should consider prison a step up from their current lives.

Perhaps you ought to try socialised medicine?

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by knowltok2
You have valid points, but I stand by my statement that we don't punish enough. 20 to life means out in 14, 10-20 means out in 6, etc. While in there, enjoy the cable TV and the camraderie of other criminals who will teach you what you want to know about more crime. Need bypass surgury? Rob a bank. Want drugs, those are easy to come by as well. Only the most destitute and desperate of individuals should consider prison a step up from their current lives.

We apparently have a rule that says three felonies, and you get life. Are these people seperated from the regular prison population? No, they are right there with everyone else. Why aren't these people doing hard labor somewhere unpleasant? I do agree with you about the white colar crime though. Put those bastards next to Bubba smashing rocks in the Alaskan wilderness.

Under recent federal "Truth In Sentencing" laws, a federal prisoner must serve at least 85% of his sentence. Again, this is just for federal offenders; some states have similar laws, while many others do not. Many states have recently eliminated or reduced "good time" which lowers your sentence for good behavior.

In your 2nd paragraph I think you are referring to "3 Strikes and Your Out" Legislation which was first enacted in California, followed by many other states. Basically it says that if you have 2 prior felony convictions and are convited of a third, you receive an automatic life sentence. Some versions of it require that at least 1 conviction be of a violent felony. The problem with these laws is that some offender's third conviction could be for something as little as writing a bad check, fraud, or theft. I'm not saying these are not serious offenses, but a life sentence would be disproportionate. Another problem is that we will have to take care of these prisoners when they are old and gray, and the cost to us taxpayers skyrockets. We have to ask ourselves: is it worth keeping 60 and 70-year olds in prison? Statistics have shown that after age 30, a given person rarely commits any crime. Most criminals are in their 20s. Now we're stuck with these guys for life and we must pay for their health, medicine, surgeries, etc.

Another problem is that it makes things very dangerous for cops. If you are a suspect with 2 strikes and you see a cop coming for you, what would you be likely to do? Obviously escape at all costs, which may mean attacking and trying to kill the cop.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sysyphus

It has been shown over and over again that reduced poverty equals reduced crime. There is no demonstration that violent crime has been reduced due to a large sect of a population being armed (quite the contrary actually).

Exactly.

Its always the same people that resent efforts to reduce poverty that belong to the 'tough on crime' group.

And its the same people that fight any efforts to make it more difficult for the masses to arm themselves.

It is easy for many of us to say that every individual has an opportunity to succeed. Everyone does have that opportunity. But there are a lot of places in the U.S. where people grow up surrounded by dispair. Its not impossible for them, but its a lot harder than it is for a middle class kid.

And its probably very easy to for them believe that their situation is hopeless.

As a society, we reap what we sow.