Gun Control, who needs it?

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There are aprox. 2 million defensive gun uses each year.

Nice number, what does it say?
What is the number of unintentional killings? What is the number of offensive gun use?
Anyway read this:

Am J Public Health 1997 Jun;87(6):974-8
The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.
Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS.
Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide and whether any association varies in relation to time since purchase.
METHODS: A case-control study was done among the members of a large health maintenance organization. Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992. Five control subjects were matched to each case subject on age, sex, and zip code of residence. Handgun purchase information was obtained from the Department of Licensing.
RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk of suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and
homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase.
CONCLUSIONS: Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

If you've got acces to the website of the American journal of public health you can follow this link.
edit: typos

 

[DinoDoc]

As long as we have battling hyperlinks, here's a reprint of an article that appeared in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology put out by Northwestern University School of Law to illustrate my point.

 

[Mr Spice]

I agree with civ1-addict and CornMaster on this. In my country (Sweden) guns are illegal (except for the hunting purposes) and it works well here. As in other European countries.

As for the argument on guns as the only defence against a despot takeover, I think it is pure bullocks.

If you people truly think that a democratic government would automatically turn into tyrrany if you were not allowed to own guns, how do you explain the fact that most European countries are still democracies?

 

[Hitro]

I don't really see the point of those in favour of the "right to bear arms". I think most of the people in favour of the unprecise term "gun control" (at least myself) don't want to completely rule out private gun ownership. There are just two main points:

1. You have to get a license for buying a gun and it has to be registered. What's bad about that as long as you aren't a criminal/terrorist/minor?

2. Arms are just allowed to a certain technological level. Nobody needs an aircraft carrier of course and more seriously nobody needs automatic rifles, flamethrowers, mortars, etc. This stuff may seem "cool" to some people but that guys shouldn't get any arms at all, I think.
What argument can be said in favour of these arms? What do you need an automatic rifle for, except for war?
The only argument that could theoretically be given as an answer to that question is the one about the government being more powerful than you if you don't have it.
But please, do you think some rifles in private hands will make a change if someone would try to overthrow democracy?
He'd need the support of the army, the police etc. for that, which alone should be enough to suppress any resistance, but if you look at it in a realistic way, you'll find out that the uniformed guys will most likely not be the only supporters of the possible dictator. So part of the (then armed) population will be ON HIS SIDE, therefore the theoretical advantage for freedom is gone.

On the contrary I think that if private weapons would make a difference about state, government and democracy it would rather be IN FAVOUR of totalitarianism. Cause usually those in favour of this thinking are also in favour of "strengh", which they associate with weapons. In other words, private militias are imo more a threat to freedom that a guard.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Mr Spice
If you people truly think that a democratic government would automatically turn into tyrrany if you were not allowed to own guns, how do you explain the fact that most European countries are still democracies?

I don't think they will automatically turn into tyrannies, whether the guns are there or not. But statistically, the odds are good that politics will get violent or run the risk of spawning violence, even in those "civilized" european countries. Let's take a tour.

In the last 75 years (e.g. the average lifespan of a living European, give or take) ordinary residents, not soldiers, would have been exposed to:

Albania - invaded, stalinist government, coup
Andorra - peaceful!
Austria - civil war, fascist government, invasion/coup, fascist anschluss, invaded again and occupied
Belgium - invaded
Belorus - stalinist regime, invaded, secedes during overthrow of stalinist regime in parent state after violent civil conflict,
Bulgaria - invaded, peaceful coup to overturn stalinist regime
Bosnia-Hertzogovina - invasion, civil war caused by invasion, stalinist regime, civil war, now occupied by armed peacekeeping force
Croatia - invasion, civil war caused by invasion, civil war
Czech Republic/unitary Czechoslovakia - forcible occupation by fascist regime, stalinist coup, invasion, peaceful coup to overthrow stalinists
Denmark - invaded
France - invaded, violent civil war during occupation, mildly violent civil conflict (and wasn't there a bloodless coup in there?)
Germany - fascist regime, invasion, occupation, partition, peaceful overthrow of stalinist regime
Great Britain - armed civil conflict isolated to Ulster
Greece - invasion, civil war, and then I've lost track of the various militarist regimes, coups, etc.
Holland - invaded
Hungary - authoritarian regime, civil conflict, invasion, coup, invasion, peaceful coup to overthrow stalinist regime
Irish Republic - peace! (afer civil war predating our survey period)
Italy - fascist regime, invaded once, invaded to repel invaders after civil conflict overthrows fascist regime, civil war
Luxembourg - invasion
Macedonia - invasion, civil war caused by invasion, civil war
Montenegro - invasion, civil war caused by invasion, peace - for now
Norway - invaded with the support of quislings
Poland - authoritarian regime, coup, stalinist regime, invasion designed to end escalation in violent civil conflict
Portugal - military government, military coup
Romania - invasion, stalinist coup, civil war
Russia - stalinist regime, invasion, violent civil conflict, second violent conflict, plus a slew of wars of secession
Serbian Republic - invasion, civil war caused by invasion, bombed from the air, civil coup to overthrow stalinists
Slovenia - invasion, civil war caused by invasion, civil war
Spain - violent civil conflict, civil war, fascist regime, followed by violent civil conflict isolated to Basque region, fish war with Canada (kidding )
Sweden - peace!
Switzerland - peace!
Ukraine - stalinist regime, forced starvation, invasion, peaceful secession
Vatican City - peaceful!

I'll skip the Baltic states, okay? Otherwise, have I missed anyone?

In short, if I was in Europe, I would sure as hell want an FN-FAL and 2 gold ingots buried in the backyard to protect my girlfriend and dog from the vagaries of the state, whether it was my state or somebody else's (I want the same in Canada, but that's not your point, is it?)

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
Congratulations on using the most stupid argument I have ever seen in a discussion. If you compare guns with cars and knives then you really must be.....well I'm not gonna go further on that on.

Point was anything can be deadly when misused or abused. I don't think outlawing guns makes people less prone to stupid or violent acts.

Originally posted by Mr Spice
As for the argument on guns as the only defence against a despot takeover, I think it is pure bullocks.

You know of any despots that allow their citizens to have guns?
Think that is coincidence?

Originally posted by Mr Spice
If you people truly think that a democratic government would automatically turn into tyrrany if you were not allowed to own guns, how do you explain the fact that most European countries are still democracies?

Because the potential tyrants are afraid of gun toting Americans

I think the pro & anti sides are arguing on completely different grounds. Nobody on the pro-side thinks criminals should have guns, but the fact of the matter is that these shootings, gun deaths, ect. are AGAINST THE LAW. We're not supporting them. It is our individual right to carry weapons we are standing up for.

For example, I have a friend who has had various handguns for 20 years. He has a concealed license and carries to most of the time. He has never shot at anyone.
Can anyone give me an arguement as to why to take his guns away?

 

[Hitro]

What should that statistic prove?

You're talking about things of which most happened decades ago, the closest ones are the peacful(!) revolutions in the eastern block and the civil war in Yugoslavia (many guns on all sides, huge numbers of atrocities commited by militias).

How is that in favour of guns?

 

[MrPresident]

Great Britain - armed civil conflict isolated to Ulster

I known this is probably not your point but I'll say it anyway. The reason there is armed conflict in Ulster is because of the fact that these terrorist organisations have guns. We have the Americans to thank for that. Britain has been a democracy (in some form) for at least 500 years. We have survived two worlds wars, countless other foreign wars, terrorist bombings, a civil war, all without citizens carrying guns. The world doesn't need more destructive weapons in more people's hands it needs less. If the only way you can think of defending your country from tryanny is violence then what sort of democracy are you protecting?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by MrPresident
If the only way you can think of defending your country from tryanny is violence then what sort of democracy are you protecting?

The kind that trusts its citizens to use them responsibly.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
I am against the right to bear arms. In my homecountry (The Netherlands) guns are not allowed and I think that's a good thing. When you are walking down the street and you encounter anyone you won't have the fear he might be carrying a gun. Personally I would feel very uncomfortable if I knew many people were walking around carrying guns.
And the argument by ApocalypseKurtz that the government has unconditional control over us if they are the only ones with guns....well
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore dude.

You fool, I'm not talkng about the middle ages. Even if the government took away the peoples' right to bear arms, the police and federal officers would still carry firearms. The people need to have this fundamental right to protect themselves against state tyranny. Governments themselves do not always make the right decisions; the people need to have the necessary power to hold the government accountable for it's actions and to revolt if the need be.

 

[Hitro]

Even if the government took away the peoples' right to bear arms, the police and federal officers would still carry firearms. The people need to have this fundamental right to protect themselves against state tyranny. Governments themselves do not always make the right decisions; the people need to have the necessary power to hold the government accountable for it's actions and to revolt if the need be.

That's just theory, as I said earlier.
But you actually have a point, cause excatly that is what the IRA, the Basque ETA, the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, the FARC in Columbia, the Hamas in Israel, the Hisbollah in Lebanon and alot of others are referring to if you ask for the reason of their actions. And what do we call them again?

 

[Maj]

The hard part about determining the effect of gun control is trying to discover how many gun-related deaths were prevented. A bit of a difficult task.

From my standpoint, governments no longer require physical force, but rather the power of voice carried along the channels of mass media to maintain power. Propaganda is far more powerful than guns so long as one has the means to spread it.

If the only way you can think of defending your country from tryanny is violence then what sort of democracy are you protecting?

The kind that trusts its citizens to use them responsibly

And how many times has that trust been breached? You cannot trust somebody you do not know. The government does not know anyone.

- Maj

 

[CurtSibling]

I find it amusing that North American citizens think that they need
to bear all manner of fire-arms to protect themselves from state
tyranny!

From what I see, the USA already has virtual state tyranny!
It's called the ruling elite...

When was the last time a penniless farmer became a president of the union?

This gun argument is another never ending debate,
The crux of the matter is that certain inadequate humans get
turned on by the cheap thrill of holding a gun and the fleeting
power it bestows...

Luckily I don't fall into that category...

 

[MrPresident]

This argument that citizens need arms to protect them from a tryanny is not based on any fact. Take for example Hitler's Germany. Guns wouldn't have stopped Hitler regardless of whether or not he banned private arms. The people of Germany wanted Hitler as their leader and that is why he stayed in power. Common conceptions about Nazi tryanny are usually wrong, sure many groups were persecuted but they were in a minority by far and the majority accepted their persecuted. In the German public carried arms the only thing it would have done was made it harder for the Allies to bring down Hitler. The same could be said of Mussolini's Italy, the people loved him there. A different argument is needed for Stalin's Russia. He ruled by repression butas the late 1980s and early 1990s showed the Soviet empire was not bought down by "freedom fighters" but by the masses. Remember the best advantage the public have against an oppressive government is not who has more weapons (because the army always do) it is their superior numbers. Revolutions are very rarely won if the army is not on your side.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by MrPresident
This argument that citizens need arms to protect them from a tryanny is not based on any fact. Take for example Hitler's Germany. Guns wouldn't have stopped Hitler regardless of whether or not he banned private arms. The people of Germany wanted Hitler as their leader and that is why he stayed in power. Common conceptions about Nazi tryanny are usually wrong, sure many groups were persecuted but they were in a minority by far and the majority accepted their persecuted. In the German public carried arms the only thing it would have done was made it harder for the Allies to bring down Hitler. The same could be said of Mussolini's Italy, the people loved him there. A different argument is needed for Stalin's Russia. He ruled by repression butas the late 1980s and early 1990s showed the Soviet empire was not bought down by "freedom fighters" but by the masses. Remember the best advantage the public have against an oppressive government is not who has more weapons (because the army always do) it is their superior numbers. Revolutions are very rarely won if the army is not on your side.

Well said, Mr President!

It's people, not bullets who wield the power to make change...

 

[BlueMonday]

I'm surprised people are still debating this tyrant issue. I didn't mention it in my earlier post because it's total bull****. Listen: the bottom line of why I own a gun is that I am positive that when I get into a bad situation (which I have already) there isn't going to be someone there to protect me. My life is my own, and I'll protect myself and the people I love...end of story. Someone pulls a weapon on me (or my family or freinds), robs my home, or steals my car that cat is going to the hospital with a cap in his ass.

But you take away the legitimate sale of guns what are you left with? You still have dangerous people out there who if they can't get a hold of guns illegally (which, btw, is very easy to do too) will find some other means. People rob convenience stores with baseball bats, knifes, peices of lead piping, whatever. Taking away the legit sale of firearms isn't going to make a difference to the criminals. But if I was robbing a house or a car and I knew the owner was in there with a semi-auto 9mm, I'd walk away. Look at many European country's which have very strict gun control. Sure gun violence has gone way down, but other forms of violence have exploded. In America you're ten times more likely to get shot then stabbed; In Britain you're ten times more lilely to get stabbed then shot.

Another disturbing statistic: Knives do ten times more damage to the human body than a .45 caliber bullet.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
It's people, not bullets who wield the power to make change...

Like the people in Tianemen Square?

And I still haven't heard an answer to the question: if a responsible, law abiding citizen owns a gun, what is the arguement to take it away from them?

 

[Vrylakas]

Some observations:

1. For the U.S., it's 2nd Amendment to its Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, though many think so. The U.S. Supreme Court in two centuries has not recognized the right of an individual to carry firearms through this amendment. This amendment was a part of a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists that essentially allowed the states to maintain their own armed forces ("militias") to counter the threat of a Federal tyranny. The so-called "Founding Fathers" of the U.S. wrote vociferously, and their intent for the 2nd Amendment is laid out in black and white fairly clear.

The Americans have a long history of distrusting government motives, stretching back to the English Civil War (which played out in the American colonies as well), and this is why they developed such a complicated structure of government to ensure that no one would ever have supreme power, the "checks and balances". Standing armies were fairly new when the U.S. gained its independence, (barely a century old), and they were seen as the ultimate arbiter of power. This is why those at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia created the 2nd Amendment that allowed states to also have military forces, to ensure the Federal government didn't have a monopoly on the use of force.

That said, one of the reasons the original Constitution didn't guarantee an individual the right to bear arms is because it never occurred to anyone they'd need it. America in the late 18th century was still an overwhelmingly rural country with massive expanses of unsettled land (even before the westward expansion), and guns were an integral part of everyday life for too many Americans as a critical tool. The population of the U.S. nowadays is clocked at about 281 million; in 1790 it was about 2 million. Also, the technology of firearms made them far less dangerous than modern firearms. 18th century firearms were Muzzle-loaded, and still almost all were smoothbore - which meant they were highly inaccurate. Military effectiveness of the 18th century relied not on accuracy but mass; an effective military force shot coordinated volleys at the enemy, sending a shower of HUGE lead bullets in their direction. A single man with a weapon was not a danger, and if a single demented individual decided to go berserk in the town square, he'd better have a sword because after one shot of his firearm, it'll take him at least 30 seconds to re-load. By that time, he'll be tackled or "run-through" (as the British said in the 19th century) with a sword. Firearms just weren't the threat they are today.

After Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Tax Rebellion, when both were suppressed by the American Army, the ringleaders were rounded up and arrested, tried, etc. - but the rest of the participants were simply sent home with their firearms. Why? Because again, they needed them as tools and they posed little threat to society at large with them. After Lee's defeat at Petersburg by Grant in 1865, the Confederates were also allowed to take their firearms home with them, for the same reason.

2. As for firearms today, I support much stricter controls on firearms, though I think there are legitimate sporting reasons for certain firearms. It is sad the NRA here in the U.S. is unable to intelligently distinguish between an AK-47 with armor-piercing ammunition and a center-fire .22 designed for range competition shooting. I do have a few antique firearms here at home, but none I would ever shoot. I keep them for historical purposes (a 1940 Japanese Meiji rifle, and a 1917 German Mauser with the original Kaiserliche seal from the Amberg armory stamped onto it, while the stock has swastikas stamped up and down it indicating WW II service as well...). The U.S. and Canada both are immigrant populations with large mixtures of peoples from all over the world representing all possible classes and economic categories, so there is always going to be a higher level of social instability here. I don't keep a gun in my home (for defensive purposes) but there are some parts of North America I would want to keep something in the home. Let's face it - this is acountry brimming with guns, so in some areas it might not be a bad idea to have some protection. I see little need for handguns, as a shotgun is far more likely to hit whatever you're aiming at and even if it doesn't it's "bark" will intimidate far moreso than any handgun. Month-long background checks, some types of firearms requiring that the owner belong to a shooting club and they be left and locked there, demonstrated ability to lock every other kind of owned firearm securely in the home, registration of every fireram with the police on some national or even international database; all sound like good ideas to me. But banning completely? Not only is that unrealistic in North America but not really necessary either.

 

[MrPresident]

if a responsible, law abiding citizen owns a gun, what is the arguement to take it away from them?

My first thought is how can you be completely sure that only the law-abiding citizens get the guns? If someone who had never committed a crime in his/her life (not even a parking ticket) went and got a gun (background check was fine) then proceeded to the nearest large gathering of people (say a mall) and shoot everyone in sight. The only time the police could arrest that person was after the shootings. I know people will say that this scearnio is unlikely will think about all those stressed-out workers going mad, students unhappy at school and the mentally unstable who slip through the system. In this situation a gun (whatever kind) would do far more damage than a knife. A government has a responisble to protect its citizens. That is why drugs like Heroin are banned (probably why tobacco should also be banned), why there are speed limits, why there are people convicted of crimes are sent to prison, why there are health and safety regulations etc. Also my final point is about keeping a gun at home as defense. The intention of someone who does this is fine, e.g. to protect themselves and/or their families. However if a burglar enters your home they usually go for your property rather than you (that's why they go for empty homes). So when you attack a burglar you are protecting your property not your family. You have to ask yourself is your property worth a human life because if you confront a burglar with a gun then that is what your are risking. Also if your kill the burglar and he/she doesn't have a gun then its manslaughter (at least it is in Britain). America is in a deadly cycle, you can't get rid of guns because people need guns to protect themselves from other people will guns. If no-one had guns then people wouldn't need a gun to protect themselves from other people will guns. Do you see the irony?

 

[BlueMonday]

For those of unfamiliar with firearm law in the U.S. you can find all the pertinent laws at
http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/home.asp