Gun Control- Just of interest

[JOHNNY]

Guns do not kill people, People do. I believe that handguns should not be given to felons or convicted criminals. But civilians should be able to protect themselves if the deem necessary. Just my .02
johnny

[myosimka]

Thanks for the overdone witticism that's no longer witty, Johnny. No they don't kill people. They just make it incredibly easy. Nuclear weapons don't kill people either, what's your point? Oh right, the sound byte argument tactic. I bow before it.




Radhnoti and Dark Knight,

The only way that one can make assumptions about causation(well, accurate ones) is the existence of control groups. That means multiple systems alike in all cases except the tested causation. Ie. municipalities that are exactly alike in all aspects except for gun-control or concealed carry laws and tracking the crime rates across them. (In economics, we start every sentence with the phrase,"all else being equal") Plus you need enough comparisons to overcome statistical irregularities.

Example: I have heard the concealed carry laws reducing crime rates argument before. Problem is the violent crime rates in the US are noticably lower than they were years ago(according to FBI stats) This in a time of more restrictive gun control nationally-Brady bill, background checks, waiting period, etc. So if the crime rate is falling everywhere and it falls in an area where there are concealed carry laws does it mean concealed carry works? Nope. Not implying it doesn't just saying that statistics don't automatically reveal causation.

Another example: people have quoted the failure of certain areas to lower crime rates through gun control. DC is given as a prime example. It's true gun control doesn't work in DC. Not because gun control doesn't work but because it's impossible to enforce it in the US. As long as DC borders the state which sat at the top of the ATF's gun-running list for years, gun control can't work. There are no checkpoints, no interior borders, no patrols in the US. And no, I don't want them. But you can't really pinpoint failures of local gunc ontrol in this country because it doesn't exist. We have local gun control LAWS but not actual control.

I have seen stats that support both sides of this argument. Hell, compare the ****cide rates in western Europe to the US. That's just scary. Would gun control ever work in the US? Probably not. Don't know. The genie has been out of the bottle for an awful long time. Do concealed carry laws reduce crime? Don't know. But if you really want to reduce crime, why not carry openly instead of concealed?


Also Darkknight, we clearly restrict the weapons people can own for the public safety and most people agree it's necessary. They just differ as to how far. And please remember that some rights stop where others begin. You find a way to keep the bullets on your land and you'll get no more complaints from me.


Radhnoti, why is you argument about what criminals think anymore valid? Sounds like baseless speculation to me. We can all come up with unsubstantiated theories. No, I don't know what criminals are thinking at the moment . But again I think open carry laws would be the way to go.


Since someone is sure to lay into me:


I have personal feelings on guns based on the idiots I have seen handle them. Plus according to the statistics people seem to love so much, my children are more likely to be accidentally shot by a law-abiding moron than by someone with criminal intent. So I am in favor of more restrictive ownership laws. Don't want them outlawed, just want them subject to some sort of safety regulation. There was a waiting period on my learner's permit before I got a driver's license and it has to be periodically renewed; I get my car inspected annually; every elevator I get on has been inspected; fire marshals come into businesses; building inspectors approve plans; health inspectors check restaurants. Why can't we have people go through mandatory, periodic safety training? Why can't we have a periodic inspection to insure that people store their guns safely. As your neighbor, I feel no need to prohibit you from owning an AK(just seems silly to me) but I would like to know that your 5yo can't get to it. That's all.

And before we go quoting the US constitution let me remind you that limitations exist on everything. Newspapers have been enjoinged from revealing details of military operations. Freedom of speech has been limited for a multitude of reasons. A constitutional right doesn't mean that no limitations exist on that right. Again, I have no desire to outlaw gun-ownership. Just to require certain common-sense safety regulation.

[Radhnoti]

Myosimka, I suspect that the stats you're using to say your kids are more likely to be shot than a criminal is the same one widely protested by gun advocates. It counts anyone younger than 18 who gets shot as a child, including gang-members. I agree that statistics often reflect whatever "reality" the group touting them wants them to reflect.
Also, I agree my "argument" was speculative, but I was referring to other speculation, typically given by liberal pundits. I think we both agree that either point of view could be true, or not.
To my mind, the pro-gun arguement is one of common sense with an eye toward the lessons of history. It's good that a criminal doesn't know whether the person he's about to accost is carrying a gun. It puts a bit of uncertainty into his "job", makes his life a bit more stressful and ultimately might convince him to choose another career path.
I would point out (in reference to your response to DK) that the restrictions you say everyone agrees to be necessary don't...or shouldn't apply to law abiding citizens with no history of mental illness. Gun control groups seem to be SO certain that everyone, usually with the exception of themselves, is incompetent and child-like, and require "adult" (in other words, THEIR) supervision. It's extremely arrogant to assume that you care more for your neighbor's five year old than they do...or to assume that they're too stupid to "Keep that AK out of the five year old's hands."
To be completely honest with you, I (personally) would have no problem with limited restrictions...even registration of every gun, if the gun control organizations (and history's lessons) hadn't made it clear that this was just the first step in a crusade to ban gun ownership. Also, this is where the "eye toward the lessons of history" comes into the typical gun advocate's position. You simply can't subjugate a well armed populace. My understanding is that Hitler HAD to ban guns to solidify his control. I've heard first hand accounts of the way Fidel Castro took the guns from those who had followed and trusted him. Gun registration is the first step in a gun ban. Requiring steps to allow gun ownership would imply that the government has the right to restrict that which should be and IS a right in our country.

[fmann]

There are only 3 types of lies: lies, d amned lies, and statistics.

If I can't get a gun, I'll hurt someone with a fork.

Just like you say that concealed carry may or may not reduce crime, gun control may or may not reduce crime.

So again, if the end result is so uncertain, why err on the side of restricting freedom?

I am for gun regulation, but one that is less "reactive," tabloid, and aimed at appealing to the masses instead of actually being proactive and addressing the problem.

And just like people should be tested for driving, people should be tested for minimum competency for gun ownership. And just like 80 years shouldn't be allowed to operate an automobile (even though they do in Florida), there has to be a cut-off for competency.

[myosimka]

1) accidental gun deaths of children in this country seriously outnumber hom0cide findings. It's still a number that is nearly statistically insignificant though.
2)uncertainty factor- I speed. I know that there might be cops around. I still speed. I slow down when I see one. Actual presence is a better deterrent than potential. Yes this anecdotal and only my mindset. Still think concealed carry is not the way to go. If you want to reduce crime, have open carry laws.
3)The restrictions that I was discussing should apply to everyone. I was talking about the class of weapons. I don't feel private citizens should hold nuclear weapons or biological agents. Nearly everyone agrees that some weapons should be restricted.
4) I don't think I care more for the lives of children. I think that I am exercising more foresight on the point. I didn't care about children any more after the day I saw a loaded shotgun lying on the floor of a closet during a real estate inspection. I simply wasn't aware that the gun was there. I don't think that the owner of the gun who had 2 daughters underage 10 doesn't love his daughters. Just that he was careless. And I didn't want to take the gun away. I wanted him to unload it and put in a safe place. And require he and his daughters to take gun safety classes.
I will never have a gun in my house. I will take children to gun ranges and teach them to shoot. I think they should know how. That way they'll understand guns better and be less likely to get hurt by one. I don't want guns outlawed because I love children more than my neighbor; I just want decent safety measures because I love children and I disagree about the threat levels.
5) I don't care whose supervison it is but there should be something. The Energy department monitors nuclear energy and requires safety training to work in the industry. The AMA has mandated certain training programs for biohazard waste. The state governments require tests for driving licenses. You don't think mandatory safety training for gunowners is reasonable?
6)Ah the lessons of history...How did Hitler get the guns? That's right, took them through the threat of superior force. If the gov't decides to take your guns, do you honestly think you can stop them? If they decide to seize your home can you stop them? You can subjugate a well-armed populace with a better armed military which ours is. What shields us is that the government is made up of people unwilling to execute those orders. That we train our soldiers that they have a responsibility to disobey an illegal order. Guns don't protect you from the government. They never have. Name one situation where someone successfully defended themselves from the tyrannical US government through armed resistance. What protects us is a pluralistic, democratic government.
7)Registration is not the first step in banning things. Cars are legal, drug labs are not. Which are registered? Are the notions of regulation and restriction correlated? Yes. Is it a logical progression. Not necessarily.
Yes, some gun control advocates would like guns outlawed. But then again some gun advocates feel that minors should be allowed to bring guns into schools. Please try not to judge all by the extremists.
Lastly the slippery slope argument. Yes, following a principle to it's absolute extreme is a danger. Yes, once something is put in motion, it can be hard to stop. Yes, people try to present their argument in palatable fashions so that their audience is slowly acclimated and will accept and even support greater and greater concessions. All these things are true. Yes, moderation and compromise are difficult roads to follow. But I live in a country where there are more licensed gun dealers than gas stations. I live in a country where there are as more guns than people. I live in a state where people complain that private citizens can't buy more than one gun per month because it interferes with Christmas. I live in a country where gun-lobbiests seek to lift laws restricting guns on school property. Where the handgun death rate/per capita is nearly 600 times that of Japan(where citizens have the right to bear arms) 45 times that of Germany, 300 times that of Great Britain... Yes, slippery slopes can be dangerous. And we've already slid down one.







And if you want to argue statistics, here's my favorite: In 1996 alone, handguns killed:

2 People in New Zealand

13 in Australia

15 in Japan

30 in Great Britain

106 in Canada

213 in Germany

and 9,390 in the United States.

[myosimka]

1) I don't think it's that uncertain. I think sensible gun control works as evidenced in western Europe. I am uncertain as to whether it's possible in this country. Guns nearly outnumber people here. How do we regulate it now. Plus the NRA is bloody vocal and wellfunded. I don't think guncontrol can happen in this country. not trying to argue with you just wanted to clear up uncertainty issues.

2)please remember that my freedoms are restricted by the widespread guns in our society. My wife was afraid to leave the house because she saw a hunter take a shot across our property about 2 months ago. So I see your point but I feel that either way you are restricting someone's liberties here.

3)I agree. Reactive responses are bad. I think people should actually sit down and talk out reasonable responses. In my experience though, people respond with registration is the "first step in a crusade to ban gun ownership" and if people won't agree to any level of compromise where do you go from there?

4)Totally agree about the competency thing. I disagree with the age limit though. If an 80yo can drive and handle a gun safely-great. Same for 90 or 100. My 81yo grandmother is a great driver. My 84yo grandfather should have his license pulled 25 years ago. Testing and certification are the keys. Not age limits. IMO.

[guohuen]

It's not about availability of weapons. It's about violent societies. More murders are commited in Washinton D.C. every year without firarms than with.

[jon]

"Guns do not kill people,"
-Your dead right...
Its the bullets that fu(k you up

[Radhnoti]

Jon, I'd be willing to bet that the guns and bullets don't give a d@mn. They are just tools, that's the point Johnny and his "overdone witticism" was getting across.
I've already stated that stats can be used to bolster ANYONE'S arguement, here's my useless stats bolstering my position:

"Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice, Second Edition, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-105506, March 1988. For 1985, for robbery and assaults, the following is how many incidents involved a firearm and how many involved a knife. Robbery/ Assault: Firearm 23%/ 12%;Knife 21%/ 10% In both robbery and assault, a gun was actually fired and hit the victim only 4% of the time in all incidents in 1985. Victims were actually stabbed in 10% in the incidents involving knives.

A study by Wilson and Sherman: At least one medical study compared very similar sets of wounds ('all were penetrating wounds of the abdomen'), and found that the mortality rate in pistol wounds was 16.8%, while the rate was 14.3% for ice pick wounds and 13.3% for butcher knife wounds. (These percentages show that mortality rates for each wound was so close, that the differences are almost irrelevant.)

A study by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. Of Florida State University concluded that as many as two and one-half million citizens lawfully use firearms for self-defense annually, three-fourths of whom use handguns, resulting in the saving of as many as 400,000 lives. Using government crime statistics and Kleck's study, we find that a gun is:
50 times more likely to be used for defense than to be used in a suicide
50 times more than to likely to be used for defense then to be used to commit a homicide
535 times more likely to be used for defense than to accidentally kill someone.

A semi-recent study by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard of the University of Chicago concluded that allowing honest citizens to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes to the extent that if those states without right to carry provisions in 1992 had adopted same, at least 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.

States in which citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms have a 24% lower total violent crime rate, 19% lower homicide rate, 19% lower aggravated assault rate, and a 39% lower robbery rates.
Civilians legally capture 2 to 3 times, and lawfully kill 5 to 6 times more violent criminals than do the police."

All these stats mean about as much to me as do the opposition's. Statistics, polls, etc...all are just political tools in my estimation, bent and twisted to support or refute the claims made by the organizations PAYING to have the study run in the first place. I have no doubt that anyone following the debate who supports gun control will have problems with some of the findings above...in the same way I had problems with some of the findings myosimka was using. It's all smoke and mirrors, don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain who's paying to have his point made for him.

I'm not going to start the "quoting you" game to match points, but you make reference to Hitler taking guns through superior force. That's true, but to bring that superior force to bear he first had to pass gun registration laws. THEN, after having the lists stating where all the guns were he swept in and took them. This is the reason for the strong resistance to any sort of listing of guns or gun owners, including gun registration, mandatory safety training, etc. Anything that can provide lists of guns and gun owners is bad.
Also, to argue that your rights are violated though the FEAR that some gun violence might occur is a strange argument to my mind. I don't like rap music, should it be outlawed on the off chance I'll run into it? The hunter who shot across your property, I'm fairly certain, broke already existing laws (assuming you own the property and hadn't given him permission to be there) and you probably could have prosecuted. If the law protecting you is already there, a new more restrictive law is unnecessary.
The REAL problem facing pro-gun advocates is that we've allowed very reasonable, nice people like you to make your very nice, reasonable arguement over and over without bothering to make a counter-argument. So, now we have a position that's become basically "politically incorrect" and we're forced to defend our beliefs. The thing about defending is, you never GAIN, you can only lose. The simple fact is U.S. citizens have the RIGHT to own firearms, it was GUARANTEED us by our forefathers. People and organizations trying to control guns are attacking the freedoms and rights of law abiding citizens, from a sense of fear and/or superiority. If they fear guns they think restricting them will make them safer, ignoring the fact that criminals will not bother to follow the restrictive laws in the first place. If gun control advocates come from the "superior" mindset they feel the "common man" is too stupid or incompetent to be allowed to own something so dangerous, the arrogance of this particular assumption is galling to me. People like this will never point at YOU (while you're there) and say, "You shouldn't have a gun." They'll show statistics or people who did something foolish and say, "These kinds of people shouldn't have guns." Which seems quite reasonable, the trick of it is that there's no way to distinguish between "them" and "you" when writing a law.
The simple fact is, compromise is an unnecessary loss for pro-gun advocates. We don't have to compromise, no one has the right to decide this issue for gun owners. If you are a gun owner, no matter the current political climate and touchy feely politically correct BS, you have the undisputed RIGHT and freedom to own a gun. Tell yourself that, and more importantly tell anyone who asks the same thing. Be reasonable, be nice, but be firm...it's a small step toward reversing the anti-gun hysteria that's been pushed by gun-control advocates for too long.




Oh my gosh, I hope no one takes me as seriously as I just took myself. Did I really write all that? I'm going to go post in one of the "Ralek stinks" threads now....

[jon]

My little joke...
Guns dont kill people... Bullets do.
Is really at heart an anti gun statement, the point being that the gun doesnt kill them but it sure as hell makes it MUCH easyer.
Picture this...
your walking home one night its dark and your by yourself[ok so your a not a smart one] as you walk past an ally someone pushes a round cylindrical object into your back. You freeze imediatley fearing the worst, a shrill voice demands you wallet thinking this is some cracked up dope fiend you reach into your back pocket not turning around and hand him your wallet. You feel the object removed from your back and then the sound of footsteps running away.
Ok now lets say you have two options here one your armed, two your not.
If your unarmed my money says you let that robber run on his way and thank your lucky stars your still alive.
Now say you have a gun, your humilated, angry and you can SEE the guy RUNNING away! There are many many people out there who take a shot and more than likely gun down a 14 yo child who had his finger in your back.
Sometimes we have to just admit we are not all capable of having others lifes in our hands. We all would like to play god but in reality we have no where near that level of understanding.
People used to carry swords everywhere for this same 'i have right to protect myself' logic. The end result was people killing each other left right and centre and criminals becoming more powerfull than the govenment. That is why our martial arts we practice were invented in the first place remember?
The sooner we melt them all down the better imho...

[fmann]

Originally posted by jon
Sometimes we have to just admit we are not all capable of having others lifes in our hands... People used to carry swords everywhere for this same 'i have right to protect myself' logic. The end result was people killing each other left right and centre and criminals becoming more powerfull than the govenment. That is why our martial arts we practice were invented in the first place remember?

European aristocrats used to carry around pistols, swords, etc. all the time. Samurai carried swords around with them, too. However, they didn't run around killing each other left, right, and center. Nor did Japanese and European criminals become more powerful than the governments. True, there were peasant revolts against monarchies, but the success/failure was determined not by guns, swords, etc., but by pitchforks and the hearts of the people.

There are people who can't chew gum and walk at the same time, yet it's perfectly legal for them to drive. There are 80 year olds in Florida with a blind spot as big as Texas, yet they can still drive. I say if you want to restrict freedoms and not be hypocritical, you have to start on a more fundamental level. A car in the wrong hands is far more deadly than a gun.

It not only takes quite a bit of skill to aim and shoot at a person properly, but it also takes quite a bit of guts, lack of ethics/morals, etc. to shoot someone: The majority of the sheeple out there have a hard time even putting up a fight even when it's justified. Here's a test: Walk up to a complete stranger on the street and smash their head with a brick. If you can go out and actually do that without butterflies in your stomach, you deserve to be locked up.

And if you're saying to yourself, "I could never go out and just do something like that -- I'm a decent, upstanding human being," then replace "brick" with "gun".

We all would like to play god but in reality we have no where near that level of understanding.

I've always been puzzled by that idea: a weapon lets you play god? Gods have the powers to create. A weapon doesn't give you that. Whether it be by fist, by fork, or by firearm, if I want to hurt you, I will.

If the end result is so uncertain, why err on the side of restricting freedom?

[Radhnoti]

Jon, I knew you're comment was anti-gun, I was referring to Johnny@martialartsmart.com's comment.
It is illegal to fire a gun at someone running away from you, you are only allowed to defend your life or the life of someone else (at least that is my understanding). So, there's already a law (in the U.S.) preventing (as much as any law "prevents") your scenario.
Let's change your scenario just enough to make it "on topic" for this forum. Instead of carrying a gun, our hero is an accomplished martial artist. He gives up the wallet, turns and sees it was a kid with no gun. The same humiliation and anger prompts him to give chase and upon catching the "kid" (my 14 year old nephew is bigger than me) inflicts injuries upon him that lead to death. "Sometimes we have to just admit we are not all capable of having others lifes in our hands.", so martial arts should be banned. No? But this man's ability to kill FAR exceeded this poor child's ability. Such knowledge is dangerous and must be supressed! If you think my comparison has no basis in reality, then consider what China did to the Shaolin temple because of a fear of their martial ability. In my scenario, as in your's, the problem was not the tool (gun or martial ability) but the man using the tool. Practicing martial arts and/or carrying a gun doesn't equate to "taking another's life into your hands", it's a tool like any other that can be used properly or improperly. In both our scenarios it wasn't the victim who was originally infringing upon another's freedom, it was the criminal. And had the martial artist or the gun owner spun around and acted in self-defense (shooting the assailant or driving his finger into his eye socket) then I'd not have faulted them for taking responsibility for their own well-being. Neither, I believe, would a jury (if it even went that far)...at least in my area of the country.
I agree with fmann, it's best to err on the side of freedom.

[myosimka]

The stat about 2.5 million crimes prevented is contested by the FBI. I never...oh what the hell.

I have throughout this discussion advocated firearm ownership rights predicated upon a condition of mandatory safety training. If you guys wish to keep making the leap from that that I want to outlaw guns, I can't really contest it. I can't argue against your unfounded assumptions about my position.







And by the way, my wife called the police and they refused to investigate. He wasn't on our property. Firing over someone else's property is not illegal. And since without finding the bullet my wife couldn't show that the bullet crossed a roadway, we had no recourse. But thanks for making assumptions about facts not in evidence.

Oh and do me a favor and stop telling me what gun-control proponents think when you clearly don't listen to them. Mandatory safety training. If you feel that's an unreasonable violation of your right to own a gun, then I thnik you have demonstrated by example a problem with some of the pro-gun rights movement. If you don't think safety training is unreasonable then we are in agreement. Yes, registration is necessary to enforce the training. If you can find a way around that, let me know.

[dnc101]

Myosimka,

I agree that training in firearms safety is a very good idea, as long as it is real safety training and not more anti gun propoganda. The NRA's Eddy Eagle program is an excellent safety course, and it is not pro gun propoganda. Unfortunately, it is often difficult or impossible to get this into any public education facility because it ( or any true safety program) is opposed by the anti gun crowd. And I see more of the liberal/ emotion based anti gun sentiment being fed into our schools and programs. One example: I used to teach First Aid for a national organization as a volunteer. I resigned because they cut some of the medical training to put in a safety curriculum which included overtly anti gun propoganda.

Another type of training that we need to reinstitute in our schools is honest history- not revisionist history. Our founding fathers wisely mistrusted government. They recognized the tendency of government to regulate and controll, and thereby restrict freedom. That is why the Constitution in its' original form restricted government, and it is why the Bill of Rights was included to guarantee certain freedoms that were thought necessary in order to maintain a free society. It is not just chance that the First Ammendment protects our right to express our political ideas and the second provides for our ability to defend this (and other) rights. These were (and still are) the two most important foundational rights which guarantee our freedom.

[Radhnoti]

Well said, dnc101.
myosimka, any sort of regulation or registration COULD be an important step toward a gun ban. I don't assume you want a total ban, but I know that the people who do want a total ban want to start with the same steps you support. I think this is one of those, "We're not paranoid, THEY really do want to get us." situations.

We had a similar incident to yours where I live in which my father-in-laws neighbors were firing at something on their property and using his as a "backstop". He called the police and they came out and made them stop with a warning that if forced to come back out they'd have some sort of penalty. Maybe a disorderly conduct citation? To be honest I forget, but the gist of it was that the neighbors had to stop. Sorry you didn't have an equally satisfying experience. Had the police in your area done their job properly I feel they'd have at least spoken with your hunter.

I feel any attempt at registration is a violation of my rights. I hear you, I understand what you're saying. But we disagree.