News Does Gun Control Increase Crime Rates?

[vanesch]

"Peace by superior firepower" isn't necessarily the dynamic at play, though. One way to keep yourself safe is to kill someone who is a threat to you.

Anyway, I don't really see how anybody can make such an all-encompassing statement to say that any person who owns a gun is either safer or at more risk because of it.

It is a very complicated issue, and I think that the answer should be based upon sound principles and not on some statistics, which show that you have 3% more chance of being killed if you do or if you don't own a gun.
You can of course say that owning a gun protects you because you can shoot an intruder. Given this, the intruder might even hesitate to come and see you. Or, given the fact that he knows there's a high chance that you have a gun, he'll take a gun with him too. If you happen to fall upon him, him knowing you can have a gun and shoot you, he'll shoot first. So you've LOWERED your security. Indeed, many burglars don't mind to steel, but hesitate a priori to kill. In many European countries, burglars are NOT armed either.
Now, of course, you can own a sophisticated gun with night goggles, and a sophisticated burglar alarm and so on, so that chances are that YOU will be shooting right before he gets a chance, so in this way it increases your safety. But what a waste of resources !
Also, if many people have guns, then many guns are around. So all the statistics of bad things which are just proportional to the number of guns also go up.

In some places, though, the law of the jungle really does prevail, as frankly, the cops just don't care.

I agree with that (see my earlier post). But if that's the case, then THAT's where society should do some effort, and not consider the problem solved because people can buy guns and protect themselves. However, if I were to have to live in such a situation, indeed, I'd prefer to have a gun too. But as I said, if I had the chance, I'd prefer to get out of there.

 

[vanesch]

What gets me about this thread so far is that nobody considers hunting.

I think that's part of the "sports" sector, no ?

 

[Daminc]

I think it's ok to hunt if you're going to eat the animal that you kill but hunting for 'sport' or 'trophies' is a big no-no in my book.

 

[outsider]

I think it's ok to hunt if you're going to eat the animal that you kill but hunting for 'sport' or 'trophies' is a big no-no in my book.

I agree. The animal is defenseless and you are not hungering to feed on it's meat, how wasteful is that? Stuffing an animal is like stuffing your bra & underwear. Stuffing your ego. Making up for "short"-comings. No offense to any hunters out there

Even though I don't agree with it, I do believe a person should have the right to do this to make themselves feel big and strong. Everyone has their fetishes.

"Peace by superior firepower" isn't necessarily the dynamic at play, though. One way to keep yourself safe is to kill someone who is a threat to you.

Anyway, I don't really see how anybody can make such an all-encompassing statement to say that any person who owns a gun is either safer or at more risk because of it.

you're right; there is no "sure fire" way of determining this. safer is the society without arms as a whole.

If you're neighbor has a gun. You may feel inclined to stay friends with him. If you're neighbor is not very friendly, you may feel inclined to get a gun. If you have enemies, you have a gun.

 

[Manchot]

The issue might very well simply be "feeling" safe, because, let's face it, outlawing the sale of all firearms isn't necessarily going to make people any safer either, seeing as how it's fairly easy to obtain a gun off of the black market and anyone with a criminal record (which constitutes most of the people committing murders and armed-robberies) is not even going to be able to obtain a gun legally.

Listen to what you're saying. The reason that it's easy to get a gun on the black market is because people with clean records buy them "for their own protection," and then sell them to criminals. The statistics speak for themselves: the relative number of gun deaths per year is magnitudes higher in the US than in the UK. Just because they make people feel safe is not a valid reason to let people have them. Face it, the average person is extremely irrational. That's why so many Americans have suckered themselves into $30K credit card debts.

 

[Skyhunter]

I owned guns as a young man and hunted.

When I lived in a crime ridden neighborhood I owned a shotgun for home defense.

Outlawing guns will be about as effective as outlawing drugs. Laws regulating guns and gun manufacturers however have some merit.

I have a good friend who was a lieutenant in Vietnam. He has many guns, including assault weapons. He never leaves his home without at least one gun, and if it is a long trip he will have enough arms and ammo for a sustained defense against an armed militia. Now he hasn't been in a firefight since Nam, but he is still always prepared. He is a gentle man, very caring and helpful to others, however I would never suggest to him that he give up his guns.

 

[Ba]

I've lived up in Yosemite and the foothills around there, there is a lot of hunting. Yet when I'm out camping and there is somebody with a gun to "protect them against bears" I usually go as far away from there as possible. Half the time it is a pistol that would take a lot of skill to actually kill a bear. Besides in the dark how fast will they shoot at something they think might be a bear.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regarding Protection
There are rural areas here in America where the police/sheriffs/rangers have a very hard time getting anywhere to protect anyone. If you live in one of these ares and you believe there are bandits that may harm you approaching your residence you can call the police but they may not get there for quite some time. It's much easier for these people to own a gun and at the least have it to protect their person if not try to protect their valuables as well.
Oddly though in an urban area there are more police and a stronger police presence so you would think there is less need for a gun but there are probably more guns and more gun related deaths because there are more criminals. Gangs in particular are a mostly urban phenomena and the majority of these gang members carry guns. They are already criminals so they don't care if they get their guns legally or not. In this country especially here in California and other border states gun trafficing isn't that hard. They come in through the ports and up from Mexico as well. One of the prime enemies of the Minutemen Project are the Mexican Mafia who run drugs and guns to the states.

Regarding Recreation
Aside from shooting there are also people who collect guns. They don't necessarily even fire them. I've known more than one person who collects firearms but very rarely if ever actually takes them to a firing range.
As far as hunting goes I'm pretty sure that the bulk of hunters here in America use the meat of the animals they kill. There are places around here still that rely to some degree on the meat from hunting season for their food.

 

[Pengwuino]

I've lived up in Yosemite and the foothills around there, there is a lot of hunting. Yet when I'm out camping and there is somebody with a gun to "protect them against bears" I usually go as far away from there as possible. Half the time it is a pistol that would take a lot of skill to actually kill a bear. Besides in the dark how fast will they shoot at something they think might be a bear.

A lot of skill? that's almost impossible. You sometimes need a .50 to take down a bear. You don't bring a pistol on a hunt

 

[Townsend]

Regarding Protection
There are rural areas here in America where the police/sheriffs/rangers have a very hard time getting anywhere to protect anyone. If you live in one of these ares and you believe there are bandits that may harm you approaching your residence you can call the police but they may not get there for quite some time. It's much easier for these people to own a gun and at the least have it to protect their person if not try to protect their valuables as well.
Oddly though in an urban area there are more police and a stronger police presence so you would think there is less need for a gun but there are probably more guns and more gun related deaths because there are more criminals. Gangs in particular are a mostly urban phenomena and the majority of these gang members carry guns. They are already criminals so they don't care if they get their guns legally or not. In this country especially here in California and other border states gun trafficing isn't that hard. They come in through the ports and up from Mexico as well. One of the prime enemies of the Minutemen Project are the Mexican Mafia who run drugs and guns to the states.

Regarding Recreation
Aside from shooting there are also people who collect guns. They don't necessarily even fire them. I've known more than one person who collects firearms but very rarely if ever actually takes them to a firing range.
As far as hunting goes I'm pretty sure that the bulk of hunters here in America use the meat of the animals they kill. There are places around here still that rely to some degree on the meat from hunting season for their food.

Well said...

I used to collect guns but now all I have is my 12 gauge for hunting pheasant, a 30-06 for deer hunting, which I have yet to even fire this gun, and a .22 for plinking around my parent's farm. I mostly use the .22 and take my little brother out to shoot some old bottles and teach him how to safely handle a gun.

As far as the meat I get from hunting, I have never killed any animal purely for sport save for a finch shot with a bb gun when I was about 12 years old. I felt pretty bad about it afterwards too. I have give up more shots then I care to mention simply because I didn't feel I would have a clean kill. I will not take the shot unless I am sure I drop the animal quickly.

 

[Pengwuino]

Regarding Protection
There are rural areas here in America where the police/sheriffs/rangers have a very hard time getting anywhere to protect anyone. If you live in one of these ares and you believe there are bandits that may harm you approaching your residence you can call the police but they may not get there for quite some time. It's much easier for these people to own a gun and at the least have it to protect their person if not try to protect their valuables as well.
Oddly though in an urban area there are more police and a stronger police presence so you would think there is less need for a gun but there are probably more guns and more gun related deaths because there are more criminals. Gangs in particular are a mostly urban phenomena and the majority of these gang members carry guns. They are already criminals so they don't care if they get their guns legally or not.

Response time in Fresno, CA is about 20min-1h. The city that borders us, Clovis, however, has a response time of 5 min! The cops have nothing to do all day so they are responding to your call like they are receiving a tip for it or something.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Response time in Fresno, CA is about 20min-1h. The city that borders us, Clovis, however, has a response time of 5 min! The cops have nothing to do all day so they are responding to your call like they are receiving a tip for it or something.

On another forum I spoke with someone in Arizona I think it was who had trouble with bandits trying to steal their gasoline which they kept on hand since there wasn't a gas pump for quite a ways.
Do they have similar troubles out in Fresno?

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah people steal gasoline here (no matter what the prices are oddly enough). They siphon from the car though, no one I know actually keeps gasoline on hand separate from the car however.

 

[Townsend]

Do they have similar troubles out in Fresno?

Fresno is a large city not at all a rural but it is surrounded by rural area. In fact the Fresno metropolitan area has a much larger population then the entire state of South Dakota. A fact which I happen to like a lot.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whats South Dakota's population? Fresno's met. area should be around 1 million population.

 

[Townsend]

Whats South Dakota's population? Fresno's met. area should be around 1 million population.

In 2004 it was about 770,883 with about an 11% growth rate.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 Population Estimates

And yeah, Fresno's met area is a tad more than 10^6.

 

[Pengwuino]

Sweet...

 

[Skyhunter]

I've lived up in Yosemite and the foothills around there, there is a lot of hunting. Yet when I'm out camping and there is somebody with a gun to "protect them against bears" I usually go as far away from there as possible. Half the time it is a pistol that would take a lot of skill to actually kill a bear. Besides in the dark how fast will they shoot at something they think might be a bear.

I hear you. I wouldn't want to be in the path of a wounded bear on a rampage either.

 

[Pengwuino]

Besides in the dark how fast will they shoot at something they think might be a bear.

Especially when half the people have more beer then bullets with them.

 

[outsider]

Guns in America will always exist... people want drugs, alcohol, guns and freedom of speech...

drugs and alcohol so they are free to say something rediculously offensive... and a gun to back themselves up afterward...

"you got a problem?.. I got a problem solver... and I call it revolver"

 

[Evo]

You just responded to a thread that's been dead for almost a year.