Does Gun Control Increase Crime Rates?

[Pengwuino]

We don't just ban things because people don't need them. Currently, the gun lobby is so strong that guns are exempt from even the most basic of product safety legislation. Ironic.

What other product do you have to wait for 10 days for the governmet to run a background check on you to buy lol. And these guns are not meant to be safe. There meant ot kill things so i really doubt someones going to seriously legislate it to be 'safe for use by children' or anything like that.

And really, what if our government gets out of control and tries to take over. Are we just going to take it up the butt? I mean the people who drew up the Constitution envisioned an America where there'd be militias under citizens controls capable of overthrowing the government is necessary... so how is any of this stuff even remotely constitutional?

 

[SOS2008]

And I've heard law inforcement's view on the situation. They all admit that gun laws don't do anything to help their job. Police in cities with gun bans say its actually made their jobs relatively worse.

This is what I was questioning with regard to sourcing.

Your the one who made hte first non-accepted claim so i think the burden of proof is on you for this one.

Many don't view the Guard the same as the military--certainly not seeing action in war time. But here is some info:

George W. enlisted in the Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. In 1994 Bush remarked, “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.” That sure sounds like someone who was looking to avoid the draft. Obtaining a slot in the Guard at that time was not usually easy--for the obvious reason: lots of young men were responding to the call of self–preservation (think Dan Quayle). Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. The Texas National Guard was open to string pulling by the well connected, and there are charges that the then-speaker of the Texas legislature helped George W. gain admittance. Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer."

The Boston Globe obtained copies of Bush's records. The records suggest Bush skipped out on the Guard for about a year. (And during that time he had failed to submit to an annual physical and lost his flight status.) He had gamed the system and avoided a year of service, before wiggling out of the Guard nearly a year before his time was up. Apparently he served four, not six years as required.

Back to the topic...

And really, what if our government gets out of control and tries to take over. Are we just going to take it up the butt? I mean the people who drew up the Constitution envisioned an America where there'd be militias under citizens controls capable of overthrowing the government is necessary... so how is any of this stuff even remotely constitutional?

Here you make a good point--with regard to the second amendment and small militias that have popped up here and there in the news/history--these groups are usually put down via government intervention.

 

[Pengwuino]

http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/copsversusguncon.html

there's one...im lazy though lol

And for Bush, here you go http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/politics/03GUAR.html?ex=1113796800&en=1c8e4368fcb9cbaa&ei=5070

As far asthe militias go... we should be allowed to have our own militias. I mean its absolutely clear in the Constitution... don't see how the government gets away with it.

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/copsversusguncon.html

there's one...im lazy though lol

And for Bush, here you go http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/politics/03GUAR.html?ex=1113796800&en=1c8e4368fcb9cbaa&ei=5070

As far as the militias go... we should be allowed to have our own militias. I mean its absolutely clear in the Constitution... don't see how the government gets away with it.

Thanks. Truly, in being reminded of the militia concept, it get's one thinking. An old favorite movie of mine is "Red Dawn" based on the possible need for arms in the event of foreign invasion. Anyway, it certainly is an interesting topic:

http://defencejournal.com/dec98/militia.htm

While recent years have seen a dramatic increase in militia groups, the bombing in Oklahoma City has brought these usually faceless groups, notoriety and worldwide attention.

Many of the militia groups were formed out of a genuine belief that the US government had gotten too big, too unwieldy, too intrusive into the private lives of its' citizens and is out of touch and often hostile toward the very people who voted them to govern.

Contrary to popular belief, most militia members are hard-working, average Americans who are loyal to the United States, the Constitution, and the rights granted thereunder. However, there are also many who can accurately be described as right-wing extremists, terrorists or racists; sometimes... all three.

Presently there are over 441 militia groups active in the United States. By far the largest group is the Michigan Militia which claims membership of over 10,000 with units in nearly all of Michigan-s 88 counties.

Every militia is anti-government to some degree. Some, like the Michigan Militia, advocate armed resistance to federal authority. They see international trade agreements (like NAFTA) and peacekeeping operations involving US troops as evidence of a sinister international movement toward one world government.

For decades Americans have seen terrorism all over the world-but not in the US. Even after the Oklahoma bombing, the American public still found it incomprehensible that Americans could perpetrate such a horror against other Americans. Even after Timothy McVeigh-s conviction, the general mood has been that terrorism is over. It was some kind of aberration.

The militia movement, however, continues to grow...

Maybe if I'm not too lazy I'll find more information on this (this seems a bit out-of-date, but still relevant).

 

[Pengwuino]

Hey someone told me to watch Red Dawn... never ended up doing it but now that youve mentioned it adn i remember... i think ill write it down somewhere to rent or something :)

Probably going to download it since pff, renting this would probably be near impossible. I wish i knew where to get bittorrent listings... Get some seinfeld off there :D

 

[1123581321]

If everyone had a gun and knew how to use it very well, then people would not want to kill people, because they would be shot. I would feel a lot safer walking somewhere in the ghettos if i was packing my 44 mag or a switchblade than if i didn't have some weaponry. Besides, take away guns and i could still kill you by:
stabing you
sliting your neck
blunt force trauma to the head
making a buttcrack on you forehead with an ax
slipping a plastic bag over you head
breaking that little bone that hangs below your sternum
knifing your brainstem
Cutting your arm in the tricep area (like in kill bill)
samurai sword!
sheuraken ( i misspelled that)
running you over
lighting you on fire...

as you can see, taking away guns will do nothing at all to stop evil, to do that you have to kill everyone on this planet

Fibonacci

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Two threads recently have been hijacked into discussion about guns and gun laws. I figured we might as well make a thread for that discussion even though it may have been beaten to death before. At least now it can stay here.

Here is pretty much the basis for the pro argument...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'd be interested to see what people from other countries have to say especially.

 

[Skyhunter]

Thank you TSA.

 

[Pengwuino]

What threads were they?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The one about SWAT breaking up a rave and there was one other one maybe a week or two ago. I helped with that one actually.

 

[outsider]

Opinion: whether or not there are laws for or against... the guns will exist, just as the drugs and anything else that they may want to prohibit.

Education is the key. If everyone who wanted a gun could register to get one with an education program, everyone would think twice before using their weapon.

Why I think what I think:
I was once a martial arts student. My intentions to learn the artform was to obtain a concealed weapon of sorts... however after some training, I realized that you cannot tell who else may be trained in the art of fighting and therefore know that it is unwise to draw "my weapon" as there is a chance that I may be messing with "the wrong guy".

I don't think it's ideal for everyone to bear arms, however no arms is not a viable option. I don't want to sound pesimistic, so I'd like to hear some thoughts on gun control too... who, where, what, why and how?

 

[vanesch]

I'd be interested to see what people from other countries have to say especially.

I would think that the aim of intelligent cooperation (from living in tribes, to living in a nation, to having international agreements) has at least in part the aim of mutualizing protection from violence. The deal is to put the means of violence together and renounce individually to using it, leaving it up to the "authority" to decide to use it, with the idea that they use it to protect you. This is what I think is a core property of civilization. It is intelligent, because it is supposed to free resources to do other, more useful things than to defend yourself constantly. When the level of civilization is sufficiently high (meaning: when most people agree with this intelligent cooperation, and the common means of protection are elaborated enough so that they are efficient) then I think it is wise to prohibit individual means of violence, like possessing arms (for other reasons than for sports), because it lowers the chances of deadly agressivity amongst the members.
That said, if you are of the (informed) opinion that your environment is not civilized enough to adhere to this intelligent cooperation, or you have serious doubts about the efficiency of the authorities to protect you, you are not living in a civilized enough place to put down your arms and the law of the jungle prevails. In that case, I'd say that possessing arms is more than justified. Personally, I'd move elsewhere, in such a case :-)

 

[Art]

I believe the gun debate is similar to the moral debates on other threads. Essentially it comes down to weighing up two different rights of the individual. On the one hand you have the right to own a firearm and on the other you have the right to be able to live your life without fear of being shot.
If incidences of individuals being threatened or shot were a rare event then it is probably justifiable to argue that the collective will of the pro-gun lobby outweighs the concerns of the anti-gun lobby but as in the US guns feature prominently in many robberies and murders it would seem to me the collective rights of individuals to live in a society free of fear and death by shooting greatly outweighs those of the pro-gun lobby.
Laws are made for their times which the authors of the US constitution were farsighted enough to realize which is why rather than cast the constitution in stone they left a means available for future generations to change it and so to base gun ownership on something written hundreds of years ago is nonsensical.
As a parallel there was still a law on the UK statute book which stemmed from the reign of King Henry VIII until 1960 that all men under the age of 60 maintain a bow and practice archery one hour each Sunday. Needless to say nobody has been prosectuted for non-compliance as it is patently obvious the reasons why that law was enacted are no longer relevant.

 

[outsider]

That said, if you are of the (informed) opinion that your environment is not civilized enough to adhere to this intelligent cooperation, or you have serious doubts about the efficiency of the authorities to protect you, you are not living in a civilized enough place to put down your arms and the law of the jungle prevails. In that case, I'd say that possessing arms is more than justified. Personally, I'd move elsewhere, in such a case :-)

This is a step in the right direction. The need to bear arms is to be explored as many who point guns are using it as a threat more so than a weapon.

In Canada, it is uncommon to bear arms. Since there are less guns, the fear of being attacked in this fashion is far less and therefore the perceived need to own a gun is decreased.

When society focuses less on accumulation of material wealth and the need for self preservation, we will find that there is more than enough to go around. I would trade in all the junk I've bought over the years for a greater sense of safety for sure! All this crap may be worth something to someone, but it really means nothing in the balance of life.

Laws are made for their times which the authors of the US constitution were farsighted enough to realize which is why rather than cast the constitution in stone they left a means available for future generations to change it and so to base gun ownership on something written hundreds of years ago is nonsensical.

Agreed. What would you suggest?

 

[vanesch]

On the one hand you have the right to own a firearm and on the other you have the right to be able to live your life without fear of being shot.

I agree with your analysis, but it would apply to about anything. Owning dogs, crocodiles, chemistry labs, enriched uranium, goldfish, cars, trucks, airplanes... The a priori right to own them must be outweighted to the disconfort it can cause to others. A fundamental principle in lawmaking.
However, arms have something peculiar. Except for sports (which I can understand), they have NO OTHER PURPOSE than to harm people ! Now, harming people is something that is unethical a priori. We make an exception to that rule, in that harming people can be allowed for, but only to the extend that it harms people that would otherwise harm others. There is no a priori right to harm people, in the same way as there is an a priori right to have a dog.

Also, it is quite funny that most of the proponents of the liberty of possessing arms for the individual are also the same ones in line to point fingers to other countries wanting to arm themselves the way they want :-)

 

[vanesch]

In Canada, it is uncommon to bear arms. Since there are less guns, the fear of being attacked in this fashion is far less and therefore the perceived need to own a gun is decreased.

This is correct ; most European countries have rather severe arm possession laws and I don't know of any where there is a significant pressure from public opinion to be more liberal on this point (rather the opposite). There seems to be no intrinsic desire for having the right of having a gun, so it doesn't seem to be a basic need of a human being (if I can make the extrapolation that human beings are similar everywhere in their basic needs ) on par with the liberty of expression, or the desire to eat and live in a decent place, or worship the deity of their choice.

 

[loseyourname]

Guns do have a purpose other than sport, which is often cited by gunowners, and that is protection. The right to feel safe has been talked about here and is the prime reason that many people own firearms - they feel safe with them. Whether or not they actually are safer because they own a firearm is hard to tell. People like to point out accident statistics, but we already have laws pertaining to the safe storage of guns and ammo in households with children. It also might not really be the issue anyway. 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.

 

[Daminc]

Perhaps have the government buy the weapons?
Allow a certain time for compliance, say 6 months, to allow people to exchange the weapons in their possession for money/clothes/food etc (or even to beef up the security of their home).
After that time make it illegal for a civilian to own a firearm.

I've been offered a firearm in the past (illegally) and I refused because I couldn't imagine any time that I might need it. If, on the other hand, everyone had access to a firearm then I would be obliged to get one primarily out of fear for my family and myself.

The idea of needing guns to protect yourself is false. Guns are designed for one thing only and that is to kill people. The 'peace by superior firepower' is a PR motion to sell guns and to profit regardless of the consequences.

Just my opinion.

 

[loseyourname]

"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. There are a great number of individual variables that go into determining that. Perhaps in the middle class neighborhoods we've all lived in our entire lives, owning a gun is pointless and often though of as barbaric. In some places, though, the law of the jungle really does prevail, as frankly, the cops just don't care.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What gets me about this thread so far is that nobody considers hunting. Where I live hunting is a huge activity - perhaps involving a majority of males and many females. I would bet that most long guns - rifles and shotguns - are bought with hunting in mind.

The question of whether owning or carrying pistols for defense works is up in the air. The statistics have been heavily manipulated both ways in popular books. I think it can be said, at least, that counties where carrying firearms is legal do not overall have higher violent crime rates than counties in which it is not. This is sort of taken as the minimal assertion of the book More Guns - Less Crime, of which every stronger assertion has been challenged. The author has been caught in some data faking, but not, I believe as regards this assertion.

 

[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.