Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[Anttech]

Ok, so you have one example from Canada, not the US. Another example you have is of where an old lady used a gun to protect herself (and goes agasint your logic). And you have two more sensational special cases. So, what does that have to do with regular responsible ownership by the average everyday citizen who isint running around shooting everybody?

Ignoring your hyperbole the point is that yes if you are responsible fine, but, the percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public. Its this exact reason why they are banned in most countries. Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening). Individualism is fine as long as it doesn't effect society in a negative way, at that point it just becomes selfish. Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

 

[Evo]

It would be interesting to try and correlate the rates of firearm vs other means of homocide and suicide with gunownership, but I don't have time to do that now.

See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1306076&postcount=307

The FBI link has the full table.

 

[drankin]

More law-abiding citizens carrying guns in the US would mean less crime. Less mass murders, less homicides, and less robberies.

Several career criminals were interviewed in some prison in California (I'll dig up the actual article later if anyone is interested). They were asked what was their biggest concern when robbing a home. The majority of them said that they were concerned that the owner was armed and that if they knew that the occupant(s) is/are armed, they would much not attempt that robbery. Not worth the hassle or risk. There were other rather interesting revelations about how much of a deterant that the knowledge that their potential victims were armed was.

Criminals have very little problem getting guns. Luckily, they are valued enough that many of your more desperate drug addicts will trade theirs in for drugs rendering them unarmed.

 

[Art]

One common reason put forward in defence of gun ownership is defence against crime yet is shooting the perp really a valid response to common crime?

A quick look at the numbers show if this form of self-defence actually became the norm America would quickly become de-populated. Staving off 'assaults against the person' alone would result in the possibility of 1,500,000 'justifiable' homicides per year. Add in shooting burglars and trespassers and millions more would die so as a reasonable policy to protect oneself and one's property from crime it really doesn't pass muster.

 

[Anttech]

More law-abiding citizens carrying guns in the US would mean less crime. Less mass murders, less homicides, and less robberies.

And of course the case example of this is...please please please don't say the swiss

 

[daveb]

Uhh.. the right to use hard drugs was never mentioned in the constitution..

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Many have argued (Some successfully, some not) that this clause means that even though a right is not spelled out as being a right, it is still a right.

 

[drankin]

One common reason put forward in defence of gun ownership is defence against crime yet is shooting the perp really a valid response to common crime?

A quick look at the numbers show if this form of self-defence actually became the norm America would quickly become de-populated. Staving off 'assaults against the person' alone would result in the possibility of 1,500,000 'justifiable' homicides per year. Add in shooting burglars and trespassers and millions more would die so as a reasonable policy to protect oneself and one's property from crime it really doesn't pass muster.

Most incidents where a citizen has had to pull his weapon in self-defense occur without a shot being fired. Looking at the wrong end of a gun being held by someone who fears for their life tends to deescalate a potential assault, rape, or robbery. But understand that in those situations the crime victim has the right to pull the trigger. Most of us are not interested in killing someone if it is not necessary. We just don't want to be assaulted, raped or robbed.

 

[Averagesupernova]

It certainly affects your decision making. If some 6' 6" thug thumped you and you had no gun you'd be inclined to let it go whereas if you were carrying a gun your preferred option might be different.

As someone once said 'God didn't make all men equal the Colt 45 did that.'

Well you got me there! I would be inclined to let it go. However, if it were in my own house and I had a good chance of a kill, I'd drop him like a bad habit. There is nothing to prevent a crook that I have disabled (for life) from taking me to court in a law suit. Unless of course if he's dead...

 

[Averagesupernova]

Just thought I'd point something out. Just the thought of someone being armed prevents robberies. The occupant of the house may not have a gun at all, but if the crook thinks so, isn't that good enough to keep him away?

 

[drankin]

A quick look at the numbers show if this form of self-defence actually became the norm America would quickly become de-populated.

Art, it is already the norm. We are increasing our population everyday.

 

[enricfemi]

Look again - it doesn't.

damn,can't understand,may be the most people click the wrong botton

 

[cristo]

The occupant of the house may not have a gun at all, but if the crook thinks so, isn't that good enough to keep him away?

That or he shoots you rather than finds out!

 

[cristo]

Art, it is already the norm.

Is it? About 4 people here have admitted to carrying a gun wherever they go.

 

[Monique]

See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1306076&postcount=307

The FBI link has the full table.

That's in the US, to get a good correlation you need to consider different countries, which is on the website from which I got my data from

 

[drankin]

Is it? About 4 people here have admitted to carrying a gun wherever they go.

Including me, right now. There are at least 4 others in my office of about 35 people right now that are carrying. They don't get robbed, raped, or assaulted and they have never had to shoot anyone. My point is, if more people exercised their right as we are, there would even fewer crimes.

 

[Anttech]

My point is, if more people exercised their right as we are, there would even fewer crimes..

I'd like to refer you to post 365! (again)

 

[drankin]

I'd like to refer you to post 365! (again)

The example would be, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns, now wouldn't it! It has to actually happen first!

I'm giving reasons why it would work!

 

[cristo]

Including me, right now. There are at least 4 others in my office of about 35 people right now that are carrying.

But that isn't "the norm"; that's a few people!

They don't get robbed, raped, or assaulted and they have never had to shoot anyone.

But that doesn't mean anything! You say that four people, who happen to carry guns, havn't run into any trouble and then extrapolate this as if to make a point that if everyone carries a gun then there will be no trouble!

My point is, if more people exercised their right as we are, there would even fewer crimes.

But this isn't necessarily true though! Even if what you say is true, and that people who carry guns do not get robbed, then this crime will certainly be displaced onto those who do not carry guns. What happens if more and more people carry guns? Well, criminals will have to take more chances, and rob someone who may have a weapon with them, which will result in more gunfights; more deaths.

Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, as people are far too set in their own opinions to change. I respect your opinion, but I don't live in your country, and thus cannot really understand the point of view of people who believe that guns are good-- there aren't that many here in the UK. But, I don't agree with your opinion. I believe that more people carrying guns implies more gun crime, but that is my opinion, which I understand that you cannot agree with.

There is no definitive answer to this question-- we'll just have to wait and see what happens really!

 

[Anttech]

No, that is a speculative answer it is not a case study. A theory is just that a theory until you start testing your theory.

The point I am making is that there is not 1 good case study showing a correlation between increasing guns in circulation decreases the crime rate.

However Moniques graphs do show us a correlation between how violent the society (in general) is and the amount of guns in circulation. Of course in certain places this will be shown not to be the case, but on the average it seems to hold true.

 

[Huckleberry]

Don't rely on your firearm to make you any safer in your home. Even a poor thief will know the home he is breaking into before entering. A house with nobody in it is the best target. If a robber knows you have firearms he might be tempted to wait until you are not home before he steals them.

For home safety, you are far better off with a security system. Be sure to lock your doors and windows when you aren't home or when sleeping. If you have a firearm and aren't home, make sure they are in a safe which is bolted down securely.

The gun only works if you are there to use it. If an armed robber breaks into a house with someone home then you are in a dangerous situation. He probably intends to kill you if he breaks in, is armed and knows you are home. Unless you walk around your house with your firearm loaded and within easy reach you will probably be taken off-guard. This might not be such a good idea in a home where young children or their friends are present.

 

[out of whack]

damn,can't understand,may be the most people click the wrong botton

You're not the first to make this mistake, the implicit double negative "yes, it should not be allowed" and "not, it should not be not allowed" strikes again!

I don't think it matters, for several reasons. First, figures are already biased by the specific nature of this group so you could not generalize anyway. Second, non-American are voting on American matters, which is allowed since it was not restricted in the OP, but still creates a different bias. Third and most importantly, polls on this forum are often just a way to stimulate debate, not to obtain reliable figures. And this is an excellent debate IMO. I admit that many posts have served to sway my own prior opinion from one extreme to a middle position. I am now sitting on the fence. Keep talking!

 

[Anttech]

Right, so can we say then:

-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.
-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).
-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation
-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Don't rely on your firearm to make you any safer in your home. Even a poor thief will know the home he is breaking into before entering. A house with nobody in it is the best target. If a robber knows you have firearms he might be tempted to wait until you are not home before he steals them.

I wouldn't say that even the poorest of theives know anything about the home they are breaking into. Some of the drug addicts we have running around these days (which are the most dangerous of criminals) will do little research before picking a house. No one has said that owning a gun is like living in a fortress.

For home safety, you are far better off with a security system. Be sure to lock your doors and windows when you aren't home or when sleeping. If you have a firearm and aren't home, make sure they are in a safe which is bolted down securely.

I have a security system. I have locks on doors and windows which I use. Do you think being being pro-gun means we are just inviting trouble to come into our homes? Is the image really that skewed? BTW, a security system is worthless when phone wires are cut. Oh, don't tell me to get wireless, the service where I live is horrible.

The gun only works if you are there to use it. If an armed robber breaks into a house with someone home then you are in a dangerous situation. He probably intends to kill you if he breaks in, is armed and knows you are home. Unless you walk around your house with your firearm loaded and within easy reach you will probably be taken off-guard. This might not be such a good idea in a home where young children or their friends are present.

I would say most of the time I am going to know if someone is even walking around the outside of my house since I have dogs. I will know before the crook gets in.

 

[Averagesupernova]

That or he shoots you rather than finds out!

Maybe I'm just stupid, but this makes no sense. I'm serious, I don't understand the reply at all.

 

[Averagesupernova]

damn,can't understand,may be the most people click the wrong botton

Now this is funny. You feel so strongly about it that you are thinking up reasons to make the poll look the way you would like it?

 

[cristo]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but this makes no sense. I'm serious, I don't understand the reply at all.

My point was that if the ownership of guns is outlawed for law-abiding citizens, then a criminal breaking into a house has no reason to assume that the householder has a gun. A criminal breaking into a house when it is legal for the homeowner to have a gun will have to assume that the homeowner does indeed own one, and carries it with him. I propose that in the former case, you are less likely to be shot than in the latter case.

Besides, if a criminal breaks into your house and wants to shoot you, you're pretty much done for anyway! (Unless, of course, you sit at the top of your stairs with the gun trained on the door all day, on the off chance that someone will break in! )

 

[Averagesupernova]

My point was that if the ownership of guns is outlawed for law-abiding citizens, then a criminal breaking into a house has no reason to assume that the householder has a gun. A criminal breaking into a house when it is legal for the homeowner to have a gun will have to assume that the homeowner does indeed own one, and carries it with him. I propose that in the former case, you are less likely to be shot than in the latter case.

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

Besides, if a criminal breaks into your house and wants to shoot you, you're pretty much done for anyway! (Unless, of course, you sit at the top of your stairs with the gun trained on the door all day, on the off chance that someone will break in! )

Read my previous posts. It's quite likely I'd know if someone were even walking around the outside. Can you explain why you think someone would go to the trouble of breaking in my house with the sole intention of shooting me? Is this what happens in England? You can't compare this with Joe. It wouldn't be in the same ball park as a type of crime. Even if that were the case, I'm still better off with a gun than without. Someone has already pointed out the odds of 1,000,000:1 being better than 1,000,000:0.

 

[Anttech]

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

Why do you think this, because the rate of house-robbings in America is far less than in the UK (for example). Please give some reasons why you say this.. I haven't ever seen any data to back that up.

 

[Cyrus]

Ignoring your hyperbole the point is that yes if you are responsible fine, but, the percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public. Its this exact reason why they are banned in most countries. Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening). Individualism is fine as long as it doesn't effect society in a negative way, at that point it just becomes selfish. Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

Stop making up figures out your you know what. What proof do you have that says:

"percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public."

Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening).

Again, I don't care what other countries do about their guns. But in my country this is the reason for allowing citizens to have guns. So your point is NOT RELEVANT.

Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

What a load of bull. Stop pawning off blame on others. Now its "selfish" for people to be responsible gun owners.


Honestly, you don't live in the United States, so stop complaining about it. I don't sit here and lecture you on having guns in the UK. You just complain for the sake of hearing your own voice.

 

[edward]

Without proper training in the handling of fire arms, family members are more at risk than the bad guys.

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs2.php

Below are some troubling stats on firearms:

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

The best weapon for home protection is actually not a hand gun, it is a shot gun with an 18 inch barrel.