Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The second amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. As the specter of gun violence continues in our workplaces, roads and schools, the question keeps arising: do guns keep you safe, or just increase the level of violence?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
CeasefirePA's Simplistic Statement is Demonstratably False
- From NRA
By National Rifle Association - Everything Firearm Related
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anecdotal Evidence should never be the basis for legislation
By telling stories instead of concrete numbers, you ignore the larger picture. For every incident of a tragic fatality from a firearm, there are an equal, or greater number of incidences where lives are saved by firearms.
To try to use an occasional story to legislate the majority is a disservice against all Americans. Review this story for basis:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060800576.html
A Japanese man drove a large truck hitting pedestrians and then stabbing them. If we legislated on emotion and anecdotes, as the original poster would suggest, we would ban renting large cars and many types of knives.
- MikesSpot
September 7, 2008 10:52AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
1% = acceptible losses?
Since when is preventing 1 out of every 100 children's death not worth legislation? Simply because gun owners have become less negligent over time doesn't mean gun ownership now justifies kids dying. The facts are that guns don't prevent crimes in the classic NRA image (a homeowner killing an intruder or a "responsible" vigilante shooting dead a perceived threatening person) at nearly the rate that children, spouses, neighbors, policemen and innocent bystanders are killed by guns. The benefit has never outweighed the costs. Only concentrated lobbying dollars has kept this fact from guiding legislation.
Think of the people you know who you consider to be a little "off". Quick to fight. Quick to throw a punch. Now imagine them armed. Able to pull out a weapon and begin killing people instantly. Do you feel safer knowing they can get a gun anytime they wish?
Ask any policeman - people who spend more time with guns, and the people that use them, than the vast majority of the population - if they would prefer everyone they encounter to be armed. I've never met a policeman who encouraged the population to be more armed so their jobs would be easier. I'm sure you'll find sheriffs pandering for votes in Nevada or Florida who would disagree, but actual frontline patrolmen would tell you it's a terrible idea. Fistfights become gun fights. Knife fights become gun fights. Etc.
The second amendment was conceived in the 18th century by a war-weary country who had just "negotiated" their freedom using muskets and bayonets. Britain had used gun control to ensure there were no insurrections or Protestant uprisings against the crown and the Founding Fathers didn't want to see that policy enacted in the US. The NRA enjoys trotting out this logic - that somehow banning guns ensures an Orwellian state's rule over us - but today's technology and political reality shows the fallacy of this logic. One could argue that with Habeas Corpus suspended, electronic eavesdropping legalized and "secret executive powers" an unchecked privilege, the citizens of this country have never had less freedom or been less in control. Not one bullet has been fired to achieve this and no one doubts that any armed revolution would be put down quickly by the U.S. military. Gun control is a crime and safety issue - not one of political independence or "protection" from the same government the NRA insists enforce existing gun laws by prying into suspected criminals' homes to keep guns out of their possession.
The NRA demonstrably puts the interests of their dues paying members (gun manufacturers and gun owners) ahead of the majority of the U.S. population who do not want guns on the streets. The concentrated benefits of their lobbying dollars outweighs the diluted interest level and attention of the average voter. No matter how many malls, schools, churches and public gatherings get attacked by gun wielding maniacs, the NRA will be there to insist that we are all better off with more guns in citizens' hands.
- nbkwx55
September 7, 2008 11:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Look at the details of the 1%
Do a search to find some child gun death stories, then search on names in the story to find followup details. In almost all of these stories you'll find obvious risk factors in the household--drugs, felons, gangs, previous abuse, an unemployed boyfriend babysitting children from another man, often several factors at once. You will usually find evidence that the presence of the gun was already against the law. You will also find that most of these stories are of fairly young children. To find the teens you will need to search for something like "gang shooting"
You aren't likely to find ordinary law-abiding middle class households with "child gun deaths".
After you ask the policeman if he wants *everyone* armed, ask his opinion on licensed concealed carry, an entirely different question. You will find that street cops have a good opinion of license holders--They understand we are allies, not enemies. Look up the percentage of criminal convictions among license holders--You'll find that we are many times more law-abiding than the general population, and slightly more law abiding than police. Fistfights don't turn into gunfights but rather are avoided entirely--The kind of people who get into fistfights rarely get licenses.
Take a look at the malls, schools and churches where gun wielding maniacs show up--you will find that "no guns allowed" areas account for a vastly disproportionate number of these cases. Even the insane can understand they can kill more people if they have the only guns until the police show up. Luckily these shooters are rare--in a year they don't have as many victims as a single day of traffic fatalities.
- sevesteen
September 8, 2008 6:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's legislate based on the measured outcomes
My objection is the argument that only "irresponsible" people cause accidental gun deaths so it's not worth changing the laws for everyone else. This presumes that we need guns in the hands of responsible people and the deaths of kids due to irresponsible people is just an unfortunate, but necessary, cost of keeping gun ownership legal.
The statistical facts are that guns in a home increase the chance that someone in that home will be killed by that gun due to a homicide, suicide or accident at a level well above the chance that the gun will be used for self-defense. Here is the list of stats and their sources on one website:
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
I tend to believe the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine, though I'm sure the NRA's researchers will claim they have some anti-gun agenda funded by their insatiable desire to obtain more tax dollars or perhaps those pediatricians' blood thirsty quest to keep their patients alive so they can keep billing them for office visits...
I'm not sure what alliance a concealed carry permit holder is making with the police. Are you going to be drawing your weapon and shooting at any criminal you see? I haven't seen any police chief or FBI director endorse that kind of help. I don't doubt that most gun owners are law abiding. The problem is that several thousand each year are not. And when they want to break the law, they have an almost unlimited access to incredibly powerful weapons. We would all be far safer if those people were presented with the choice of using a knife or their fists versus having to try to break into a military base to obtain a weapon more powerful and dangerous than a hunting rifle. Several hundred more gun owners make the mistake each year of leaving their weapons where a child can get access to them and then shoot themselves or someone else.
Your point that large scale public shootings happen BECAUSE of "no gun zones" - is one of the more incendiary arguments I've heard in awhile. The point of not allowing guns in there is to prevent the kind of crime that happened. If those people had to go through a rigorous licensing process, have to pay a hefty fee to own even one rifle and in general not have the option of buying up several hand guns, semi automatic assault rifles and armor piercing bullets with a valid drivers license and a fairly clean criminal background, they wouldn't have the ability to kill at the scale and efficiency they've been able to achieve. The thought that the best defense against those kind of people is to arm everyone who wants to carry a gun around town is a leap of faith most people are not willing to make. We'd rather have everyone but the police disarmed and make it much more difficult for mentally disturbed/violent/criminal/irresponsible people to obtain weapons. And the incidents are not "rare". Killing ten or more people intentionally in the span of 30 minutes is "rare" when it happens once a year. Having a student come into school and shoot classmates and teachers is "rare" when it happens once every five years. When it happens 5-10 times per year, it's "frequent".
And as a final note - the rate of deaths due to lots of other causes far exceeds handguns. Heart disease, lung cancer, traffic fatalities, pedestrian deaths etc. The difference is that these are all by products of either diseases or useful tools where most people agree their benefits outweigh the costs. Most people don't agree that the benefit of gun ownership outweighs the cost to society. But because most people don't care enough to lobby and vote based on this issue as much as the NRA lobbies and funds campaigns against congressmen that vote against them, legislators don't take their side.
- nbkwx55
September 9, 2008 7:13AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Measured outcomes favor lawful ownership
The statistical facts you talk about have severe flaws when trying to use them to justify more laws.
First is counting suicide as "gun violence", assuming that all those who choose a gun would not find another method if guns are not available. (Japan...) Even if that were true, an increased risk of suicide may be a reason to try to convince people to voluntarily give up guns. It is not sufficient justification to eliminate freedom and choice.
Second is the definition of "used in self defense". Over 90% of the time when a law-abiding person defends with a gun, no shots are necessary. These studies insist that the defender must shoot or kill someone before it counts as "used in self defense". My definition of defense is quite different--If someone runs away I will let them, and consider that the best possible outcome to a bad situation.
Finally, households with convicted criminals have many times higher rates of gun violence-Not even in the same league as the law abiding. Eliminate these people from your sample and the "violence" rates plummet.
It isn't the guns causing the danger, it is the criminal behavior, including illegally possessing guns. Adding laws that restrict the behavior of the law-abiding in order to stop criminals who are already ignoring existing laws isn't logical.
Ally in the sense of having goals in common, and rarely conflicting. Not as in "members of the same team, working together to capture criminals".
As far as safer? Without legal firearms criminals have a much clearer idea of who makes a good victim-Pick a small weak looking person walking alone, and a knife, or even a couple of similarly inclined associates are plenty. Lawful guns create a shield effect, even to those not using them.
Spree shootings aren't CAUSED by "no gun" zones, they are caused by spree shooters. Spree shootings have fewer victims when there is someone on the scene who can shoot back-In more than one case, to the point of not being large-scale despite evidence that was the intent. In most cases, that means a license holder. Spree shooters realize this, and if they have a choice of venue, they are likely to pick the one where guns are forbidden.
"Arm everyone" is not what is proposed. When states adopt objective licensing criteria, licenses seem to stabilize at roughly 2% of the population, roughly 10 years later. All available data says that this 2% is many times more law abiding and less violent than the general population.
The idea that "most people" would rather have "everyone disarmed" flies in the face of gun ownership rates--Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of American households own guns, and many who don't own guns still think that it should be allowed.
What "most people" would like to see is enforcement of existing laws. When someone fails a gun purchase background check, there is an arrest about 1% of the time--There should be a police investigation 100% of the time, and a whole lot more arrests.
- sevesteen
September 9, 2008 6:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think if you want results you have to stop the sale
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
This summary of surveys backs up part of your argument and part of mine:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
I can no longer say most people want everyone but the police disarmed. That's not true according to these polls. But they do want gun laws to be stricter.
I'd argue that making guns easily available but trying to legislate their purchase and ownership through poorly funded systems of gun laws is a recipe for disaster. I think the theory is good - and if police and the FBI had enough money to chase every failed background check, and every state spent enough money to keep the background check system accurate, it could work out. But like most good ideas there's not enough money to make it work in the real world. So I'd argue you have to eliminate the supply to effect the restrictions the law is attempting to achieve.
I won't argue that permit-carrying licensed gun owners aren't more law-abiding than the rest of the population. My point is that those that want to cause harm can get access to weapons too easily. I don't think the concealed-carry permit holders are a good defense against them. So I'm in favor of making most guns illegal to sell or own, except for a restricted set of hunting rifles which requires a high fee to own and is strictly monitored by a well funded government system. I think that would make everyone safer.
- nbkwx55
September 10, 2008 12:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
don't know the current laws
A whole lot of people don't know what the current laws are. There is an impression that criminals go to gun shows to buy $100 full-auto AK47's from dealers without a background check.
If lying on a 4473 usually put you in jail (like it should...) then pretty soon the word would get out, and people would quit trying. If we aren't even going to make a token attempt to enforce a law, we shouldn't keep that law.
Eliminating the supply to the law-abiding is fairly easy--Just pass a law. Eliminating the criminal supply is much more difficult. Guns last decades or centuries--I personally know someone who until this year carried a gun last manufactured in the mid 1920's. We can't keep consumable drugs out of our country--Can we keep durable guns out? If not, then the lack of supply is more than made up for by the lack of resistance.
- sevesteen
September 10, 2008 4:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I hear you but, your not really accurate
Sevesteen pointed out the 1% errors- but you are not correct in saying more innocents die as a result of guns than not. It's just not the case. You can check with FBI statistics if you like.
as for the rest of your argument-
Ignore guns for a moment, and view only the Bill of Rights as you referenced.
To allow significant infringement of the 2nd amendment is to set precedent for the entire BOR to come into question. You mention the suspension of HC, how about the suspension of all free speech? Religion? Right to a fair trail, trail by jury? What about the right to not self incriminate?
You speak of modern America- but you cannot speak of future America. Who knows what the political climate will be in 50 years? 100? certainly no one in the past predicted our current political and technological climate.
You risk negotiating rights for the youth and the unborn of America by using today's standards as your guide. You have no knowledge, and no right to legislate what Future America will want and need for itself. You open the door for more than guns to be taken away. Do not do so without significant consideration.
- MikesSpot
September 8, 2008 9:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bill of Rights can be interpreted reasonably
See my response above on stats.
Passing a law to ban handgun ownership wouldn't put the entire Bill of Rights in jeopardy. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Public schools can't force children to say a Christian prayer. You can't form a public demonstration in most cities without a permit. These and many other reasonable restrictions on the rights granted to us by the constitution have been enforceable laws for decades and no one would argue they've put the entire Bill of Rights at risk. Present and Future America is happy to have these kinds of protections.
By the way - my point in the first posting is that many of the rights in the Bill of Rights have already been curtailed surreptitiously (including one of your hypotheticals - the right to defend your charges in court - Habeus Corpus). I'm not in favor of this - I am in favor of a law being debated and passed to accomplish this restriction. If the NRA would spend some lobbying dollars to reign in an executive branch gone haywire, they might start getting some of my money. You could argue no one's done more to trample on the Bill of Rights than this current administration. Isn't the NRA supposed to protect the Constitution?
Future America will likely think it odd that their ancestors thought shoppers in a mall with a gun holster under their coats were the most reasonable protection we could envision against mentally disturbed people who were determined to kill as many people as they could. Some weapons are just too dangerous for the average person on the street to possess.
As long as we're talking about freedom and the bill of rights, I would like to point out that I'm in favor of personal liberties. If handguns weren't killing other people at alarming rates, and only killing their owners, I wouldn't have a problem with them. The issue is that handguns and assault rifles kill other people, by design. The studies have shown that handguns are used in homicides and cause accidental deaths at a far higher rate than they are used in self-defense. They provide the ability to kill quickly and rapidly. Most people just don't want to see that ability granted to the public at large.
- nbkwx55
September 9, 2008 7:39AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
but what about this
First off- thank you for your citation. Now that we are both looking at the same data I think we can be on the same page more. I hope you don't mind- but I went straight to the CDC website for the original data- I could not find 2005? anyway- all the stuff I'll be referencing will be 2004. I guess I couldn't find the 05 data on their site.
first look at this- its a study by the CDC re: the effectiveness of Gun Laws (Including concealed carry)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
all their research boils down to 'inconsistent results'
continuing on with the CDC- less than 1% of all homicides and suicides of school age persons (age 10-24) occur in or on school grounds.
also according to the CDC between 1992 and 2006, school homicide rate was on the decline, and school related homicides were perpetrated with a firearm 65 or so % of the time.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/YV_DataSheet.pdf
Obviously that data is missing VT, NIU, and some other major tragedies, but the channel to purchase firearms legally is not where the 'violence problem' is coming from.
I'll have to dig out the research- I think you can find it in 'gunfacts' (google gunfacts and you'll find a free webbook on it)
but you mention assault rifles- prior to the brady bill they were used in less than 1.5% of crimes involving guns. 1.5% They have legitimate sporting and self defense purposes. I'm going to give you a quick sidebar here to help my point- as I don't mean to call you ignorant (I don't think you are) but I think firearms may be a bit foreign to you in their capabilities.
Lets look at an AR-15 , the civilian version of the m16 that our soldiers carry. It is legal in many parts of the country, but not all- and fires 1 round per 1 trigger pull (that is semi-automatic)
the most standard caliber is 223 remington, which has a military counterpart called 5.56x45- they aren't identical- but for the sake of this conversation we will assume they are- as a 5.56 gun can fire 223 without any issues.
it fires a 55gr projectile around 3000 FPS. That sounds fast and powerful- but, did you know that the 55gr projectile going that fast will have less power to penetrate walls and homes than a many pistol rounds? its a function of physics- and again i'll try to find the data- I'm on my way to class right now and don't have time to run through all the numbers but maybe I can paint a picture for you anyway-
a smaller lighter projectile loses energy faster than a slower, heavier one. Its inertia. Like a semi going 35 miles an hour hitting a honda civic going 85. the semi still wins.
so what is the point of all that? legislation, though often enacted with seemingly good intentions- is often done by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. as me and you both seem very pro-civil liberties, I'd rather they not mess anything else up, and instead focus more on proven methods of crime prevention- like more police.
of the handguns you reference- the vast majority are obtained ILLEGALLY- I see what your aiming for here- you want to choke off the supply and the problem will smother itself.
Think of prohibition- we choked off the supply of alcohol, and what happened? it became so profitable to deal in it illegally that we gave rise to a massive crime syndicate in the US. The criminals still had booze, they still had guns, and now they had immense amounts of cash to finance whatever they needed.
if you outlaw handguns and assault rifles the same thing will happen again. Good people will not have them, and criminals still will- because they exist outside the law. it'll become so profitable that a huge black market (a huger I should say- guns for crime are often dealt illegally anyway) where a situation is created where only criminals can get guns.
Penn and Teller had a show called bullshit- or something to that effect, and they did a show on the effects of gun control. one of the things they did, was to go interview violent criminals in prison, and ask if any of the anti-gun laws in place choked supply of guns for them- the answer? no. alls it did was ensure that the people they intended to hurt (assuming not another criminal) was most likely unarmed.
In my experience, many people who are anti-gun are so because they are not familiar with firearms and their actual capabilities. If we demystify what they are capable of, I think you, and many other people who feel the same way, will feel far more comfortable around them.
- MikesSpot
September 9, 2008 8:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I see the same studies as reasons to restrict guns
Let me go point by point:
- The "inconclusive" description in the first cited CDC study is in regards to their ability to from a conclusion either way (proving gun control works or proving it doesn't work). You need to look at the full sentence which I've edited for brevity by removing studies' names:
"On the basis of national law assessments (...), international comparisons (..), and index studies (..), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects." If gun ownership was such a clear deterrent to crime and benefit to society, how could any of these non-partisan studies be inconsistent or nonconclusive? It's not from a lack of looking or research. If there's any reasonable doubt, you should err on the side of safety and take guns off the streets.
The results in terms of gun deaths, homicide rates and other measures of gun-related violence in other developed countries with gun restrictions seems to prove conclusively that gun control keeps citizens safer and does not enable criminals to go on an armed rampage unchecked by helpless civilians (Penn and Teller's academic research not withstanding. As an aside I think they are hilarious paid good money to see them in Vegas and would gladly do so again).
- 65% use of guns in school homicides still sounds amazingly high to me. Why not target that going to zero?
- I appreciate the primer on ballistics. I'm not sure you'll ever convince me that civilian guns have been watered down so as to be "acceptably" dangerous when shot. Assault rifles, if only used to shoot animals and targets, and never modified to become fully automatic, would be of no threat to anyone. But in reality they are not. Some get modified and some get used to kill multiple people. What's the sporting benefit that outweighs this risk? Why not use a hunting rifle with a 5 or even 7 bullet clip? And why on earth is a .50 calibre sniper's rifle even an option for a civilian to purchase?
- See many European countries as evidence for the lack of actual black market results when gun ownership is restricted. Prohibition was a curtailment of a personal choice that did not involve the killing of innocent bystanders and enablement of deranged people to go on killing sprees. The majority of people voted to repeal it. The majority of people today would vote to get guns off the street. It's the concentrated lobbying power of the minority of people that own guns that keep the laws as is.
- My brother keeps a loaded 9mm Glock in his house with no trigger lock and in an unlocked lock box (lost the key). His rationale is that if he needs to use it, he needs to get to it quickly. The risk of his 3 year old getting access to it doesn't seem to concern him as much. He is one of many, many "real gun owners" who prove that all of the NRA preaching about personal responsibility, education and screening really don't work. As this study shows:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
most gun owners don't observe the safety rules they were trained on, and a significant number were never even trained.
So unfortunately a few bad apples (gun owners who kill people) do spoil the bunch. It's not worth the risk of death to everyone (children, students, bystanders, victims) to enable gun enthusiasts to keep most of their guns and the inconclusive crime deterrent effects they may provide. I think we could all live with a system that makes gun ownership a significant burden to achieve, costly to maintain and restricted to a very narrow collection of hunting rifles. It would still enable the right to bear arms, but not make it so easy to enable so many deaths and injuries.
- nbkwx55
September 9, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hmm I fear an upcoming impass
I'm going to address points out of order more so just for sake of my personal mental clarity.
as for modifying 'assault rifles' - make no mistake that modifying a civilian legal firearm like an AK-47 variant (like a WASR-10) or an AR-15 to full auto is a difficult task that requires a skilled machinist and parts and modifications not readily available. this is not something bobby the backyard gunsmith can do with any kind of provision. At best- they will tamper with the sear engagement (think of it like the govenour on a car) when the sear is tripped- the gun will fire one round- if they mess with it, the gun may just fire from the time its loaded till the time its empty (like having your car 's accelerator floored from the moment you turn on your ignition. At worst (or at best depending on how you look at it) they fudge engagement of the internal workings to the point that the weapon becomes inoperable.
I address your Assault weapons question first- because its a pet peeve of mine. Assault weapons is a misnomer. It was a term that has been applied to firearms outside of the definition of the phrase- meaning, its like calling all cars Formula 1 racing cars- one is a subset of the other, and a very exclusive, narrowly defined subset.
Next- I guess we just interpret the data differently. (from the CDC) you see one gun death, on record, as justification for banning firearms. There is no data showing how many instances where firearms prevent violence. I've read estimates that say 2 million per year. I'm going to say, for the sake of our argument, that 2m is a gross exaggeration, and I'll say its been exaggerated by 10 fold. so now we have 200,000 examples where firearms prevented violence.
If you could do a long term study on that- guns saving lives- that I think is the missing link we need to settle our argument. Do guns cause deaths? yes. Absolutely. I believe (and I really do believe this) that they save more lives.
while i'm looking up links- here's gunfacts.
http://www.gunfacts.info /
you might not agree with it, but at least now your aware of its existence. I especially recommend pages 5-10 or so, as they deal with 'assault weapons'. if only so we use the same language to continue our conversation.
here is the info on that suggested 2 million saves a year- I admit fully that the data is dated. it was from a study in 1997. thats why I now underestimate it so heavily- (not that I think its gone down, but just because I think the argument is still valid)
"Targeting Guns" Dr Gary Kleck. Florida State University 1997 (I have no digital copy)
basically- (and I apologize in advance for this) check pages 15-22 as well. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm lecturing, but I can summarize it- but then you'll just go check it anyway, so I figure why not waste your time.
If you think any of these studies are for some reason less valid then the ones you mention, we can talk about sample size, statistical integrity, and all of that stuff.
Your reference to Europe, I think, is circular. You focus on Gun violence.
Cut out gun- and you still have violence. Thats the big problem, and many European countries have that in no short supply. Heck after the UK ban on guns went into effect the Lethality of Officer involved confrontation (meaning violence against officers) increased significantly as the police' ballistic vests could not withstand the surge in knife wounds.
They created a monster where MORE people died.
As for your brother's practices- I believe all gun owners, after passing the required background check and safety courses, having been established to be of sound mind and body- should be allowed to carry their firearms. My father has carried since 1979 and has never once brandished a firearm in anger or accidentally. Thats almost 30 responsible years of no incident.
- MikesSpot
September 9, 2008 4:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PART II my comment was too long
I personally, feel I have a responsibility to keep firearms in such a manner as not to intrigue children. My brother has several young ones, and we have 2 large safe's to house our guns. When they are old enough to understand, each of the children will have guns explained to them, their capabilities and safe handling. I think you need to demystify guns to prevent youth endangerment. these few "accidental" deaths of children (pools kill more kids by the way, I think thats on the CDC website) I believe occur because no one took the time to sit little johnny or susie down and say this is mommy or daddy's gun. this is how it works and this is why you shouldn't touch it. if you want to see it, ask mom or dad, and we'll make it safe for you to understand.
the ballistics primer- those aren't watered down for civilians, thats really the capability of the platform. You take an AR-15 from me, from your local military base, or your local PD and thats what it'll do.
as for your capacity restriction question- again more random facts, most states do have capacity restrictions for game hunting, and for a rifle it is usually 5 rounds. I'm not preaching, just making you aware of it.
why should civilians have the right to higher capacity magazines? I apologize, but I'm not sure where to find the #s of shootings where x number of rounds is fired in a concise package. My guess is the FBI has it somewhere, but who knows how long that will take to tease out. Anyway- what I'm going for is there are many many violent assaults each year where multiple criminals attack, beat, rape, and kill. Even if your local PD has a fantastic response time of 2 minutes- 2 minutes is a long time to keep many individuals at bay while you retreat and try to get you and yours to safety.
finally a note on 50 caliber rifles- They've never been used in a crime. The caliber has been around for nearly a 100 or so years give or take. It doesn't get used in crimes. rifles in that caliber start around 2000 dollars. ammunition is several dollars per round. Its not going to be picked up on the black market as a hot item to commit crimes with. It's just not.
also you wanna ban 50 cal weapons? by doing so you ban many blackpowder/musket style rifles, which are extremely popular for traditional hunters and marksmen. if you ban 50+ cal weapons, you pretty much make every gun in the revolutionary war illegal. Also- 12 gauge shotguns, with a nominal bore diameter of nearly .7 inches, would also become illegal.
basically your spelling death to much of the current level of north American hunting. Not sure if thats what you want, but thats what it would be. You'd be outlawing so much, to prevent something that has never been misused, from continuing to not be misused.
I'm sorry for all the car analogies, but I feel like its an easy to understand parallel. Thats like banning cars because some cars go over 200 mph. Sure no one goes over 200 mph on your street, but in theory, with enough money, someone could- so lets just get rid of all automobiles and go to mopeds.
- MikesSpot
September 9, 2008 4:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the impasse is nigh
I have no problems with muskets and black powder. If a thief robs me using a blunderbuss, more power to him and his historical affections. I think a system like they have in the UK which involves high fees, tight design restrictions and a well-funded, stringent licensing system would accomplish the goal of keeping most hunting weapons legal.
My bottom-line argument is that handguns and military-style rifles (aka assault weapons - a label which I think you'll find most gun manufacturers love as it boosts their product image among the target buyers) are too easy to get and the minority of the population that can't be trusted to act rationally and in society's best interest shouldn't have as easy access to them as they do now. Enforcing a strict and expensive licensing system should reduce the incidents of theft as owners will be incented to take better care of their weapons, and the less responsible owners will be "self selected" out of ownership as they will likely choose to not bother with a time-consuming, expensive process that will fine or jail them if they violate it.
Making these kinds of weapons illegal would certainly force people that want to get them to pursue illegal means. As they do in the UK and other countries. The results though are that a black market has not emerged at the scale predicted by the gun supporters. Gun violence and gun-related homicide happen at a fraction of the rate predicted. This is true across multiple countries.
My final argument is this - no matter the level of passion expressed by the minority of the population that wants to keep this policy as is, the fact that the majority of the population wants to change it should prevail when it comes to legislation. The 2nd Amendment is no more sacred than any other Amendment which has been interpreted, reintrepeted and limited by modern lawmakers. I note that most gun right activists have stopped arguing we need to maintain a well regulated militia, as described in the preamble of this amendment. Anachronisms like that are a sign of why we can't let arguments like "the founding fathers intended it to be this way" hold sway over the current opinion and measured results of policy today.
It's a passionate issue - one that gets voters out and voting, manufacturers vast profits and gets the NRA and other lobbying groups enormous sums of money. The political nature of this issue means that rational debate and argument are hard to conduct without extremists from both ends weighing in and making it highly emotional.
My final thought - I think - is that personally I like guns. I enjoy the design and manufacturing quality that goes into a well made gun. The precision required to turn the relatively light pressure of pulling a trigger on a semi-automatic weapon into an extremely powerful firing pin, case ejection, round loading and re-cocking of the hammer action is impressive to me. And it does feel good to shoot them. But I don''t let that outweigh the risks posed to everyone when that kind of power is granted to people who just can't use it correctly. It's too dangerous and not worth the risk. That's a calculation that most people have made. I wish people were more responsible, but they aren't.
- nbkwx55
September 10, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Check your information so you don't sound dumb
nbkwx55 states in his first paragraph:
"The facts are that guns don't prevent crimes in the classic NRA image (a homeowner killing an intruder or a "responsible" vigilante shooting dead a perceived threatening person) at nearly the rate that children, spouses, neighbors, policemen and innocent bystanders are killed by guns. The benefit has never outweighed the costs."
Even though I did read further, I didn't have to, you have officially been brainwashed to accept what you hear from Gun Control, Inc. oops, I mean their new name... The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The fact is that over 1.5 million PEOPLE use guns defensively every year, that was found by the government and in their own words was quite possibly a rather low figure, it may be as much as 2.5 million a year, which some studies by respected people have shown. That number FAR outweighs the number of deaths per year in America that are caused by guns (I am strictly talking about murders and accidental shootings). A person has an undeniable human right to protect themselves or their families from a "perceived threat" as you call it. Guess what? If no one ever broke into anybody's house, no one would be shot because they broke in. Stop feeling sorry for criminals... I know you do because you think they are victims, but people come from horrible circumstances every day and make something of themselves. It's all about personal choice and responsibility for our decisions and actions.
- mobilemarvel
September 12, 2008 1:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
killing criminals defensive use
I stand by original statement - criminals aren't _killed_ by private gun owners (or shot by them) at nearly the rate that victims and innocent people are.
The "1.5m people use guns defensively every year" statistic is a tough one. I can find studies that refute that number and I'm sure you can find studies that show it's higher. The true number will probably never be known. It's like asking a car owner "what's the fastest you have driven in the last twelve months?" - many honest people will answer that incorrectly and passionate people may exaggerate the truth.
I know it's hard to listen to the other side on an issue you passionately believe in, but I'm pretty sure no reasonable person believes James Brady is a brainwasher. Getting shot by some nutjob with no business possessing a weapon is a pretty good motivator to spread the word on this issue, but I think his namesake organization stops well short of brainwashing. I'm pretty sure he'd tell you that defensive gun stats don't make up for the fact that he's paralyzed and the President almost died (again) at the hands of a gun owner.
Would you argue that the Constitution features a gun ownership right because of the deterrent effects on crime? Or the deterrent against a tyrannical government? I'd argue the latter. I don't trust most people I know, let alone the population at large, to brandish a firearm and have the ability to kill 6-9 people in under a minute if they decide they are a threat to them. The fact that so many innocent people get killed by guns each year, and in dramatically sad ways like mass public shootings, makes it particularly hard to justify the need for their easy possession or a calculation that there's a greater need to keep guns on the streets for crime prevention. Especially when guns enable crime - making their deterrent effect diminished. I think a gun owner should calculate that there's a pretty high chance anyone motivated enough to rob/attack them is armed. If you believe escalating a property crime to a homicide is the right response, I don't think you're in the same camp as most people.
I do think killings would go down if we took most guns off the street. That's both criminals and victims dying. "General violence" as described above may go up, but if fewer people die isn't that still a net positive? I'm not aware of gun-control countries having significantly higher rates of violent crimes than the U.S. - I'm willing to eat my words if that's true.
So I'm not here to argue for the rights of criminals. I'm here to argue for everyone's right to not be killed by a gun.
- nbkwx55
September 12, 2008 1:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I Don't Have Time to Waste
Frankly speaking, I don't have time in my life for people who have the propensity to allow "the greater good" to strip away freedoms. I have read your arguments and there is no convincing you otherwise, so live your life and I hope that you never come against a criminal with a gun who wants to kill you. Your position on this issue could be fatal.
- mobilemarvel
September 12, 2008 2:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
shoot first, ask questions later
You shouldn't have the personal freedom to own a product whose only purpose is killing multiple people. If we banned most guns, I'd be much less worried about a criminal with a gun who wants to kill me.
Is the US in a situation where 1.5m to 2.5m times every year, someone has to show a gun to stop a crime, and yet so many crimes still get committed (174 victims per 1,000 citizens age 12 and over in 2006, per the Dept of Justice's summary NCVS ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm #summary)? If you add up both categories (committed and "stopped" crimes), we're living in a war zone. Statistically speaking, you have a 50+% chance of having to show your gun once every 5 years to stop a crime just to keep the defensive gun stats up, and you'll still be a victim of a crime once every 3 years. Does that seem to match up with your experience?
Unless, of course, the defensive gun use statistics are exaggerated. And guns are really enabling crimes at a rate on par to that with which they are preventing crime. And it's all part of a broader problem of a mis-perception of the high risk of crime and the need to keep guns on the street to prevent them. Which situation seems more likely - the war zone or the false perception?
The assumption that gun possession keeps you safer is just false. The gun you own is more likely to be used to kill you, your spouse or an innocent person than to kill an attacker. The perception that armed attackers lurk around every dark corner is also false. The perceived need for guns keeps them on the street. The actual experience is that they are not effective crime deterrents, their easy access means criminals have easy access to guns and the average person on the street is not safer as a result.
Many dangerous weapons can only be possessed and used legally by the government. It's time we made handguns and most high capacity rifles part of that category.
- nbkwx55
September 15, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
so really it boils down to
neither of us have realistic stats- I do think the brady campaign uses questionable (read unethical) methods of persuasion with false claims and exageratted statistics.
High capacity rifles aren't used in crimes, and pistols aren't easy to come buy. your asking for impossible to enforce legislation. we have gun laws now, that if enforced, would prevent the crime your referring to.
we don't need more laws- we need the government to enable our police to do their jobs, not help some fat politician get re-elected by banning some other thing with lies about its use in crime.
- MikesSpot
September 15, 2008 12:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh boy.
I have a couple of questions on the statistics here, as it is not clear to me. First, does the DOJ include the 1.5M defensive uses in their calculations even if the crime is prevented, but still reported? For example, a gun owner pulls his gun in self defense, the perp runs, but the gun owner still reports it? Also, what about the legal use of a firearm to that injures or kills a perp, so the crime doesn't actually get committed? This would affect the overall statistics. I didn't read the whole PDF, so I'm not sure.
Second, if there are 360M people in the U.S., how does 1.5M defensive uses per year equate to one use by every citizen every five years? (1.5M X 5 = 7.5M, unless my calculator is broke). You can't include the entire population in one statistic and only a portion in another and then try to compare them. You are saying that 62.64M people are victims of crime, but forgetting that not all of them use their weapon in defense.
The actual percentage of victims that use their firearms in defense is around 2%, according the statistics you quoted (1.5M defensive uses / 62.64M crimes committed = 0.0239 or approximately 2%). That is, of course, assuming that all defensive uses are reported and included in the statistic of crimes committed.
The assumption that gun possession keeps you safer is not false. 40% of criminals say they would not attack someone they believe to be armed. That equates to guns being a deterrent.
And if there are 1500 accidental gun deaths per year on average but there are 1.5M (or approximately 1,000 times more) defensive gun uses per year, how exactly am I more likely kill myself or a loved one with my gun? I admit I was poor at math in school, so maybe you can help me there.
And according to CDC statistics accidental deaths of ALL types rank 5th in the U.S. as a cause of death, with firearms being 8th among accidental deaths. That's pretty far down the chain. How about we focus on the first 4 causes of death, and then the first 7 causes of accidental death? That would reduce the mortality rate in this country significantly, while focusing on gun control would barely be a drop in the bucket.
At the risk of repeating myself, don't confuse LEGAL gun ownership and use with ILLEGAL gun ownership and use. Those that possess a carry permit in the U.S. commit crimes at a much lower rate than the general population, even lower than police . For example, Florida has 1.5M carry permit holders, and have revoked 166 of them since 1996. That's about 0.01%. If only the rest of the general population was that law -abiding. The statistics for the rest of the country are similar, but this is one I knew off the top of my head.
- LagerHead
June 22, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just a couple of points
Your statement that "[...] guns enable crime [...] is completely untrue. Crime existed long before guns ever did. The only thing that taking guns out of the hands of criminals (if that were even possible) and law -abiding citizens would do is change the weapon that criminals use.
And accepting an increase in "general violence" is not an acceptable side effect of banning guns. What people continue to forget is that the guns are already in the hands of criminals, have always been in the hands of criminals and will continue to be in the hands of criminals. There is still no credible study linking gun control and reduction in crime. Until there is, gun control advocates are standing on very shaky ground.
- LagerHead
June 22, 2009 3:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Facts or emotional responses
Can you please provide a credible study that shows that more people are killed by legal gun owners than are killed by criminals using guns ?
And how many instances of innocent bystanders being injured or killed by someone using their gun legally in the defense of their lives or the lives of their loved ones, especially when compared to those same situations where no innocent bystanders were injured or killed?
Also, can you find a study that shows that law -abiding carry permit holders commit crimes at anywhere near the rate of the general population? I can only find statistics that show that permit holders are at least 100 times less likely to commit violent crimes, including those with guns.
And if gun control is a crime and safety issue, then why does the anti-gun agenda continuously ignore credible statistics (not from the NRA) that show that gun control does not lead to a decline in violent crime? In fact, FBI statistics show a tendency in the opposite direction. Despite hundreds of federal and state laws, criminals continue to find ways to get guns. But you want me to give mine up so that only the criminals can be armed? I think I'll pass, thank you very much.
Can you also provide the questions that were asked that pointed to the "fact" that the majority of Americans do not want guns on our streets? My guess is the question had nothing to do with legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens who were subjected to background checks, state-mandated training, and hundreds of dollars in fees to obtain a legal carry permit.
"No matter how many malls, schools, churches and public gatherings get attacked by gun wielding maniacs..."
Gun wielding maniacs is right. There are approximately 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms every year. There are a couple of mass killings per year by "gun wielding maniacs." And these gun wielding maniacs will acquire their guns legally or illegally, whether you strip me of my right or not. But I should be left completely defenseless? I can't see a sane argument for that.
- LagerHead
June 22, 2009 10:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Most problems
I'm going to go ahead and make a generalization about delinquent gun use, stealing it from home or wherever, drug and alcohol abuse, low test scores, promiscuous pre-marital sex, etc etc etc. Where are mom and dad in all this? Maybe working their butts off to pay the huge mortgage, three cars, and snowmobiles up to their eyes in debt . That's just one reason. The home is losing it's place as a priority in peoples lives. Crime goes up, the NEED for a gun to defend yourself also rises too. Why don't we let guns alone until we can lower the divorce rate eh?
- ecuadmail
March 31, 2009 10:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.