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?
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:
This expert mentions the '97 study "Guns in America", but would rather you don't read it. GOA should certainly not be suggesting that Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig agree with the 4,000 times a day claim. Here is the link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/165476.htm
It is worth reading if you are interested in this issue. If you are impatient here is a relevant paragraph from the conclusions. DGU is Defensive Gun Use.
The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether
consumers who buy guns for protection against crime
get their money's worth. The NSPOF-based estimate
of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates
the true number, as do other estimates based on
similar surveys. Much debated is whether the
widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or
makes it more deadly--or perhaps both--but the DGU
estimates are not informative in this regard.
- Adam Hammond
September 4, 2008 5:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My wife and I were sitting at home watching tv one evening when we noticed something moving outside of our living room window. As we continued to sit there, we noticed that there were two men looking in our living room window. They looked in and then moved away. It was not long until they were back. This time they stayed watching for a longer time. I picked up the phone, dialed 911. The operator told me that it would be 15 to 20 minutes before an officer could get to our home. Not knowing what was to come, I went to the bedroom and got the shotgun. When they came back the third time, I leveled the shotgun at the window. I did not fire. However, they did leave and did not come back. Later that night, they broke in and raped a women a couple doors down from us. Do I believe in guns saving lives? Yes, I do.
- UltraConservative September 4, 2008 8:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
The victims were not murdered with their own guns but with the guns of the intruders and the poster surmises that the victims are better off having a gun to defend themselves? Since they DID have guns and they are STILL DEAD, I'd have to believe that the victims would have been better off if there were laws that kept the guns out of the hands of intruders. Hello?
"In other words, virtually all the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”
" Alas, the victims would have been better off having a gun to protect themselves. "
- hotmama4obama September 28, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Define the law that would keep guns out of the hands of intruders[criminals]!!!!
- Nightowl22 December 12, 2008 7:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The article clearly states the high number of lives saved by guns . Yes it is unfortunate that having a gun does not guarentee you will survive but it definately improves your chances.
And there are laws that attempt to keep the guns away from criminals but that is what makes them a crimianl now isn't it?
- jaker277 June 29, 2009 11:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I really can't understand how so many can be so mislead. Simple fact tells us that when you remoive guns from society violent crime increases and when guns are allowed violent crime decreases. If you need more information than that I feel sorry for you.
- oneoldman July 24, 2009 12:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have to agree on a waiting period. It is sad that deaths occured because of it, but without, it ANY nut case cold just walk in a buy a hand gun. Yes, I know that a person can buy a long gun without waiting
- Ironman September 3, 2008 3:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
A background check is different than a waiting period--I agree with reasonable background checks, but in most cases that can be done by phone in a few minutes, without a significant wait.
A wait inconveniences the law abiding--I'm allowed to carry a gun, and I already own several. There is no gun shop in my town. A waiting period would mean that if I wanted yet another gun, I'd go to the gun shop, almost certainly while carrying one of the guns I already own, pick out my new gun...then I'd have to drive back to the shop once the wait was over. If I see a bargain while I'm visiting the other end of the state, I essentially have to pass it by.
Waiting periods may have made some sense for first-time buyers before technology made instant checks possible.
- sevesteen September 4, 2008 4:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Here in Texas if you have your concealed handgun license, you can buy a hand gun with no waiting period. The reason for the waiting period is so some guy all pissed off at his woman has time to cool down before he blows her brains out in a fit of rage. I like the waiting period, I believe it prevents such things from happening. I know, if he wanted to he could beat her brains out with a baseball bat, but that's not as easy as just pointing, and pulling a trigger.
- Ironman September 4, 2008 6:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I really can't imagine a situation where someone who is unstable enough to think that shooting someone is a good idea, but stable enough to maintain a criminal history clean enough to legally buy a gun, and who doesn't own a gun and is mad enough to go find a gun store, pick out a gun (without appearing to be a nutcase to the gun shop people) spend a couple hundred dollars, fill out the NICS 4473 form, wait for the background check, then go back and find the person they are mad at and shoot them....but not so mad that they wouldn't still want to shoot them a couple days later. Is there evidence that people with clean criminal backgrounds commit murder with guns they have bought at a licensed gun dealer in the last 10 days in any statistically meaningful numbers?
On the other hand, I've seen stories of someone who needed a gun to protect against a nutcase, but was killed before the waiting period was over. Thankfully a rare situation, but more common than what a waiting period is theoretically supposed to protect against.
- sevesteen September 4, 2008 11:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Ironman- respectfully- I disagree.
As Sevesteen pointed out- purchasing a firearm is a relatively intense process. By me for instance, to purchase a firearm (handgun specifically) I must go, pay for the firearm, pass my NICS check upon completion of my 4473, receive a green certificate, drive to the pistol licensing unit, turn in the ticket and have my permit amended to reflect the additional handgun, then go back and show my dealer that the pistol is now, in fact on my license. Only then can I take possession of the firearm.
As a result of working within so many constraints- this often takes several days to accomplish, and as the Licensing unit by me is small, people often are required to miss work to accomplish the task. The hours do not even run a full business day, and are open 4 days a week instead of 5.
Waiting periods, and additional steps like the ones I described to not deter the mentally deranged, as you described. Those people are committed. They are, for lack of a better term, fanatical.
People who do get deterred are good, everyday Americans who want to take up handgunning for sport or protection. Many people do not have the luxury to miss multiple days of work to get to a gun shop prior to close, or afford any other such time consuming activities.
With these waiting periods, we simply punish the honest and the good.
- MikesSpot September 8, 2008 9:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
So, this "waiting period" stops a guy from murdering his wife how if he already owns guns? And the "waiting period" would certainly not help the wife unless the murderer was nice enough to wait until she got her gun home before he attacked her.
This waiting nonsense is another feel good but idiotic idea with no basis in logic or fact. Good people have no desire to harm others. Criminals do not obey laws or care whom they harm - and they don't get their guns from a shop or jump through any of the hoops honest people are forced to put up with.
As the survivor of an attack, I know without any doubt that I would have been dead a long time now if I had not been armed and ready to shoot.
I am now a certified NRA instructor for handguns and self defense. I spend a great deal of time helping other women (and men too) understand how to defend themselves, both armed and otherwise.
I have no desire to ever harm anyone, but I will never be a helpless victim. My life is worth preserving.
- MamaLiberty January 23, 2009 1:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I must be fair- I don't like the use of anecdotes in arguments regarding legislation. At most they should serve as exclamation points at the end of statistical analysis. If we rely on anecdotes, this argument can go on indefinitely.
An easier way to look at this, I think- would be this:
If immediate access to guns didn't save lives, we wouldn't arm our police. Sure the counter-argument may be 'but police are trained'. Do not underestimate the vigilance of everyday Citizens to stay sharp and proficient in firearms handling. Many states require lengthy classes and courses of fire to prove the shooters ability to not only understand the law, but to prove competence.
- MikesSpot September 7, 2008 11:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I've seen statistics, research, and anecdotes supporting both sides of the debate, so until there's real proof one way or the other, it comes down to what you believe. I happen to believe that guns do not make us safer, in general, but because the evidence is ambiguous, and because the Constitution protects our right to bear arms, I oppose overly restrictive bans on firearms.
Ah, so what do I mean by overly restrictive? I think a person ought to be able to have a handgun in their homes. Sports enthusiasts ought to be able to shoot targets at firing ranges. And hunters ought to be allowed to have rifles and shotguns.
But I just don't understand extreme right-wing objections to things like background checks. Of course we'll never completely prevent criminals from having guns, but at least we can make it hard on them. We could devote our political energy to a lot more important things if we could just agree on some reasonable compromises here. All you gun rights supporters, get over your fear that all your rights will be taken away, and accept a few reasonable restrictions. And all you gun rights opponents, accept that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens aren't going to go away completely, just like drinking didn't go away during Prohibition. And let's get on with things like, I don't know, figuring out how to reduce the national debt.
- dmonasg September 9, 2008 7:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Dmonasg
every gun purchased in the US from a gun dealer or gunshow has a background check associated with it through the FBI NICS background check and a form 4473. What we the gun extremists, disagree with is increasing the national debt to fund programs that have never lead to a conviction and have cost nearly half a billion dollars, like oh, say, ballistic fingerprinting. nearly 500 million dollars- to show . . . .nothing.
That could have funded a lot of schools to save some of those people from a life of crime they failed to prosecute with that waste.
we don't oppose reasonable things- we oppose stupid things, and unfortunately- thats all that has been put forth. Stupid stuff- like a ban on barrel shrouds, proposed by Sarah Brady. You know what a barrel shroud does? it acts like a heat sink- just like on the processor of your computer. it helps cool things down. Gun powder burns hot (big surprise there I know)
why ban something that provides such a function? the answer is stupidity. Many politicians try to play on the lack of information of non-gun owners, make false statements and create straw man arguments to things that aren't a problem.
Gun control is very rarely about guns, and far more often about control.
- MikesSpot September 10, 2008 3:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Some of your examples make perfect sense. Banning barrel shrouds seems excessive. Perhaps you are not a gun extremist, after all, just a reasonable gun enthusiast.
But what about one of the more key provisions of the lapsed 1994 federal assault weapons ban - what's so wrong about banning private use of clips with more than 10 rounds? And with respect to gun shows, it's true that licensed dealers at gun shows must conduct background checks, but individuals not routinely involved in the gun trade ARE allowed to sell their guns without conducting background checks. It is certainly possible to place additional restrictions on private sellers at gun shows, and thereby to reduce the availability of guns to criminals, etc., without invading private homes. Yes, illegal gun sales would still occur, but it would be harder.
You say you only oppose stupid stuff, and I applaud you for that. But there are plenty of advocates who oppose all restrictions on gun ownership, just in principle. That stifles healthy debate, just as much as those who support every restriction they see without thinking about whether it's stupid.
- dmonasg September 10, 2008 6:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Dmonasg
private sales between persons are a horse of a different color. I must admit I don't purchase firearms from private individuals, just because I like to have a warranty with products.
The capacity thing I disagree on, but I can see where you are coming from. There are a lot of gun games that require higher capacity weapons, and also there have unfortunately been a number of civilian involved shootings where a person had to fight off, for lack of a better term, multiple attackers.
if you look at a lot of the guns used in crimes, many can't even hold more than 10 rounds. A lot of the handguns used for crime are just not in that category.
we'll come back to capacity restrictions in a minute-
I agree, some people on my side of the fence are a bit right of 'hard liner' with some of their views. Their thought process, or the thought process of some of the ones I've encountered, is as follows:
'death by a thousand papercuts' progressively more and more little bits of legislation to limit and price out many members of society from firearm ownership, until they have been forced to exist as a small minority- where they no longer have their rights respected.
many of those hard liners look at Australia and Great Britain, countries where legislation was increased, steadily for years, and then all of a sudden, their rights were stroked away with a single move of a pen. Overall violence in both countries went up after those pen strokes.
they are so fearful of being boxed into a corner that they lash out at any legislation.
I hate to make this reference, but it is one worth repeating. So I apologize in advance. Nazi Germany had gun laws that basically broke down as follows- you could own weapons for hunting, and you could store them at your local police station. To many, that sounds REASONABLE. some would say that its not a bad idea to have laws like that here.
we are obviously NOT nazi Germany; however, none of us can read the future. we don't know what rights our kids, our our grandchildren may need to be happy and healthy in our society. This goes beyond guns too. If we allow guns and the 2nd amendment to be gutted, we set precedent for the WHOLE bill of rights to fall under scrutiny.
I'm not against background checks- I think they are a great thing. The capacity ban I think is silly, just because most encounters and shootings in the civilian world happen with less than 5 rounds- its somewhere on the FBI website, but you can check.
so why limit something that isn't a problem?
A lot of people say, well what about that bank of America robbery in California? that was a terrible tragedy, where 2 crazy guys did some serious gun smithing and black market dealing to get some heavy weaponry.
but what ended it? Police, taking civilian legal guns (ar-15s) and putting the shooters down. what was the response of California? ban civilians from owning the types of rifles the police took from a gunshop to stop the gunmen.
The problem I think, is that most of these legislators are more concerned with hype and votes than understanding the issue- so they put a lot of stuff together that sounds big and bad- and try to ban it. Alls that ends up doing is punishing law abiding citizens. Even if i don't agree with a law, I still obey it.
we are paying the price for their lack of diligence, and we pay it with our rights and our tax dollars.
The other problem is, much of the reasonable measures you talk about, get unreasonable things tacked on to them. Sure background checks are legal, but what was the fat stuck on that bill? what else were we forced to sacrifice to get one good thing?
thats more of a line veto question, but think of some of the laws that aren't gun related, that have passed regarding your hobbies. how much of it could have been better for citizens if the legislators really understood the subject, instead of focusing on what sounded big? what sounded good?
I think you make good points, but I think the price for some of the reasonable things comes with a higher price tag than many expect.
for instance- the brady campaign has a big push to oppose a bill right now- saying it would make it legal for children to walk the streets of DC with assault rifles.
if you read the bill, it basically undoes the unconstitutional ban, as ruled by the Supreme Court, in washington DC.
Don't forget also that DC, or Phili- these are cities with the tightest and most restrictive gun laws. yet they have the most violence. if that doesn't prove that much of this legislation is wasted, I don't know what does.
- MikesSpot September 10, 2008 8:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books. Is that too few??
Remember: NO law can prevent anything!!
- Nightowl22 December 12, 2008 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
That's why even they can't provide a study that shows that banning guns , or even restricting access to them by law -abiding citizens results in a reduction in crime . However, if you have access to such a study, can you please provide it here? I will personally forward it to the Brady Campaign if you can.
On the other hand, there are plenty of studies that show a reduction in crime in areas where handgun carry is allowed. So to say that the evidence is ambiguous is a misrepresentation of the facts. And in general I agree with your statement on anecdotes. But they do serve to emphasize a point. I guess you said that though, didn't you? ;-)
Good closing statement too.
- LagerHead July 20, 2009 4:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
i know personally of people who have obtained unregistered guns, because anyone planning on using a gun for crime does not want it tracked back. i have also seen neighborhoods where everyone has a gun but no1 says or uses them because they know everyone else has one.
- ignint October 1, 2008 9:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The one time I used my 45, I was glad I had it.
I was at home ,it was early morning.My dogs were in a kennel in the backyard,barking.
Our driveway had no cars in it as my wifes car was in for repair and she was using mine---this is something thieves look for.
I was in bed, the dogs had woken me, a shadow went by the bedroom curtain on the sliding glass door,
I grabbed my 45,ran down the hall, stopped at the corner and peered around it. I could here prying come from the sliding glass door in our living room.
Two guys outside were trying to break in, they thought no one was home-------Surprise-----I held them at gun point called the cops and had even discharged a round to let them know I meant business.
Cops came, wife arrived home for lunch, what a day.
But in the end it was bad guys-0, good guys-2 ---- 2-bad guys equals 2 points.
So, Damn right it makes us safer,but with firearms ownership comes a heap of responsibility, so keep your weapons like you keep your wife and kids, close by your side and respect their unique abilities.
- wedge October 16, 2008 8:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
More guns, less crime.. More freedom, less crime.
The facts speak for themselves..
(More freedom means more adherence to the constitution).
- Nightowl22 November 18, 2008 10:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
The question asked was, "do guns make you feel safer'.
My answer is no, they don't. But that's not the point. For years I took the IRAs stance that hunting rifles etc o.k. Assault rifles, bad idea. However, now that I have taken the time to read the second amendment of the Constitution, I have changed my position.
My question is, is there a Constition? Some people seem to think it's just a piece of G.D. paper. mmm. Next question. Why do we swear in our military and public officials with verbage stating they would support and defend the Constitution? (foreign and domestic) That domestic part may have something to do with tyranical government.mmm
Is it or isn't it? Do we have a Constitution or not? Are our leaders in government upholding the Constitution or usurping our rights?
In my humble opinion, ban the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Cause God only knows alcohol and guns don't mix; certainly a handful of prozac and a baseball bat couldn't either.
Either it is or it ain't. I think the message is clear from the top down, it ain't. So call a spade a spade Mr.Congressmen/Senator/Military Commanders. Just call it the way you see it.
At least then the "Law" abiding citizens of this country can make the necssary decisions that need to be made. Either you are for US or against US.
Tank you for your time.
- Lowell L Morse March 13, 2009 7:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I believe owning and keeping a handgun in your home makes you liable to accidental injury or even death. So I'd like to see honest statistics showing whether owning and keeping a handgun makes you safer.
This has nothing to do with the question of whether it is your right to oown a handgun. The current legal opinion is that you do. This could, of course, change. In the past, many Supreme Court decisions have been reversed. This recent decision seems very questionable.
Note that if you do have in your home a handgun, and a burglar enter, he/she will "have the drop on you". He may not shoot you if you dont show him your gun. but he surely will if you do.
So I urge you not to have a handgun. A sports rifle is a different matter.
I also see it as being more effective to show people that having a handgun only gives you a false sense of security. In real life, it will not help. This approach is likely to be more effective than trying to pass legislation, which might require changing the Constitution.
GKM
- GKM June 8, 2009 7:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yes I feel safer because I am safer. I have used my gun on more than one occasion to prevent theft, assault and who knows what else had I not been armed. In all cases I did nothing to provoke anyone, never fired a shot and no children died from my weapon. In "real life" just having the weapon is enough of a deterrent. In cases when I did not have a weapon it resulted in a physical altercation sometimes resulting in injury.
Typically a burgler would make some type of noise entering your home. Unless you welcome him in by leaving the doors and windows unlocked. I could never imagine a situation where anyone woud "have the drop on me" ever, especially in my own home.
And having a gun in my home is no more dangerous than any other tool.
- jaker277 June 30, 2009 9:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Accidental injury and/or death from a handgun usually is the result of improper handling. Quite frankly, if you are handling a firearm and not using the standard safety techniques, you're asking for trouble.
The gross majority of legitimate gun owners respect the potential of their weapons, and things like that don't happen. The few who don't, however, are the ones who make the news for being stupid. I'd rather not be lumped in with them. I know what I'm doing with mine.
In real life, having a handgun DOES help. There have been many stories of defense from a handgun that would not be afforded by any other means. I just read an article about a man who was stalking a woman for over a year. She bought a gun. He broke in. She called 911 and hid in her bedroom, and he broke down the door. He then tried to strangle her, and then HIS funeral was planned for that weekend. Without the gun, it would have been hers.
As for the right to own a handgun, that will never change . Or, better yet, if it does, it will very literally cause an armed rebellion. The whole purpose of the second amendment was to protect us against the tyranny that government can bring. It is the last defense of the people against the government. Take that away, and the second American revolution starts.
- rayven September 18, 2009 12:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am a military man (retired) guns have never killed unless used by a person. Outside the line of duty I have used a weapon two times. NEVER fired it, just seeing that the opposition was armed stopped both attempted assaults. I have a half century in military and /or law enforcement and strongly favor Americans having and being trained to use firearms for self protection.
Please think logically, most LEO's never have to fire their weapons in the line of duty. There is a reason for this, the criminal knows he WILL use the weapon and he will use it fairly well. The average criminal will prefer to surrender when he realizes he is facing someone trained and willing to use lethal force.
- oneoldman June 10, 2009 10:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
When I go to church there are more gun toting mama's and papa's there and I cant tell you one thing it does make me feel safer. These are responsible people by the way, not druggies or crazies, just God fearing, country loving, family protecting good ole folks. Maybe I will get a gun. No I think I ll just hang with those who have them instead.
- Hope7 July 2, 2009 11:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
When I preach I do step on toes.I have the druggies and some crazies and not very many responsible people setting in church .With god on my side I will keep preaching .
- countryboy July 3, 2009 10:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Well, I can see both sides trying to justify their position. Here's mine: I cordially invite ANY burgler to come and invade my home. Do I have a gun or not? Enter at your own risk!! Since I'm doing the invitation, you probably think I have a gun/ guns . Are you willing to RISK YOUR LIFE on that? Are you prepared to meet your maker? You will not get a "stop or I'll shoot" warning. CLICK, BANG. That is all you'll receive. Still wanting to try to enter my home? Enough said. Guns make you safer because CRIMINALS LOVE UNARMED VICTIMS. RESPONSIBLE gun owners dont kill people. They kill criminals, muggers, car jackers, rapists, child molesters and those tryng invading their homes. James Allyn Washingon.
- jaydee1958 September 25, 2009 7:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Whether one agrees with the right to own guns or not, it is highly hypocritical of the States United to Prevent Gun Violence to dismiss the NRA's argument as invalid, due to problems in causal relationships, and then go on to commit its own similar arguments.
The Hepburn and Hemenway document that was referred to is not without faults, and it actually works in neither the SUPG or the NRA's favor to cite it. The bipartisan fact checking website, Factcheck.org, provides a valuable article regarding this question and the topic at hand at http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_violent_crimes_more_or_less_common.html .
Of important note is the following:
"It found that studies of the United States or U.S. cities, states and regions 'generally find a statistically significant gun prevalence-homicide association.' ...So where there are guns, there is likely a higher rate of murders committed with guns in particular. However, the report noted, 'None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide.' In fact, major studies on this issue have not shown cause-and-effect – that the presence of guns causes more murders to occur (or crime in general) – which is certainly a more difficult hypothesis to test."
Though I personally am a strong supporter of gun ownership and do believe that widespread gun ownership is safer than none, the argument for it (or against it), when it comes to causation of crime and murder, is not as simple as the NRA or the the States United to Prevent Gun Violence suggests. It is a very difficult thing to measure and quite often goes far beyond inanimate objects themselves.
- leliathomas
December 10, 2008 10:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
How about the murder per capita?? It is about the same as The rest of the country, no?? Maybe a little less-they have to walk a mile to find a neighbor to shoot.
- Nightowl22 December 12, 2008 9:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think it's funny to suggest that there may be confirmation bias on the part of NRA supporters who call the conclusion of the Hepburn and Hemenway study into question.
One might use the quote: 'None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide.' One might use this quote as IF the Hepburn and Hemenway study DID find causation, they would AGREE with that causation, which according to their own POV, they WOULD NOT. May I suggest that the "causation" mentioned is to keep the researchers from having to face endless witch-hunts? You know, when you disagree, sometimes people tend to get violently 'passionate' with you.
Of course when one side uses a document like the Constitution as the basis of their moral arguments, a document written by white slave-owners who imposed martial law to restrict the freedoms of millions... then one will always be correct in their assumptions of safety and freedom behind the barrel and the bullet.
- poemgranite April 7, 2009 9:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Doesn't mean they're wrong!
Facts are stubborn things...check out this link: http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
- JR Ewing August 27, 2009 11:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Reasons gun control doesn't work:
1. Criminals by definition break the law .
2. Criminals get guns from family or friends, not gun shows or gun stores.
3. Preventing law -abiding citizens from attaining guns will only help criminals by keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens.
- mhphoto June 18, 2009 10:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Gun control doesn't work. Keeping guns from law abiding citizens will only help the criminals
- countryboy July 3, 2009 9:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I completely agree that the right to carry a gun does indeed make you safer, whether it is in your own home or at a college campus. I am highly aware the fear people have about the wrong kind of people being able to carry, but the truth is that there are plenty of people that have respect for firearms, and therfore will use them to protect themselves and possibly others if needed. It makes complete sense that crime would be lower in right to carry states.
- TrapshootingGirl February 7, 2009 6:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I totally agree with the argument that guns make you safer. They are perfectly safe in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. I disagree with handgun bans because the only thing they do is give criminals an advantage by taking away the right of citizens to protect themselves.
- Mander February 8, 2009 3:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
A gun is a tool it cant think for itself,you cant buy a welding tank and "become a welder".You must first understand how/when to use any "tool".And with a firearm when NOT to use it. A home defense system should have several "layers" of defense such as a hidden alarm,barking dog,good locks and proper lighting.The gun is the last resort.The truth is even if you are forced to take a life the problems that will follow (court,emotional and finacial) can be devasting.This is why you must learn the laws and prepare yourself for what may happen then decide if a gun is right for you.
- bottlefly bartender September 19, 2008 6:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Although the federal government may not be, i'm a big fan of igilante justice. If someone breaks into your house armed with a gun, your handy bread knife isn't going to be enough to defend yourself from a criminal. Yes, guns are also used in crime, but 9 times out of 10, guns used in criminal acts have been obtained illegally. Criminals will get their guns, one way or another. Why stop innocent civilians from having a right to protect themselves in the case of an emergency?
- Brady November 11, 2008 12:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Violent criminals fear an armed citizen more than they do the police!!! It is a fact they will target Women,Children the old the unaware but they will not target an armed citizenThey know thier chances of survival u[pon attacking an armed cicizen are slim to none! Take away our right to bear arms and the criminals will have all the guns ,They do obey the law in the first place!
- icolt45 April 15, 2009 6:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Actually there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually of which more than 80% are brandishing - so yes, responsible gun use does make you safer.
- RawLaw May 28, 2009 12:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As a handicapped person ( I am a BKA Below the Knee Amputee ) I am unable to flee, or back up.I tend to fall down whenever I try to back away.
I feel much more secure when I am able to have the protection of a firearm with me.
- Pegleg4570 June 18, 2009 6:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have to agree that Michigan has set an example.
At the very least, criminal misuse of firearms hasn't increased since the CCW went from "may-issue" to "shall-issue" in 2001. As the news article cited indicates, reported criminal misuse of firearms has decreased marginally.
It might be within the region of statistical noise. Or it might not.
Apparently, the a statewide increase in concealed-carry-permit-holders hasn't done anything to increase criminal misuse of firearms.
However, it is not the guns that make people safe. It is proper use of guns that make people safe.
- karrde September 11, 2008 7:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
The Police can not be everywhere at once. They are often outnumbered by 500 to 1 or more. They do the best they can but they are not your personal body guard. When seconds count, the Police are Minutes Away. For this reason it is your personal responsibility to have & train with the tools necessary to secure yourself & your household.
- DustinsGunBlog September 5, 2008 1:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
This seems like an odd perspective, given the motto of the LAPD. Does the police department misunderstand their own role?
- Jordan Gray
February 28, 2009 9:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
If you take a look at Hartzler v. the City of San Jose you will discover that the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Seriously. And don't look to the constitution for help on this one, either. According to attorney Richard W. Stevens: "in its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the US Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm."
Police officers have, from time to time, failed in their "duty" to protect citizens because of sheer negligence. Under such circumstances, no citizen is allowed to sue a police officer (or police department) for the loss of a loved one due to an erroneous officer not doing his job, because as the supreme court mentioned, police officers are not constitutionally (or legally) responsible for protecting individual citizens. Sucks to pay their salary, doesn't it?
- Livvy April 28, 2009 10:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Your so right.Thats why we need to take the steps to protect our selfs with our guns .
- countryboy July 3, 2009 9:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Darn Skippy! There is no such thing as a "Gun Free Zone" where armed criminals are concerned. To them, "Gun Free" Translates as "Ample Pickings".
Law-Abiding citizens need to have the option of LTC to protect themselves against the ever-growing population of armed-and-violent criminals that are running our streets.
- Mike S March 24, 2009 9:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
that's all. Amen brother
- blh11358 May 21, 2009 6:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
laws were not created to protect people, they were created to punish people.
- larson014 June 1, 2009 12:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
This is true, but not just for women. In the case of a felonious attack by an armed assailant, a man is just as vulnerable as a woman. I would also have to say that the victim deserves more than an "equalizer," and in fact should have an advantage. Most of these attacks happen outside the home; in dark parking lots, and other lonely, empty places. How about let's change the rules? How about handgun ownership automatically comes with a CCW (concealed carry permit)? But it also comes with the responsibilities - that is, a handgun owner must receive extensive training - and I'm not talking about a couple of sessions at the local range - training in small arms for self-defense and situational awareness. Ultimately, human life is at stake, and surely none of us wants a passerby hurt. Imagine then how many criminals would consider a robbery in your local Mom & Pop, with the possibility of several armed and trained citizens inside.
- Old Rogue September 3, 2008 4:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Ummm, I don't suppose it cuts any ice with you that the most civilized societies in the world ARE managing to live without guns? Your logic is flawed and pre-historic. You have more murders in one day in this country than most of Europe in its entirety in a month! The UK police force still manages to work without guns - and guess what - sky hasn't fallen in - and we're very safe than you very much. Only in America... yep, only in America. Get a grip!
See: http://stoptheworldiwannagetoff.com/2008/06/27/repeal-the-2nd-amendment /
- ukmarcus September 3, 2008 5:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Does the name 'Jean-Charles de Menezes' ring a bell? No? How about 'Operation Kratos'? Not that either? How about the Iranian embassy siege?
- sandcrystal September 3, 2008 10:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Yes, thanks, well aware... you have to go back some time though to find these isolated incidents eh? A price we're willing to pay to live without guns. If I want to find out the latest school shooting in the U.S. though I'd have to go back all of, um, wait about 5 minutes?
- ukmarcus September 4, 2008 11:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have to go back to yesterdays newspaper to see the violence carried out for example in Mexico, Canada, Brazil,Africa, Iraq, Iran, Georgia etc etc etc by the governments you people so like to love. Your price is to be a peon of the state, subject to every whim of the people in power. No thank you. I and a lot of other people want to live in freedom. The Swiss have a system where every able male has an automatic rifle and ammunition in their house and the Swiss doen't have a tidle wave of shooting crazies. Crime has very nothing to do with guns and a lot to do with the social system to handle conflicts and reduce conflict when it starts. Sadly, the American system is based on a long drawn out process of law which doesn't act proactively has many other flaws that hopefully will be fixed.
- comensense25 September 4, 2008 2:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
If I remember correctly about 60 years ago civilized Europe started WWII. In england good old Winston was asking for volunters to stand on the beaches with pitchforks. Resulting dead of that war 100,000.000. Back in Clintons time much closer to 2008 for the technie people civilized Europe watched and went tisk tisk as the Serbs butchered perhaps 200.000 more. Against that background I don't think Europe or England has much to say to America. The one excepttion is Switzerland where every male over 18 that is fit has and knows how to use an automatic rifle and has ammunition in his closet. Last I checked the Swiss were not having a huge crime wave of gun wielding crazies.
We have guns to protect not against crime but to protect the people from the state. England having no written constitutional rights for its citizens and the people having lost their rights to carry arms, the same rights we had in 1776, could make a law tomorrow to kill any undesirable. Which is what the Nazi masters did. They first took away the guns and than eliminated their undesirables. Can't happen in England? Perhaps not but a lot of English gentlemen thought Adolt was on the right track back before 1938. Remember also boys and girls a well run police state has very little violent crime, North Korea comes to mind as a perfect modern example. Protection from criminals is just a freebee as protection from the state makes the politicians nervous.
- comensense25 September 3, 2008 11:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Fair point I guess. Sad though that you have to live like cowboys to feel safe. This 'seige' mentality will ultimately get you nowhere I feel. The French managed to have a revolution without a second amendment and this line of thinking will never move your society forward. So sure, keep your guns and your death penalty, and out of control society like the US obviously needs both. When you're ready to join the rest of the first world let me know! (Although I feel the U.S. is sewing the seeds of it's own destruction and will probably implode from within in the next 100-150 years?) Luckily there are states in the north east that are more akin to European of thinking. You know, the trouble with the gun lobby and the death penalty addicts is that most of them are in the south - which also wanted to fight for keeping slavery. Weird, huh? My guess is that this debate can still be drawn along the north - south divide.
- ukmarcus September 4, 2008 11:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
This isn't a debate about a north south divide or your other ad homem arguments. Europe has a history of governments killing people that is very current, remember the serbs? remember the French revolution in the 1950's over Algeria? remember England in Malasia? As to your tranquil vision of europe, what about the Moslem riots in France and England and the bombings in those countries and Spain. The problem with europe is the present power structure doesn't want or doesn't know how to integrate people of different backgrounds so you have a vast underground of unemployed youth which will explode. Perhaps thats why europe wants to disarm everybody. Makes the politicians nervous. America in contrast is a nation of minorities all mixing up and making something new sometimes the result is good and sometimes bad but we keep trying. We will be here long after europe is a footnote in history.
- comensense25 September 4, 2008 2:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Problem there is, if you defend yourself they will throw YOU in jail!!!
Gun doesn't do you much good there. That would get you a murder sentence for defending yourself.
- Nightowl22 December 12, 2008 9:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The problem for you UK folks is your short memories about government power and how its used by those in power. Remember the Iris troubles, bombing, killing, revenge bombing and killing, the army and police shooting left and right that went on for 50 years or more. You lost several famous statesmen and plenty of people who just wanted to go about their lawfull business. The police went in for no trial detention, shoot the bastards policies and bang their heads law enforcement which didn't work very well. The troubles finnally stopped when the government started paying attention to the causes of the rebellion which lasted into the 1990's. Finnally, I suspose using your logic the Swiss aren't civilized as each male keeps his gun and amunition at home. I respect England I just think you people have taken a wrong track.
- comensense25 September 4, 2008 2:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
"Indisputable studies have concluded that there are 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms every year."
The studies are definitely disputable. In fact, that statistic has been called into question consistently - and is easily disputed when compared to reported crime rates and common sense. Please cite the studies and we'll get into the details. Suffice it to say, there are not 2.5m thwarted crimes each year thanks to quick drawing gun owners.
For every documented case of a permit holder thwarting a crime, I can show you several documented cases of a gun owner killing an innocent person. Hard to balance that cost with the benefit of occasional prevention.
The rest of your argument doesn't seem to hold up when you look at the stats. http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm
Florida was well above the national average in 1987 across all categories of crime. By 1993, most crime rates had gone up, continuing to stay above the national average. One category - homicide - fell from 11.4 per 100k residents to 8.9, falling just below the national average of 9.5 that year. Every other crime category saw an increase. So where were the concealed weapons effects there? How do you presume to prove that concealed weapon permit holders caused the decrease in homicide rates?
Asking gun owners how often their guns stopped a crime is a highly charged question prone to error. The measured results show that the period of time you chose to look at saw an increase in the crime rate. And most people who study crime (peer-reviewed scientists and government agencies) will tell you that citizens' rate of gun ownership, concealed carry permit count and other measures of gun use by non-criminals has no material effect on crime rates.
Perception is a powerful tool. Citing disputed results as indisputable and cherry picking statistics is not a valid way to form public opinion or guide legislation. It would be great if your version of reality were the truth, but it's not.
- nbkwx55 September 15, 2008 9:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My fiancee works in city center Philadelphia and is, wind permitting, a well hocked loogie from some not very nice places. Given that her calves are about the size of my biceps, she can offer about zero effective resistance to anyone offering her violence. I hope she never needs to use the pistol she carries, but I'm glad she has it.
- MilitiaJim November 12, 2008 4:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"every day innocent children accidentally kill themselves or are killed by another child" - that is an outright lie at worst, and a complete stretch of the truth at best. If you include children killed by gang members AND include gang members killed by gang members, then yes every day would certainly be true. To make such a statement you have to consider everyone under the age of 20 a child & completely innocent. If you want to end gang violence you need to lock up the gang members, not disarm law abiding citizens.
- DustinsGunBlog September 5, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(7)
Side: Yes
I see the merits of both sides, but your discussion should discuss hard facts, trends, etc. Out of 100 million+ households in the U.S. there will surely be tragedies that occur with guns, but what has the behavior of houses with guns resulted in? More deaths? Less? More crime? Less? More safety from robberies? Less? As a group you should be better educators.
- pdctravel September 5, 2008 4:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I have never understood this argument for taking away guns. Sure there is some degree of risk involved in owning a firearm, but public safety and health can NEVER be allowed to trump our rights as citizens of these United States. Otherwise we might as well rename the country "The United Socialist States of America." Oh, and be prepared to kiss you right to speech against the government and your right to protection from illegal search and seizure to be "temporarily suspended" until they catch all outstanding criminals and hate crime perpetrators. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that even the government recognizes AT LEAST 1.5 million defensive handgun uses per year... that means hundreds of thousands of lives saved, if not millions every year. Also, check your statistics, because every year more children under the age of 7 drown in toilets and bathtubs than die from firearms. Why have I not seen an argument entitled "Toilets and Tubs, Are Your Children Safe in Your Own Home?"
- mobilemarvel September 12, 2008 1:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: Yes
The latest data I can find on this matter is from the CDC using WISQARS tool. For unintentional (accident) death-by-firearm for year 2005, ages 0 - 18 (not just 'children' but minors) the data show 154 fatalities out of 77,546,344 minors. Sorry, but that's not very alarming.
For suicides during the same year and for the same age range it was 600 even. Again, that's not very alarming considering the number of minors.
How about unintentional drowning? 1,057. Same year, same age group. Unintentional poisoning? 456. Residential fire? 479. Motor vehicle? 5,870. My point in all of this is that 'children' die in a variety of ways more frequently than they do at the end of a gun, and stopping some guy at a cash register with another ill concieved law will not make these already low numbers go down.
- CTone October 26, 2008 5:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: Yes
I hold a degree in Actuarial Science and Quantitative Risk Analysis and I can tell you without any doubt that stats can be made to say whatever the presenter wants them to say. I grew up in a house with many firearms, some automatic, and never had an incident where either I, or one of my sisters, ever misused one. We were taught at an early age to respect our folks and obey them and that meant not to touch the firearms without their permission. I am currently a Loss Control/Risk Manager and can tell you that there are many dangers in your home that pose a greater risk to your children than firearms. I remember watching a mother on a talk show talk about how her teenaged stepson broke into the parents locked bedroom and retrieved their pistol and accidentally shot her son and paralyzed him. She said that both of the children were victims and the fact that the pistol was in the house was a tragedy waiting to happen. Is there no personal responsibility anymore? One thing I do not understand about the gun argument is that many of the anti-gun people who would rather see 100 innocent people deprived of the right to a firearm if it could prevent 1 criminal from misusing it are the same people who would rather see 100 criminals go free than see one innocent person go to jail. Does this make sense to anyone?
- Wulfgar November 12, 2008 9:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
I grew up in a house hold around firearms. I was taught from an early age to respect them and to know what kind of damage they are capable of if misused. Even with the access I had to them as a child, I never dreamed of using one to solve any altercations I may have encountered. My heart goes out to those who have lost children because they, as parents were incapable of doing their job and teaching their children to respect them. A gun is simply a tool, nothing more. A child could take a sword to school and do as much damage as a gun can. A kid could take his fork from lunch and stab the person next to him and kill him. How many children have been killed by rocks?
I am sorry if my chosen past time makes you uncomfortable, I truly am. I have made offers to many who oppose firearms to come out to my range and allow me to teach them about firearms and operate a few of them in a controlled environment where safety is of the utmost importance.
- TerryD March 2, 2009 10:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
In 2001, 41,611 people died in car accidents. Clearly, then, car ownership is a public safety epidemic that must be curtailed.
- Zmoney187
March 10, 2009 6:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
If some people are irresponsible and routinely or momentarily fail to prevent small children from having access to their guns, then they should be punished under the appropriate laws (reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, or whatever that may be). If someone fails to properly keep knives out of reach of a child and that child stabs itself, you don't propose to ban non-governmental ownership of knives. If some moron buckles their 2 year old into the front seat without a child seat of their car and that child is injured or killed, you don't propose to ban non-governmental ownership of automobiles arguing that public transportation will fulfill our transportation needs. I know some people are horribly irresponsible. I've read the horror stories too. That's why my handgun is in my nightstand inside of a biometric (fingerprint) safe so that my 3 year old son can't get to it, but if the drug dealer that has followed me home twice decides to break in I can keep him from harming my son rather than just calling the police to come put me and my family in body bags. Some people are stupid and irresponsible. However, many are very responsible. When the irresponsible cause others harm they should be punished, but the responsible should not punished due to others' irresponibility or incometence.
- jbritt March 11, 2009 10:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
#1 cause of death for children are motor vehicles. Should we ban cars?
#2 is drowning. Should we ban swimming pools? Going to the beach?
#3 is fires/burning. Should we ban fire? Smoking? Defective heaters? Fireplaces?
#4 is suffocation. Should we strap on scuba tanks to all children?
#9 is death from falling. Should we make our kids wear nerf suits from head to toe?
#11 is poisoning. Should we be required to watch everything our kids ingest, every minute, of every day, everywhere they may go?
How about leaving guns alone, which is #12 on the list, until you're successful with all those others?
- shooter March 29, 2009 11:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Yes, owning a gun kills children .
So does owning a car. But if everyone drove their cars responsibly, according to all applicable laws, this wouldn't be true.
So does buying a plane ticket. But if planes were perfectly maintained and there were no extenuating circumstances like weather, this wouldn't be true.
So does walking across the street. But if parents always looked both ways, and nobody ever ran red lights and always yielded to pedestrians this wouldn't be true.
While some of the above examples are a bit ridiculous, so are all the arguments presented by the anti-gun agenda. The fact is, some people are irresponsible. Whether you're talking about guns , driving, taking medication , paying their bills; whatever. You CANNOT change the behavior of irresponsible people.
However, if you look at the number of legal gun owners in the U.S. vs. the number of violent crimes and accidents attributed to them, you will see they are among the safest group, statistically.
While the story above is tragic, it was the result of irresponsible parents. Parents who would leave a loaded gun so obviously accessible to a 3 year old child, probably leave poisonous chemicals like bleach within easy reach as well. But where is the anti-bleach agenda in this country?
Another thing the author forgets to mention is the myriad other ways children die in this country at much higher rates than gun accidents, most of which are also preventable.
- LagerHead June 22, 2009 10:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
maybe it's time to change your position.
You claim: “owning a gun in many instances places our children in grave danger.”
I’m sorry, but on what ACTUAL RESEARCH is your claims based?
The federal government lists the total firearm related deaths for children (0-14) as 251 out of 4,178,898 or 0.69 per day; while there were 2,716 in the same age range, 7.44 per day, that drown. (CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 2006) While each death is a tragedy 4 children die each day in the U.S. from parental neglect and abuse. (National Center on Child Abuse Prevention, 1998 Annual Survey) and Over 13 teenagers die every day in automobiles,
SEVEN are behind the wheel. (U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 2001).
If guns are the problem: Name the U.S. cities with STRICT gun control laws AND crime rates LOWER than the national average.
Whom do you propose should bear the responsibility of protecting you and your loved ones if not you?
The courts have ruled that police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS; despite the non-binding slogan “protect and serve” on their cars :
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody )
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Besides: If YOU are unwilling to protect your loved ones by all means, including with a gun, why should a police officer risk his life to save something that is of such little value that even the OWNER is unwilling to protect it?
Name the last massacre that WASN’T in a “Gun-Free Zone”.
Or how about naming 5 massacres in “Gun-Rich Zones”.
- Wildfire August 12, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
According to the CDC, some 2,200 children ages 1 to 15 die in car accidents per year vs. 600 from guns . IMO, one is too many in either case, but let's get real. In a world where the average human IQ is around 100, a very large cross section of the population is necessarily below average. For those of subnormal intelligence, it doesn't make a speck of difference what tool you put in their hands, whether it's a turkey baster or a nuclear weapon. They simply aren't bright enough to use tools without causing themselves, or others, harm.
Does the author of this piece truly give a rip about saving children? If so, their agenda should be first and foremost ridding the country of automobiles. This is especially true considering two out of three fatal car accidents are caused by people who are NOT drunk.
Still, I do believe anti gun lobbyists serve a useful purpose. These are the folks who make up the cross section of the population who are not only unable to use tools safely, but openly recognize the fact and freely choose not to use tools. That really is a good thing. From some of the comments I've seen, I'd be scared silly to see dangerous weapons in their hands.
I just wish there were some way to take away their automobiles. After all, we have plenty of highly trained, and highly skilled operators of public transportation , so there's really no reason they should own a car. Plus, you can look at the statistics from any area where cars are not used and see the death rates from auto accidents are admirably low.
- Don Earl August 14, 2009 5:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
You mannaged to find an irresposible parent that owned a gun.
First I will give you that the parents were negligent in not securing the firearm in a safe place. That is the only place your opinion is worth reading. A firearm is an inanimate object. Like My Dad,My GrandFather, and my Drill Instructor told me many years ago. A firearm is stupid. It can NOT do anything until a human tells it to do it. I have raised four children and I have quite a few firearms . I am a Right to Carry Holder and my children have not shot themselves. These parents failed to maintain proper safety, and I feel sorry that this happened, and they will be tormented for the rest of their lives for being stupid about proper safety proceedures. No matter how you slice it ypu can not make stupidity illeagal.
- WarLock44 September 19, 2009 12:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(0)
Side: Yes
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
The most violent, tragic school tragedy in American History was the Bath School Disaster of 1927. 45 were killed and 58 wounded, most of which were children younger than 6th grade.
It was perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe, A school board member who was upset over a property tax increase. He used a series of explosions to carry out his deadly deed.
Don't talk about ease of committing terrible atrocities without reviewing, mourning, and respecting the most tragic one of its kind to occur in our nation. Do not imply that the tragic events of school shootings are limited to teen perpetrators- that is false. Do not say teens commonly experiment with drugs and alcohol, and then making a suggestive statement like teens often think of suicide.
Those things may all be true- but are not all true of each other. Your mixing a series of different studies from different samples and presenting a picture that is not representative of American Culture.
Of course the presence of a gun would increase the likelihood of injury in those circumstances- your talking about a suicidal, homicidal, drug addicted, intoxicated, mentally unstable, depressed person. The presence of a shoe string would increase that person's likelihood of injury.
your taking the most extreme, hypothetical, deranged situation- stripping inconvenient facts- and trying to present it as some form of reality. thats not debating- its generating a fiction.
- MikesSpot September 8, 2008 9:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
How many school shootings are "acceptable"? I think the NRA's answer diverges wildly from the majority of the population. Kids aren't made safer at school with guns easily available to their classmates or the people that decide to wander in.
The issues are
1) possession of guns are totally in our legislature's control
2) the majority of people would prefer that guns not be easy to possess, but because they don't pay lobbyists at the rate the gun manufacturers and owners do, legislatures ignore them over those that do contribute.
3) disturbed kids and adults have proven, repeatedly, that they can use the current system to easily possess as many guns as they need to cause mass death and injury.
The NRA's solution of
a) reminding people they should be more responsible
b) asking the government to ensure no mentally disturbed person possesses a gun (but not by any restriction on the 2nd amendment, mind you)
c) encourage the use of a background check system which they fought tooth and nail against when it was proposed and when it needs funding
is a good summary of why the NRA is so reviled. None of these solutions have a realistic chance of fixing the problem. All of these points seem defensible, at first glance, and give them good cover when nobody bother reading past the headline (and most don't). But when you take a close look at what they're doing, they are simply throwing out deceptive, distracting arguments to keep guns on the streets and allow gun violence to continue unchecked.
They have the gall to stand up after public shootings to say this never would have happened if the victims had been armed. As if we all desire a wild west shoot out as the best way to prevent gun violence. Or insult our intelligence by assuming we accept the idea that the average gun owner is qualified to start shooting in a public place at anyone they perceive to be a threat.
Our kids have to go through metal detectors at schools, have their bags and lockers searched and other forms of security as a response to the "need" to keep guns on the streets. Ridiculous. Since the NRA has no shame in their valuing gun ownership privileges over innocent people's lives, it would be nice if the voters and our Congress did.
- nbkwx55 September 9, 2008 9:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
lets talk about those school shootings
those 'no guns allowed' signs don't seem to be working from the mass murderers standpoint, so maybe we should try a new approach, like right to self defense. Why shouldn't I, a PhD student, legal to carry every but campus, be afforded the same protection of my rights? why not my professors? faculty? staff?
the one consistent thing about school shootings, all the honest and good people listened. Not one honest, good, person was armed- because they listened to those signs. Unfortunately, homicidal, deranged killers, ignored them- and people were slaughtered.
Kids don't need to go through metal detectors cause of fa 'need' to keep guns on the street- don't make such statements. Kids go through those metal detectors to appease higher ups that their signs just need one more step to work. First we hang a no gun sign, then metal detectors, then searches, then cops in buildings. How much money, and how many lives, need to be thrown at this problem to realize WE NEED A NEW APPROACH.
Columbine was committed by 2 crazy people who broke 22+ gun laws- just gun laws. we don't need more gun laws. we need to strip away the crap ones, stop new crap ones from being written, and give money to our police to do their job. How much money was wasted on those things that don't work?
Most people are good and smart- and will make good, smart choices. They will do the same regarding defense of their own lives. Trust them.
- MikesSpot September 10, 2008 3:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I was pointing out that the current system of gun control as advocated by the NRA is a farce - they tried to fight background checks and now fight the funding for it all the while claiming it's all we need combined with better enforcement of gun laws to keep everyone safe. Somehow they advocate the need for a stronger state for enforcement but actively work to limit its power through funding. It's becoming clear that no level of reasonable funding can keep guns out of the wrong people's hands, so let's be practical and take them off the street altogether.
To your point on self-enablement: If you ask your classmates if they want you armed with a handgun in class, in the hallway, in the library and on campus paired up with your personal judgment of who poses a threat to yourself or anyone else AND granted the right to shoot at will, I will bet you a large sum of money they will overwhelmingly vote "no". A graduate student at UNC-Chapel Hill started picking off pedestrians downtown with his gun and had to be shot dead by the police . Good, smart choices were lacking by him.
After you lose that vote, go ask your local patrolmen assigned to cover your campus if they prefer all students to be armed. If your logic is sound then they should welcome the wave of deterrence that spreads over campus. Instead, they will envision the fistfights at parties that escalate into gunfights, the drunken arguments that turn into shootings, the accident rate in dorm rooms as guns are accidentally discharged while being shown off, etc. etc. If there's one thing most college students lack it's a consistent supply of good, smart choices and the police on campus can cite example after example.
So I agree with part of your posting - we need a new approach. That approach is banning handguns and most high powered "assault" rifles. Columbine was an example of how easy it is for disturbed people to not be prevented by any reasonably enforceable system from possessing the weapons needed to kill scores of people quickly. So let's stop trying to enforce unrealistic permits and background checks and just admit that it's a bad idea to let the average person possess most deadly weapons and ban their sale altogether.
Your right to self-defense, by the way, remains intact. Get all the tasers you want. Load up on pepper spray and knives. You won't have the ability to kill 6 people in quick succession, but you can protect yourself. If you declare that only criminals will have guns under this proposal then I'll say you're right, but currently only criminals have military -grade machine guns, grenades and explosive weapons but that doesn't mean we need civilians to be armed accordingly. The trade off under a ban is that fewer criminals will have guns and their use in escalating violence from simply causing injuries to causing multiple deaths will be reduced. The process of getting guns off the street will go faster than I believe most fear - there will be heavy incentives to go after known criminals who haven't been convicted simply to put them away on an easy-to-prove gun possession charge. As black market guns become more valuable, they won't be "wasted" on random acts of violence. They will fall into the same category as weapons we currently reserve for the military - and noone would be afraid that common criminals would use them for everyday crimes or that mentally unbalanced people will buy them from a store or steal them from an acquaintance.
- nbkwx55 June 23, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
First off- Kudos to you for commenting on a thread 8 months later. I'm not joking either, that definitely shows your passion for your point of view. I respect that immensely and thank you for input, however much I disagree with it.
With all due respect, I won't ask my classmates a damn thing, nor do I care about your suggestion of surveying them. I do not ask them about their activities, and they won't ask me about mine. So long as everyone is operating in a manner that is non damaging to other people and is legal , I could care less.
And who grants someone the right to shoot at will? are you assuming because you have a gun you'll use it? Do you run pedestrians down with a car when your driving because the opportunity exists? that is a farce of an argument and you know it. If it were true, legal concealed carry permit holders would be committing mass homicides in droves already- and that just does not happen.
and who said arm all students? where did that come from? no where. you invented that. No one is advocating arming everyone. it is not a logical conclusion to my argument or any argument I have seen presented on behalf of the pro-gun community. Arming everyone is a setup to your argument about criminals and guns . Its leading and you know it. I have more respect for you than that, don't try to slip that by me either- its kind of insulting.
Why not let those people who are deemed capable by the state and pass the necessary background checks, classes, and other required steps to arm themselves- as they can everywhere else? that is what I'm suggesting. Your arguing fiercely, but your not arguing against my points. Your fighting points that your making up.
and if all this violence would erupt as soon as guns were introduced, why hasn't that happened at the schools that allow students concealed carry? its been years since the students have been able to exercise their rights, and yet no incidents. . .
your new approach isn't new. it failed in Australia, England, south Africa, Mexico, India and Germany. Your idea of getting rid of all guns is completely unrealistic and nothing more than an impossible fantasy. Your suggestion will fail as miserably as prohibition did.
Self defense by the way, does not remain intact. Nor do my constitutional rights. Your right about criminals still having access to guns- and military grade ones. Why not disarm good citizens? You want me to defend myself with a knife or a taser against criminals with long guns and handguns? Really? thats your idea of adequate self defense?
Citizens are not going to be armed 'likewise' to the military. another made up argument on your part. You show me where citizens can buy law rockets, grenades, claymores, gaos, c4, and whatever else.
If bans worked- Mexico wouldn't be having the violence they have. And I know you followed the news to know that despite what early reports said, most of those guns confiscated did NOT come from US civilian markets. The military stuff came from corrupt officials outside of America doing backdoor deals for weapons given to those countries by us for their national defense. Your suggestion does nothing to fight corruption. I do not think that the availability of guns as you describe it will ever dry up. Corrupt people in key places will always exist- as will human ingenuity. A determined person can make some really nasty weapons pretty easily with things available around the house that can kill or hurt an awful lot of people. You can't legislate away all of these things. It is impossible.
lets assume your right- and reducing gun sales will limit criminals- then why did fatal stabbings go up in England after a gun ban, when violence across the board ALSO went up? if knives are so much less lethal, why did it kill more officers?
Your willing to trade our rights and our lives for a future Utopian dream that will not, i fear, ever happen. I cannot agree with your assessment. We both want the same thing- less criminals committing acts of violence, we just disagree on how to accomplish it. I have yet to see anything that is remotely convincing to show me that guns cause higher levels of violence. Everything that seems to even begin to point that direction has imaginary statistics and completely misleading (intentionally) statements.
I feel your assessment shows a lack of trust in your fellow citizens- and one I do not agree with.
- MikesSpot June 23, 2009 2:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So here's one point we clearly disagree on - if the majority of your students don't want you armed in the classroom they are sharing with you, then I believe you shouldn't be armed. I would extend that to a city, state or nation. Guns allow people to perpetrate violence and kill other people on a large scale and with little effort. Their utility to society is negligible compared to anything else that kills at the same rate and yes, I'm assuming the "millions" of self-assessed crimes prevented by gun owners are in fact not real and that the true number is much, much lower. Since the most significant effect of your gun is on the people around you I think they get to make the call.
My analogy of arming everybody was to refute your logic that we need a new approach to stop school shootings and that approach is to allow students to be armed at school. At some point funding the police better was also raised but didn't seem to get much airtime so I focused on why arming a civilian population, especially college students, was a bad idea. In general most people's judgment, even those people that pass a background check, shouldn't be used to decide who gets shot. There are alot of people I'd like to see use their drivers license as well, but luckily cars have been designed to not kill people. The exact opposite is true of guns . The "cars kill alot of people so why not ban them?" argument also tries to make an object with high social utility and some harmful side effects like a car equivalent to an object designed to kill people. All the drivers I've ever encountered have never tried to argue that the lethal ability of their car will deter crime and everyone should rest easier knowing they can run over anyone they sense is a criminal threat. Yet somehow you argue your personal ability to kill people with a gun should be protected because it involves the same level of judgment as operating a car.
Please take the foreign country examples to their logical conclusion. No developed country (those with a reasonable chance to enforce things like a ban on gun sales ) has a gun or violent crime rate even approaching the US. The UK, Germany and Australia are all good examples. In the short term economic factors drive crime much more than gun ownership rates. And I'm sure stabbings went up as gun availability went down. I'd have to argue India, Mexico and South Africa are all developing countries where the rule of law is still evolving. You should measure their effectiveness of collecting taxes , enforcing building codes and stopping corruption while you're at it.
- nbkwx55 June 23, 2009 5:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We agree on some things- violent crime in general in the US is higher than a lot of places- even if you remove gun violence ( murder rate for instance) As far as developed nations go, we are fairly violent. I think that is by in large the result of our immense diversity. I forget the paper, but there was a study some time ago that suggested homogeneity in a population is less violent than a heterogeneous mix like we have here.
The UK, Germany, and Austrailia all have much lower populations, much more 'similar' populations, and still suffer the effects of violence. I concede I didn't make this point clearly- but what I was getting at is that even in a situation that is far more controllable with a much lower population, I don't feel the controls your suggesting work.
As for the driver thing- I agree its a crap analogy- but its one most people are familiar with. I think a better analogy was when I compared it to alcohol and prohibition. Though we do not have a constitutional right to alcohol like we do guns - if I follow your logic they are equivalent. Neither is necessary in your mind and does more harm than good.
If I can make that assumption- then I have to say I don't think your style of control will work. I just feel like history more supports my argument.
I was just looking at some numbers on line- and maybe we can meet in the middle.
Comparing NYC to London- populations are within 1 million people of each other, with NYC being slightly larger. Police budgets are close when you switch with current exchange rates.
however- London has 7x the amount of crime NYC has. (mind you the UK doesn't tally offenses committed by offenders under the age of 16). whats the big difference? NYC has 40% more cops patrolling than London. Now maybe crime is grossly under reported in NYC. I lived there for 5.5 years- and I would believe that there is some definate under reporting going on to make it look safer than it is- but I'm not sure even if you inflate the rate for NYC and deflate London for some reason that they would be close. If any of my point is to be considered let it be this: Gun control is an expensive exercise that at best strips people of rights, and at worst is an exercise in futility that does not reduce violent crime.
Even if the US numbers of crimes prevented with guns is inflated- by say 50 fold, than that estimated 2 million preventions still becomes 40,000- 4x higher than the US murder rate in 2007 with guns (just over 10,000) over a nearly 700 of which, were justifiable shootings by law enforcement and civilians in self defense cases.
I think your focusing on the violent crime rate in the US and equating that to gun crime- and they just aren't the same.I disagree with your methods, but maybe we can both agree that our money as tax payers, our safety as people, and our rights as citizens are best protected by something that isn't gun control .
- MikesSpot June 23, 2009 8:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"if the majority of your students don't want you armed in the classroom they are sharing with you, then I believe you shouldn't be armed. I would extend that to a city, state or nation."
No, no, no.
Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, i.e. the supreme law of the land, can't be denied just because they're unpopular. So if I start speaking out against gay marriage in San Francisco they should be able to take my right to free speech away? If I commit a hate- crime in a predominately black city should they be able to take my right to a fair trial away? If I do a news report over a corrupt presidential administration should they be able to take my freedom of the press rights away from me because the president's popular?
Our rights are not to be compromised just because they're unpopular.
"Guns allow people to perpetrate violence and kill other people on a large scale and with little effort."
Only in the hands of a criminal. I'm not a criminal, so why should I be restricted when it comes to myself owning guns ?
- mhphoto July 4, 2009 9:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Wow you guys pulled that line out? Not reaching for a heart string there or anything. . .
but I digress- your building a straw man argument. you offer no actual data and create a fictional scenario, which then interject at the end, You wouldn't want your kids to see this, would you?
So congratulations on reading traditional propaganda techniques. If you guys want some other literature to molest and twist around, I recommend Ellul's PROPAGANDA. I read it during my MA when I did a lot of work on the topic.
as to your point- What would you suggest? Eliminating all guns? let me build a little scenario for you-
remember that thing in America way back when called Prohibition? By making a desirable, but if misused dangerous commodity illegal- the US Government created a situation where it was SO profitable to break the law and provide this illegal item that it gave rise to organized crime and distribution of products on the black market that this country had never before seen.
so how would that work with guns? If made illegal- they would become so desirable an underground economy (one that already exists, you would just be empowering it) would explode with traffic from the criminal element in our country.
so who wouldn't have guns? Honest citizens who obey laws, even when they are unjust.
who would have guns? Criminals. laws didn't prevent them before- and now you just made it more profitable for them to traffic their wares.
To suggest that the gun lobby is driven by capitalism and not have anything to do with National history, American Rights, or in my personal opinion- good sense- is asinine.
Outlawing fire-extinguishers doesn't prevent crime. Nor does cutting down in their availability. To limit the flow of firearms will not cut down in violent crime- at best it will manifest itself in a different, and probably more violent form- at worst, it will be business as usual, just fewer good men and women will have an opportunity to resist and protect their way of life.
- MikesSpot September 8, 2008 9:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
correcting a typo- last paragraph fire extinguishers do not prevent FIRES. Sorry I was typing quickly.
- MikesSpot September 8, 2008 9:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think the underlying problems is not that there are too many guns , on the other hand there are too many criminals. We want to blame an inanimate object for the obvious failure of the parenting skills of a large part of the population. Lets start at the root of the problem, we are raising our children to be criminals. Criminals that steal, rob and rape and murder . If these people were raised to value human life, who were raised to KNOW the difference between right and wrong, to stay away from those who do not, and raised their voices when they saw the law being broken, then we would not have the need to carry guns. Its not the guns that should be regulated its the parenting skills of people who do not get involved in their children's lives. These kids run the streets following the gangs, listening to music that glorifies the types of behaviors that we as a society abhor. And we question why they wound up dead in front of a liquor store. Was it a gun that killed your teen son? NO! IT WAS YOU! You had the responsibility to raise him to be an upright young man and YOU FAILED! Don't blame guns, look in the mirror. Your child is why I must carry a gun to protect my life and the safety of my loved ones
- DArtagnan1966 April 5, 2009 7:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Anthropologist David Kennedy (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York) has determined in city after city that less than 0.5% of the population on average is responsible for over 75% of the homicides. When those individuals are addressed, violence in the first year of the interdiction program typically drops by half.
We don't need to control guns to address violence, we need to control criminals.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/418838
- hecate September 5, 2008 5:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Howdy Hecate,
Until the Justice system starts handing down penalies that suit the crime and start removing the criminal element from society, I just keep my guns. I will stick to my clinging "to religion and my guns," and Obama can keep his "change." Now that is something you can take to the Bank.
- johnk568 March 3, 2009 2:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Your argument makes the supposition that gun laws are universal throughout the nation. The Highest murder rates, and violence rates involving guns in the US are (rather obviously) In large metropolitan areas.
By referencing Scalia's decision, you cannot ignore the fact that, Washington DC, one of the most violent places in the United States, has extremely strict laws prohibiting gun ownership. Therefore, if gun laws worked, by your logic, wouldn't Washington DC be one of the safest places in America? By your logic, then Philadelphia would also be a very safe city.
Gun Control is an attempt at treating a symptom of a greater ailment.
- MikesSpot September 7, 2008 10:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Last time I checked, the Swiss had a higher rate of gun ownership than we here in the States and they enjoy one of the lowest gun related crime rates in the world.
- Wulfgar October 29, 2008 8:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I am curious, was it the guns that the crips/bloods have make them violent? Was it the guns that the Hells Angels possess make them violent? Are the guns the MS-13 have the reason they are so violent? Remember when skinheads just kicked the crap out of people? I wonder if their steel-toed boots suddenly make them violent? Is it just possible that it is the inherent, violent proclivity of some people the real problem. While I would agree that the act of killing and robbing may be easier when the bad guy has a gun, but if I have a gun as well (which I do) and I have some training (which I do, and I advocate training and regular practice) my chances of surviving a negative encounter with a robber or killer is greatly improved. However, my theory about the miraculous removal of all guns from private ownership would simply result in attacks by a greater force from which I could not defend i.e. more bad guys acting in concert against one person. With a firearm I am a formidable opponent; without one I am a victim and a statistic. I plan on being neither.
As to the issue of common sense, I have yet to hear from the gun control group ANYTHING that even comes close to common sense when it comes to limiting my ability to defend myself and my family. I don't see any common sense in limiting me to one-gun-per-month schemes. When I lived in SoCal most gun owners took that to mean, not a limitation of one-gun-per-month, but a requirement of one-gun-per-month. Many of us purchased many more guns than we normally would have due to that limitation. This was especially true in the case of collectors of hard to find, out of production firearms. At one point I had as many as nine guns paid for but I couldn't take possession of them. I had to wait months before I could bring them home. In almost every case these guns were unsuited for anything but collecting but there was no provision in the law for that. Explain the "common-sense" in that? I'll tell you what common sense is. Common sense is educating responsible, law-abiding gun owners, the ones who buy one gun for home defense, about gun safety. Oops, the NRA does that already. So why is the NRA so demonized and vilified? As a former peace officer I fully support a person's right to own a firearm and common sense does not mean you should be able to do anything to infringe on my right and ability to defend myself and protect my family.
- daveinvegas October 30, 2008 3:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Are there more guns out there today? Yes there is....and a lot more.
If more guns equal more deaths, why has the death rate decreased about 40% in the governments latest statistics.
Japan is a homogenious society that has thousands of years social structure unlike these United States. Yes they have few guns. Yes, the suicide rate is much higher than ours.
Austrailia, Great Britain, and Canada have greatly restricted or banned most firearms and now are experiencing a huge increase in crime compared to before the restrictions. Remember when the Bobbies didn't carry firearms? What has changed?
- captinjack February 10, 2009 10:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
As an Australian, I have to correct your generalisation that there has been a huge increase in crime . This is for the most part, factually untrue. If you look at the links below, you will see that property crime has been trending downwards in the last few years ( http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/property/stats /), while only Assault has risen among violent crimes ( http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats /). Irrespective of the statistical aspects, the fact remains that gun related violence is really very rare in Australia. When people do commit violent crimes, they use firearms in only around 15% of cases ( http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/keyFacts_handguns.html ). In any case, even before the bans of 1996 and 2001 (which applied to automatics, semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns, and high capacity semi-automatic pistols), there has never been a law permitting private citizens to carry firearms of any sort on their person for any reason, so it isn't as if people stopped carrying guns or keeping them in their homes to not having them at all.
- Sesquipedalian May 7, 2009 6:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
SUPGV,
Aren't you the one in another post who said "Causal effect is always hard to determine"? Yet here you're making a blanket statement that more guns equal more violence. It's funny how that whole double-standard thing works with anti-gunners. To paraphrase your comments in "Fewer Guns in North East...", Did more guns really lead to MORE crime or were there many other factors such as DOWNTURNS in the economy , LESS aggressive policing, LOWER incarceration rates, INCREASE in crack cocaine use?
Just a thought...
- rnlanders March 25, 2009 2:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Are we worried more about violent crimes, or just crimes with guns ? Does it make sense to expect that crime would go down with less guns, or merely that gun crimes would go down with less guns? It seems to me that crime is the issue, not guns. Let's look at some facts about gun usage:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x155031
- sank May 12, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
My sense of the Pro Gun/ Anti Gun disagreements are mostly because each side is referring to something different. What makes that important is each side seems to be doing the wrong things for the right reasons. It seems to me we (both sides of the alleged issue) should get on the same page.
The anti gun folk are concerned about firearm violence and see outlawing or restricting firearms as a solution. The pro gun side doesn't want bans and further restrictions. The problem is both are missing the mark. The problem is violence. Both sides would be overjoyed if the problem of violence were addressed. Proposing outlawing or restricting firearms does not address violence. Supporting 2nd amendment rights does not address violence. I think you see where I am going here.
There is a goal displacement in the issue(s) and proposals to resolve them. Nowhere in the anti gun proposals are any solutions to violence and a whole raft of other issues that are not addressed by the application of anti firearm legislation. It may me my mental defects that cause me to question why would anyone want to do something that can't possibly work and only tends to irritate folks who are not a threat. It is one of them there "Same action, same result." It's gotta make you wonder. Like Einstein's definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
- ursamajor2004 June 22, 2009 2:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I agree, we need common sense! We need to TEACH kids ABOUT guns in school , not teach them this inanimate object is bad. It has NO ability by itself to do much more than collect dust or rust!!
Those who attack guns are the same crowd that do NOT beleive in personal responsiblity or punishment for one's bad actions. Till we solve that lack of understanding of the human being, we can not solve the gun issue. Its that simple!
Till then I will guard my freedom very cautiously!!!
- Explorer1 October 31, 2009 6:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Firstly, about half of all gun deaths are suicides. There are numerous studies that show there is no correlative link between suicide rate and availability of a specific means, let alone a causative one. So we're now down to 15,000 deaths a year, the vast majority of which occur in inner cities where highly invasive gun control laws are the norm. Clearly they are having no effect. In point of fact, there is not a single reliable and valid study out there that shows even a medium correlation between gun control laws and a reduced violence rate.
- ravenshrike September 5, 2008 8:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
First off, have you ever heard of fighting fire with fire? Certainly there are way to many criminals with guns. That is ONE of the reasons I own guns. I have been a gun owner for 39 years, since I was 16 years old. During that time I have owned a couple of guns (all you anti gun folks would probably have apoplexy if you knew how many and I'm a piker as I know people who own 300 and 500 guns). So, would you say my friends and have too many guns? And if so, on what do you base that determination? Further, what gives you the right? I am a former peace officer. I have never used a gun illegally. At the risk of sounding immodest, my expertise with firearms is above that of the average police officer (but less compared to other folks I know). I once knew a federal cop who competed in local shooting matches because the firearms training he received was inadequate. He knew that the rest of the people participating in these matches had training and experience that far surpassed his training. As a private person I have used a firearm to prevent assaults on my person on two occasions and as an off-duty police officer I have stopped one potential assault against me and my companion and I stopped an assault in progress of a neighbor and his friend. Actually, two men were in the process of beating them to death with a gold club and baseball bat. Those two people were defenseless and would have been killed had I not intervened, with a handgun. And guess what, it was not necessary to shoot any of the assailants. All of the assailants saw the wisdom of reconsidering their actions, immediately and without question. I currently have a permit to carry a firearm concealed and I never leave home without my permit and gun. I could continue like this for some time. My main point here is to question the qualifications of any person who is anti gun to responsibly comment or lecture me about any aspect of private gun ownership. Verified expert indeed.
- daveinvegas October 30, 2008 11:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
By your unverified statistics there is 1 death per 9333 guns . FARS ( http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx ) reported that in 2007 there was 1 death per 5523 cars. A car is 59% more likely to kill then a gun.
Ban cars instead.
- thebigmike March 27, 2009 5:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
You seem to confuse a fact with the truth. All a fact is is a piece of data. One must consider the nature of the data before one can proclaim it supports an underlying truth. Let us do so with your facts, even though I see not a single source for them.
"Each time a gun is used in a legally-justifiable shooting in a home, there are 22 unintentional, criminal, and suicide-related shootings."
In order to have this 'fact', such as it is, support the underlying truth that guns are bad, we must accept three things. The first is that a legally justified shooting is the valid measure to use when making a cost/benefit analysis of them. It is not, because of the simple fact that a law abiding citizen who brandishes his gun in self defense is much less likely to fire in the first place because his objective is to drive the aggressor off which many times will not require an actual discharge of the weapon. The second is that suicides are a valid statistic to include in this debate. As I noted earlier they really aren't. The third is that we must accept the fact's definition of legally-justified shooting. Given that in Chicago, if the shooting is done with the handgun it cannot be legally justifiable, we see that this is a very sloppy 'fact' indeed.
"Having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold."
Just from reading this statistic I can with 99% certainty guarantee that the study that came up with it is neither scientifically valid or reliable. Firstly, the study certainly does not control for legal or illegal gun ownership. Secondly, the study does not control for illegal drug use on behalf of the suicide. Thirdly and finally, the statistic does not even control with whether the suicide was committed with the gun or not.
"Having a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home."
Again, this statistic certainly does not control for legal or illegal gun ownership. Neither does it control for method of homicide.
- ravenshrike September 5, 2008 8:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
No sources cited. Rather poorly constructed argument.
- jaker277 February 24, 2009 6:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If you put a loaded gun on the table, it will not harm anybody. It takes a person to look someone in the eye, point a gun at them, and pull the trigger. People do kill people, not guns. By your logic, we should ban cars because of some of the imbeciles we have on the road today.
- pdethier March 16, 2009 6:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
While the oft touted phrase, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.", is used to separate the act from the object, the fact is that firearms act as a facilitator of violence. The simple fact is that access to firearms makes it much easier for people to kill one another. In many cases, the presence of a firearm escalates a situation from an otherwise non-fatal incident into a homicide. So while it is technically true that firearms do not kill people in-and-of themselves, they make it much easier for people to kill each other. However, this is not to say that firearms cannot have a role in preventing violence, but rather that the relationship between firearms and the occurrence of violence is more complex than it appears.
- Sesquipedalian May 21, 2009 7:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Someone once said to me in a discussion about concealed carrying of firearms that "Only police should have guns " I said "Ok lets look at that. Police have the responsibility to keep the civil peace and solve crimes, not prevent them. Crimes are not preventable. The robber or rapist is not going to be deterred by police programs or fear of arrest, he has already made the decision to commit a crime . The odds of police interference are remarkably low. The odds of actually getting caught for a murder are 1 in 14. The responsibility for your own safety is ultimately yours, not the police. I choose to carry a firearm to protect myself and those I love. By being in proximity to me you are also being protected, as I can prevent a rapist or robber from harming you. Carrying a gun is a heavy burden, I have made the decision to take human life if necessary to protect myself with all of the emotional and physical baggage this entails. If you were being assaulted I guarantee that you would be praying for someone with a gun to help you and stop the perpetrators.I do not choose to carry a gun to take lives, I carry a gun to save lives, Maybe even yours
- DArtagnan1966 April 5, 2009 7:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Uh...the risk for suicide in the home in America is 10 out of every 100,000. So if the likelihood of suicide in America increases fivefold with the presence of a gun in the home, the risk would be .0005 percent. That's NOTHING compared to the worldwide suicide rate of 1.5%. Ironically enough, 30% of all suicides take place in China, a country that doesn't allow citizens to bear arms. Huh.
The rate of suicide in China is 3.6%. The rate of suicide in America is .0001%.So going by your logic (that guns are the underlying causal factor), if we took away the right to bear arms from our citizens, the rate of suicide would go up by 36,000 times.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/146507.php
Having a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide, does it? Well, according to genevadeclaration.org, Homicide in America is at 5.6 per 100,000 (last year's rates). If we were to assume owning a gun tripled that number, we would still have a lower suicide rate than that of...the Caribbean? And I know you had no idea the ideal vacation spot was a war zone, but there it is - 18.1 out of every 100,000.
I can't help but be suspicious of an organization that not only throws out emotion laden words to get their point across - death AND "despair"? - but also cherry picks statistics, as well as forgets to cite references.
- Livvy April 28, 2009 11:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
The math you have used is all wrong. You multiplied instead of dividing.
Using your figure of 5.6 per 100k and assuming that firearm ownership triples the rate, then the rate in homes NOT owning a firearm would be 1/3 of 5.6, which is 1.86 (repeating).
But even so, it doesn't work that way, because the figure of 5.6 per 100k is a mathematical average based on national data. It does not reflect the situation in any given household. Its like saying that 45% of Americans own a dog. That does not mean that 45% of every household has a dog (or that every household has 45% of a dog!).
To generate meaningful data, you would have to do a study of the homicide rate in households with and without a gun, in a sample population. The data from national crime rate reports is too general to draw those kinds of specific conclusions.
- Sesquipedalian June 1, 2009 1:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"To generate meaningful data, you would have to do a study of the homicide rate in households with and without a gun, in a sample population. The data from national crime rate reports is too general to draw those kinds of specific conclusions."
Even the results from that study would be next to meaningless. I was merely trying to point out that Freedom States Alliance's data is flawed, and I don't think anyone needs statistics to figure their math out (or prove or disprove it). The only thing that they've proven is that owning a gun and higher rates of homicide are correlated. But is it likely that more homicides are committed because of the presence of the gun, or more likely that people who commit homicides use guns as their weapon of choice.
When I said "statistics don't lie" I was being semi-facetious. Statistics, in this instance, prove nothing.
- Livvy June 11, 2009 1:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I disagree that the study I suggested would be meaningless. If the study were carried out across a range of areas with similar demographics, in homes with and without guns , you could isolate the gun variable to a reasonable degree. Obviously you cannot control for all the extraneous variables and you couldn't categorically say that the rate in homes with guns is X% and in homes without guns it is Y%, but you would be able to determine if there is a visible trend difference. But to a certain extent you are correct in that statistics are easy to distort, and tend to be shaped by how the question is framed.
- Sesquipedalian June 12, 2009 3:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
- Nightowl22 September 7, 2009 7:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If you REALLY want to evaluate statistics, read John Lott or Ralph Cramer. THEY have correct statistics. One of which is; The actual number of weapons in America has INCREASED over the past ten years and the number of violent acts with a weapon has DECREASED.
That alone belies the whole premise.
The actual number of times that a weapon is used to prevent a crime is estimated between one million and two million times a year AND most of them did not require firing the weapon.
- Nightowl22 September 7, 2009 7:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
It is a sad fact that some do harm themselves and loved ones with guns. They also do it more often with automobiles but I digress. To blame the availability of a thing is to miss the point entirely. It's a lazy dodge to blame the inanimate object for the foibles of humanity. It's not unlike blaming the alcoholic for having a mouth in which to pour the source of their affliction. We tried prohibition and you see what that got us; rum runners, gang wars, criminalizing the average citizen, etc.
Your suppositions hold as much water as a colander. In the latest data which was done in 2006, the percentage of ALL gun deaths in the home where either a family member or acquaintance was killed equaled 2%. Agreed, that’s too many. BUT, for the same period involving ALL gun deaths via police on innocents, try 10%! So, if we’re to bandy stats for the sake of argument, where do you have a better chance of getting whacked? Excuse me, but I’ll think I’ll stay home tonight… with my guns.
- BLZeebub September 3, 2008 3:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
What are samples from which these percentages are drawn and who did the data collection in 2006? It's impossible to evaluate your statements based on what you have written here.
- rudbeckia September 3, 2008 9:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
His statistics are just as valid as anything the FSA is claiming.
- ravenshrike September 5, 2008 9:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
These may very well be legitimate statistics. However, BLZeebub hasn't provided us with enough information to even know that the 2% if of. All I am asking for is clarification.
Is s/he trying to say that 10% of all police fatalities are of innocent victims?
that 2% of all fatalities in a residential property are family or friends?
And if so, what's the source? I can provide sources for very different statistics and so I'm wondering how they compare. If you want to have your arguments taken seriously you have to provide that much at least. If these are self-reported data from members of the NRA, I'm likely to take them with a grain of salt. If they are data lifted from government crime databases (such as the annual CDC reports) by a nonpartisan group, I'll take them more seriously.
- rudbeckia September 5, 2008 12:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There are several statistical problems with the claim that a household with a gun is at added risk.
The biggest problem is including households with convicted criminal gun owners in the pool--People who are already breaking existing gun laws. Being a felon is extremely risky, roughly half of all murder victims are convicted felons. If you were to separate the law-abiding gun owners from armed criminal households, the numbers would look much different.
It is difficult to determine which homes are truly gun-free--Many people will not admit to having guns, either in fear of prosecution, or fear of theft, so many "nonviolent gun" homes get counted as "nonviolent gun-free". On the other hand, it is easy to determine that a house where gun violence occurred had a gun in it.
- sevesteen September 4, 2008 4:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Using this argunment it follows that access to knives increases knife violence, or access to the internet increases internet usage. It's not even a valid argument just a statement of the obvious. If there were no guns there would be no gun violence, if there were no knives there would be no knife violence and if there was no internet there would be no internet usage.
- Aegiltheugly September 8, 2008 2:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
The study was measuring how guns are used, not does having them enable use.
One of the NRA's bedrock claims is that having guns on the street makes us safer, and that gun owners use their guns overwhelmingly to prevent crime. Shouldn't this study have concluded that a gun in the house, when shot at somebody, is almost always used to shoot a criminal if this was true? How could guns be killing innocent people, even suicidal people, at such a higher rate than criminals? Suicidal people should be a minor blip in the results compared to criminal deaths if the NRA claims are true. But they're not.
Ask your insurance company what your life insurance and homeowners rate is once you keep a gun in the house and compare that to no gun. Keep in mind they don't pay out for suicide. They will raise your rate on the impassionate, calculated risk that the gun will be used to hurt/kill someone by accident to a much higher degree than the gun will lower your risk of theft or assault.
- nbkwx55 September 12, 2008 2:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I sell both Life and Property and Casualty Insurance. None of the Life companies I deal with ask if you own a fire arm. It'snot taken into account in our morbidity and mortality rates. All of them will pay for suicide after a two year exclusion period. If you kill yourself two years and oner day after the effective date of the contract we will pay out. It's Life Insurance 101.
The P&C companies only want to know if the value of the firearms exceeds certain limits on the policy. If they do, we schedule the fire arms and charge an additional premium. This is based on the value of the firearms and not on any additional liability.
- Aegiltheugly September 15, 2008 7:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Uncommitted
Maybe it's because suicidal people don't run when a gun is pointed at them. Bearing in mind that criminals are a small subset of people as a whole, as are suicidal persons, it's a safe bet that people who put the barrel to their temple are more likely to get hit than those who duck and run.
Also, the law-abiding citizens of the world generally don't fire on the ones who run away, because they are no longer a threat. We also don't fire on the ones who surrender, because they're no longer a threat. If we fire, it's because the attack continued after the gun was presented, which is an overwhelming minority of cases.
- bmk069 September 19, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
"Shouldn't this study have concluded that a gun in the house, when shot at somebody, is almost always used to shoot a criminal if this was true? How could guns be killing innocent people, even suicidal people, at such a higher rate than criminals? Suicidal people should be a minor blip in the results compared to criminal deaths if the NRA claims are true. But they're not."
Let's see the proof. There are plenty of studies that show that guns are used far more to prevent crime than commit it. But since you seem to be privy to the only known study that shows otherwise, perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing it with the rest of us?
- LagerHead October 1, 2009 4:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It's similar to the argument that having insulin in the house increases the risk of diabetes.
- bmk069 September 19, 2008 11:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Is this another attempt to cite a study or "fact" that when a gun in the home is present, including ones CRIMINALS bring in the home, a loved one is more likely to get shot?
Shouldn't we ban swimming pools for the same reason?
- F2XL October 13, 2008 5:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
If you really believed that guns in homes are an unacceptable danger and that they have no redeemable value, why don't you and others holding the same belief, put decals on their window and doors declaring your dwelling as a gun free zone.
Think of all the health care cost savings that would be realized when the bad guys would know which residences they could rape and plunder without risk of getting shot!
- captinjack February 10, 2009 10:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Alcohol increases the risk of violence in the home far more than guns and has been do so long before guns were invented. So if you are interested in public welfare, go after alcohol , AIDS , tobacco and a host of others that all create problems. Gun ownership solves problems and any responsible gun owner does not leave guns around for kids .
In the Boy Scouts I was taught gun safety long before I pulled my first trigger. Let's try some of that instead of a disproportionate fanatic anti-gun hate trip.
- ChiefSkeptic June 3, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Not really. While the success rate of different suicide methods is not in doubt the fact remains that if you are using pills or cutting to try and kill yourself, you're not all that serious about suicide. I would love to see a link the the research that actually shows even a medium correlation between gun ownership and suicide risk. The biggest study on this at your means matter site classifies New Hampshire as being a low gun prevalence state. This shows that their method of collecting data was flawed, to say the least.
- ravenshrike September 5, 2008 9:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Many suicide attempts are not really meant to end a life, rather they are a call for help. These people typically don't pick a reliable method. Most people who pick a gun mean to die--If a firearm were not easily available, they would pick another effective method.
Another aspect of this is a fairly significant difference in philosophy, separate from the gun issue--Self-reliance vs. dependence on authority. The idea that because I may harm myself I should be prevented from doing something reinforces dependence. Letting me judge the risks myself and make my own decisions is self-reliance.
- sevesteen September 5, 2008 10:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Access to guns may increase the likelihood that a committed suicidal person will choose that method over another, but it does not affect the suicide rate over all. An example is Japan, where the rate of gun ownership is less than 1% but the suicide rate per 100,000 population in 2005 was more than double that of the US.
Source: World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/index.html
- hecate September 5, 2008 5:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 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
Does Owning a Gun Make You Safer?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Safer, let us see.
Some night about 03:00 you awaken. Your lovely wife, and infant daughter didn't hear the sound that got your attention, they sleep peacefully. You get up, and walk down the hall. You have your hands. Do you feel safe? You have a S&W 45cal, do you feel safer?
- Ironman
September 3, 2008 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (9)
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.
an eastern perspective
It's 3am. You're done going out for the night, and say goodbye to your friends. You start walking home from the bar/restaurant with your wife. A group of men is approaching you on the dark street. You have your hands. Do you feel safe?
Then you remember, you moved to China, you live in Shanghai, a cosmopolitan city with millions of people and no guns. Not even the police have guns. You are safe, you're perfectly safe. You smile at the men, who are friendly and also walking home. You're glad you're no longer paranoid about personal safety as you were when you lived in the US.
In a violent society like the US, whose violence is in part perpetrated by a prevalent gun culture, perhaps it is safer to own a gun. But we should work towards living in a society where the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits. It's nice to wander down a dark city street in the middle of the night and not think twice about getting shot.
- shanghai
October 1, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Oh Yes, China
One of the BIGGEST violators of civil rights. Why? No guns. They don't have too much to worry about their people fighting back. Do you really want that here?
- Ironman
October 1, 2008 9:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
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.
lol
this is the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard. drugs are illegal in the US. I can find someone selling drugs in maybe 10 minutes. those men in Shanghai? they can kill you in plenty of ways without a gun. unless knives are also banned in China, they can probably kill you with one of those.
Also I'm curious, are you posting from China?
- arrw
October 24, 2008 5:29AM
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.
A Western Rebuttal
I am sorry but the 30 million plus victims of Mao Zedong's regime disagree with you. I am sure if it was possible to ask them they would wish that they had been armed.
- Douglas
November 13, 2008 8:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
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.
Culture and Indentity
You're confusing y/our very "American" idea of personal and cultural identity to those that are held in "Eastern" regions... which are very, very different.
Second... if you can't even spell Tse Tung correctly there's actually some question that you know little about what you're actually trying to rebut.
People do not have to be armed to bring about either cultural or political change..... nor do they need arms to prevent it.
- SocialistBetty
March 27, 2009 7:12PM
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.
Thank you Betty
Since you are using the Roman alphabet and not Chinese calligraphy, then you too are spelling it wrong. Since you are translating from one alphabet to another, there is no "correct" spelling, only "accepted" ones. And both Zedong and Tse Tung are acceptable ones.
And as far as "needing" arms to prevent cultural or political change, it depends on which side you're on. If you're the unarmed populace facing a heavily armed and oppressive government regime, you're not going to get the change you want just by wishing it. Even if you say, "Pretty please with sugar on top."
- LagerHead
July 7, 2009 3:52PM
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.
unlesss
Unless that political change is being promulgated from the barrel of the gun.... as the very same man who's name you bicker about a non-native spelling of.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-tung
Or Zedong. Or a few other ways....
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 7:00PM
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.
Chairman's name
That's "Mousy Tongue". ANY serviceman can tell you that!!
- Nightowl22
September 7, 2009 6:28PM
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.
an eastern myth
"You start walking home from the bar/restaurant with your wife. A group of men is approaching you on the dark street. You have your hands. Do you feel safe? Then you remember, you moved to China, you live in Shanghai, a cosmopolitan city with millions of people and no guns. ... You are safe, you're perfectly safe."
And how, exactly, does the absence of guns prevent the men from stabbing you, smashing your head in, or threatening to do so unless you give them whatever they demand? If you are safe walking in China, it is only because violent criminals are rarer there.
And if criminals in China don't have guns, it is not because China outlaws them -- after all, we outlaw marijuana. No, it's because if a criminal is ever caught with a gun he is swiftly put to death. (That's probably why you are safer in China -- if they're caught using _anything_ to commit robberies, criminals are swiftly put to death.)
Of course, if we put criminals to death with as much fervor as the Chinese do, we could be safe in the streets even _without_ controlling firearm possession.
As an aside, I don't think "Do guns make you safer?" is the relevant question. I don't _want_ to be robbed on the street more safely. I want not to be robbed on the street -- PERIOD! In _our_ society, letting lots of people carry guns and use them to shoot down robbers seems to be more effective in suppressing abductions, muggings, and carjackings than anything we can expect from the police.
- fsilber
January 26, 2009 12:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
You're Kidding Right?
You must be kidding. China is the number one violator of human rights in asia ..and that is saying something.. The reason the PEOPLE don't have guns in China is because the government dictates what the people do. The government is AFRAID if the people had the means to defend themselves they WOULD! .. I'll take the USA, problems and all.
- david
March 25, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
Seriously?
Uh, unless you're an American tourist there to see your son-in-law in the Olympics, right? Oh wait, that was Beijing, and I guess we're just talking about shooting, not all violent crime . Unless you're a Canadian model, right?
- WCWAJGA
March 28, 2009 7:47PM
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 knews several of the players personally...
And it was good to see someone thought of this too. Please tell Hugh and Liz McCutcheon how safe China is.
- Blappo
April 25, 2009 3:18AM
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.
Interesting Eastern perspective
It's fascinating that the "eastern" perspective points out that you're safer in an authoritarian, human rights abusing country. Sure, you're less likely to get robbed by A-Thug-With-A-Gun, but you're more likely to get killed by your government if you speak out.
- BlackPR
March 31, 2009 9:16AM
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.
Shanghai????
Why do you even ask a question based on this premise?
I don't live in Shanghai. I would not want to live in Shanghai. If I lived in Shanghai, I would be trying to change their tryannical rules and probably would be part of a rebellion to change it by force.
The US is not a violent society compared to other countries. Thank God the Founders saw the need to guarantee the right to bear arms in the Bill of RIghts.
I have been living in the US for over 60 years now. To this day, I have never worried about getting shot going down the streets in any city. If you are so worried about that, maybe you should move to Shanghi.
I like my " gun culture " just fine. I have not seen anything better yet.
- spatin
April 4, 2009 12:24AM
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.
a true eastern perspective
It's 3am. You're done going out for the night, and say goodbye to your friends. You start walking home from the bar/restaurant with your wife. A group of men is approaching you on the dark street. You have your hands. Do you feel safe?
Then you remember, you moved to China, you live in Shanghai, a cosmopolitan city with millions of people and no guns . Not even the police have guns. Then you realize that the men approaching know you don't have a gun. They rob you and rape your wife, and you were not able to defend yourself. Happens all the time in shanghai, I've been there and witnessesd it. Don't believe the PRC propaganda, it could get you killed.
- cubanfreedomfighter
April 4, 2009 2:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
Duh
People can own gun's illegally. As I'm sure the "men in the dark ally' will have. Ha besides it's China who wants to live their when you could have your Freedom in America.
- Dylandts
August 15, 2009 8:04PM
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.
Hahahaha!
Yeah, there are no gangs or violence or organized crime in China. Sure! Keep telling yourself that.
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 6:56PM
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.
Criminals dont abide by laws
even if guns were illegal in the US. 99% of the criminals that use them get them illegally and or do not register them. Do you really think if there were gun laws the criminals are just going to go "Oh, i guess i wont use guns anymore" NO. We civil people who get our guns legally and registure them will have our guns taken away while crimnals will walk the streets with there black market guns that have not been registered. so the question is "You start walking home from the bar with your wife. A group of men approach you on a dark street. You have your hands. Do you feel safe?" the answer will always be NO. If you dont like the RIGHT we have to bare arms, then you should start learning chinnese because your best bet is to move to China!
- Crosshead
September 15, 2009 12:14PM
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.
Duhh
Uhhhh.
Yes.
I feel much safer than having a flashlight.
Duhh
- spatin
April 4, 2009 12:16AM
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.
Substitute "knife" or "brick" for "gun"
Honest people will need the right to own guns as long as criminals have them. A truely free society with privacy rights will find it very difficult to take them away from criminals. When the police in Dallas Texas take 20 minutes to respond to a home invasion, the homeowner needs to be armed. BTW: the criminals have to guess which 1 of 10 isn't.
- joelinda September 3, 2008 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
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.
equalizer
Guns in the hands of everyone creates the great equalization of those who would seek to harm others.
Consider for yourself if you were on a New York subway and knew that most likely 50% of the people on the subway were carrying a gun, would you not be safer should some idiot think he or she was going to rob you or someone else?
Criminals will always be able to get a gun if they are h*ll bent on doing so; equalizing the playing field is what will make them think twice before attempting to use it.
- scooteraz
September 3, 2008 5:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
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.
Of Course
Of course I agree. But then again you pull a gun on a subway EVEN though one's pulled on you, your gonna end up in jail. Unless you've got a concealed weapon license.
- Dylandts
August 15, 2009 8:06PM
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.
How does it work in other countries?
Look at a country such as South Africa. The law there requires that gun owners either store their weapons in government approved safes or that they carry their weapons on their bodies. Based on the opinions expressed here, that should mean that they are much safer than other countries particularly since a large proportion of the population owns some sort of weapon (and most choose to carry since the safes are expensive).
The reality is that they are not. Instead criminals assume that anyone they attack is carrying and don't bother using the guns as threats. Instead criminals shoot first out of fear that their victims will be able to shoot back otherwise. The number of robberies that would result in wounded pride and a small financial loss in the U.S. instead result in murder. While I am an American, the only people I know who have been held up in this country have escaped unharmed, while I have known two S. Africans who were killed during petty theft and I have S. African friends who have safe room built into their homes as insurance against home invasions by armed robbers. These are not elitist rich isolated folks who have been impacted by the criminal response to gun laws, but everyday middle class citizens.
The idea that many of my fellow citizens are walking around armed scares me more than the idea that some criminals might have weapons. I have no issues with sport rifles used for hunting and I don't have an issue with individuals living in rural areas where wildlife poses enough of a threat that carrying a gun could be considered a safety measure as long as the owners are trained in their use. However, I have an issue with the blanket argument that everyone, everywhere is better off if they own weapons or that all Americans are better off because our neighbors own weapons. The data don't really seem to support this.
- rudbeckia September 3, 2008 9:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
The real Africa
South Africa is run by a bunch of buffoons who started out as would be Leninist types. They decided that clipmainia was more profitible than Markism so thanks to the great god of chance and world opionion managed to grab the levers of power and the wealth that flowed from power. The president of the country claims whites gave africans AIDS to keep the black man down. To be fair to South Africa all the other countries of Africa are in worse shape because the tribal groups fighting for power regulary kill off the other tribal groups to get or keep power and the money. From this background the writer expects America to get inspiration and guidence on guns?
South Africa has a high crime rate because a lot of the people, ie young men under 35 are unemployed or marginally employed. The police outside of the tourist areas are on the take and wouldn't know how to investigate a crime if the criminal fell on them, the whites have little interest in changing anything as they are still on top economically, the rich are interested only in their swiss bank accounts, and the poor soldier on as always. I wish South Africa good luck but I would not bett the farm on anything changing soon.
- comensense25
September 3, 2008 11:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
and this is different from the U.S. how?
"South Africa has a high crime rate because a lot of the people, ie young men under 35 are unemployed or marginally employed. The police outside of the tourist areas are on the take and wouldn't know how to investigate a crime if the criminal fell on them, the whites have little interest in changing anything as they are still on top economically, the rich are interested only in their swiss bank accounts, and the poor soldier on as always."
Other than the fact that I have had rural police in S. Africa be of great assistance to me and I have experienced the frustration of urban cops in the U.S. who were more interested in their own power than helping someone in trouble, I'm not entirely sure how your explanation for the crime rate in S. Africa suggests that the U.S. should be any different.
I too am increasingly worried about the direction S. Africa is taking when the current political hero of the day very likely raped at least one woman and got away with it by saying it would have been an insult to her if he hadn't because of the way she dressed (there are at least some cultural differences between our countries). However, I don't think that means that criminals will behave any differently in the U.S. when our population is armed to its teeth. Fear is fear. It can be yours or the criminals' but, oddly enough, the result is the same: heavily armed folks who think it's a good idea to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.
(oh, and my earlier comment should read "safe rooms")
- rudbeckia September 4, 2008 7:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Irrelevant
All of this is irrelevant because South Africa is completely different from the US. You can't can't take concept that apply to it and try to apply them to the US, it just doesn't work. The criminals there are thugs who have no respect for human life and have no issue with putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger. In the U.S., if you shoot someone in self-defense, it damn well better have been justified or you're going to jail. Criminals aren't willing to make the jump from mugger to murderer so easily.
South Africa is the way it is because of a sudden influx of incompetence, corruption and nepotism after leadership changed. This lead, indirectly, to the creation of all these criminals who don't really have any other place to turn. To get to the point where you're forced to mug people to eat is something you have to try to do in America. In S.A., not so much.
- arrw
October 24, 2008 6:03AM
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.
Eh..Africa
South Africa isn't much of a country or a nation ("run by a bunch of buffoons") - when it can't even protect the rights of the individual (life, property, liberty) it cannot begin to say it has its own right as a nation. There fore, it would be wise for a nation that respects individual rights (at least in theory, maybe not in implementation...ie. USA) to go in and take out those buffoons...and rebuild that country beginning with Individual Rights (this would include the right to have guns to protect life)! Man...what a mess some of those African countries are in...evil prevails when the good do nothing..... such a shame.
- selfish November 18, 2008 7:37PM
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.
In other countries
rudbeckie: "(In South Africa) criminals assume that anyone they attack is carrying and don't bother using the guns as threats. Instead criminals shoot first out of fear that their victims will be able to shoot back otherwise."
That's why the death penalty is important.
"The number of robberies that would result in wounded pride and a small financial loss in the U.S. instead result in murder."
Many small financial losses add up to big losses. There are so many robbers in South Africa that if the victims did not defend themselves they'd quickly be stripped of everything.
South Africans have the option of copywrighting a white armband to signify to robbers, "I don't resist robbery" and publicizing its meaning throughout the country. You could have a law that anyone who resists while wearing the white armband is convicted of entrapment and even murder. The robbers could seek out victims wearing the armband so they wouldn't have to shoot first. See how few South Africans will be willing to wear the armband!
"The only (Americans) I know who have been held up in this country have escaped unharmed, while I have known two S. Africans who were killed during petty theft...."
I knew several Americans who were murdered by robbers when they tried to flee without paying. You are advising us to give up our 4th Amendment Right to Freedom from Unwarranted Searches and Seizures. If safety is worth giving that up, shouldn't we begin by removing the ACLU handcuffs from the police?
Meanwhile, in Europe, where (to judge by the murder rate) there are way fewer violent criminals than in America, you have a much, much higher robbery rate. In South Africa, people simply need to work together harder to kill criminals faster.
- fsilber
January 26, 2009 12:14PM
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.
You can find examples of anything.
I know at least 4 people who have been robbed, with a couple being at gunpoint. In all those instances having a gun de-escalated the situation, resulting in the robbers turning and running. Gun ownership in this country is at an all time high, and crime is at a 35 year low. From 1977 - 1997 90% of all multiple victim shootings happened in states where there was no right to carry. 91% of all defensive uses of guns end without a shot fired.
There is plenty of proof that guns in this country result in lower crime, especially violent crime.
- LagerHead
September 15, 2009 4:00PM
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.
Statistics don't make arguments
I'm a gun owner, and a big fan of the Second Amendment. But as important as this issue it, a battle of statisticians does not constitute an interesting debate.
What has been ignored by both sides in this debate is the history and purpose of the Second Amendment as understood by the founders. Succinctly: the right to keep to bear arms is NOT meant to protect us from criminals breaking into our houses at night. Nor is it meant to permit us to hunt white-tailed deer. It is meant to protect us FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
We have complex set of checks and balances in this country that prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of one person (or small group of people). These checks have worked very well so far. But in the event they fail, the Second Amendment acts as the last check on a tyranny by allowing the citizens to overthrow the government should it ever AGAIN become necessary. Remember, this country only exists because well-armed citizens overthrew their government, which had become illegitimate by violating the rights of individuals.
This is an ethical argument, not a practical argument like the one's made by statisticians. Guns may save lives or cost lives on a day-to-day basis, but disarming the citizenry gives the government FAR more power over us than was ever intended. And if you think that fear of one's own government is no longer a concern in the 21st century, think again. Even today at least 40% of the world's population (mostly in China and the Middle East) lives under brutal tyranny. And even in this country we now have warrantless wiretapping and other abuses of the Constitution.
And although private guns owners wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. army in a straight up fight, this is no reason to concede the philosophical point that power in this country is supposed to rest with the people, and not with the government. Private gun ownership is based on a bedrock principle of this republic, and should not be dismissed for emotional reasons, even if it does save lives. ("Give me liberty or give me death").
- SidAirfoil
September 4, 2008 9:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (11)
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.
Not Necessarily
"And although private guns owners wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. army in a straight up fight..."
I think the Russians who invaded Afghanistan and finally had to give it up after nine years might disagree. And the US effort to control the insurgency in that country and Iraq hasn't been easy by any means. Even under impossible conditions, during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising the Nazis were held at bay for almost a month.
- hecate
September 5, 2008 7:02PM
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.
Divided
How man soldiers do you think would actually follow those orders?
Not many of them are snipers, nor have they the weapons to be. Most any decent hunter can take a shot from several hundred yards, nearing 1000. And they have the guns to do it.
Any deployment of US troops on US soil against US citizens would lead to smart soldiers going awol, and the rest of the traitors having a life expectancy of less than a few weeks.
Even the most Flaming Left-Fringe Liberal will be standing in line at a gun shop if a military coup against the constitution is attempted.
Fortunately, most gun owners have more than one gun. Just in case their Democrat Neighbors wake up.....
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 7:10PM
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.
Not so
First of all, I can't think of many troops who enlisted to defend this country and it's people suddenly turning around and start killing said people. I'm sure a few would stay behind, but surely not enough to fight the US populace.
- arrw
October 24, 2008 6:06AM
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.
Would the US army attack US citizens?
arrw said "I can't think of many troops who enlisted to defend this country and it's people suddenly turning around and start killing said people."
That may be true...I hope so.
But troops have often turned against citizens (not on a large scale in this country yet) when they have been convinced that a certain internal group is a threat to the nation they are sworn to protect.
Not to belittle the issue, but have you seen "Revenge of the Sith"? Its a wonderful parable about the suicide of liberty in response to an exaggerated internal threat. I hope everyone was paying attention to the not-too-subliminal messages that were deliberately put into that movie.
No one in the Old Republic (U.S.?) realized they were slitting their own throats until it was too late. That's how it could happen here. Its already happening here with the "War on Terror". Warrantless wire tapping, secret courts, prisoners without due process, etc. But most of us think this is all fine. After all, our government is protecting us from bad guys, right? Well, I'm more afraid of my own government than of Bin Laden (as much of a threat as he really is). And it doesn't matter if its the Democrats or Republican in power. Its power AS SUCH that scares me. I'm still trying to fix this through the ballot box, and availing myself of the First Amendment (as I am here).
But at least I still have my guns...just in case!
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 28, 2008 5:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Oaths of Enlistment
It may just be a pedantic point, but the US armed forces do not swear to defend the government. The swear (and I swore) to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign AND domestic.
-James
- MilitiaJim November 11, 2008 7:11PM
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.
Protecting the Constitution
MilitiaJim makes an interesting point when he points out that soldiers are sworn to protect the Constitution, not the members of our government. The President also swears an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".
But what happens when the government, or the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces specifically, begin to violate the Constitution? What do the armed forces do when they have to choose between protecting the Constitution and obeying the Commander-in-Chief, who is presumably sworn to protect it?
I don't fault our soldiers in either case. It would be a difficult choice. But in the meantime, citizens could find themselves at the wrong end the U.S armed forces.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
November 12, 2008 6:38AM
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.
I Will Defend
Military Soldiers are sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. If the Commander-In-Cheif or any other disobeys or goes against the U.S. Constitution or the law that are established under the Constitution, that makes him or them an enemy to the U.S. Constitution, therefore an enemy to all U.S. Military
Troops Officers and Enlisted. This would place him or her on the wrong side of the U.S. Armed Forces. You ask if the military would turn their weapons on American People exercising their Constitutional Rights, "No" they would not but, they would certainly turn their weapons on those trying to take away the American Peoples Rights.
- shadow
November 23, 2008 3:20AM
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.
Choosing sides
Shadow,
I take some comfort in your reassuring words about the US military and their primary loyalty to the Constitution rather than to the C-in-C.
But I still worry that the line between "Constitutional" and Unconstitutional" may be vague or difficult to define in a particular circumstance. It's not a question of loyalty. Its a question of knowing when a line has been crossed. But lines are never that clear. Look at the war on terror. Warrantless wiretapping? Secret courts? Military tribunals? "Detainees" who are nether prisoners of war nor criminals? War with no declaration from Congress? It seems to me that we have crossed a line (or are at least pretty close), but there is hardly any outcry from the public, and certainly no evidence that the military is thinking coup.
If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump right out again. But if you put it in a pot of cool water and slowly turn up the heat until boiling, it will stay put until it's dead. I think the water is warmer now than it ever has been...and no one has noticed.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
November 24, 2008 9:22AM
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.
"No" they would not...
I served 21+ years. The military will follow orders form others who are following orders. Even from a CIC who o;pposes the constitution .... So, keep your powder dry.
- gman1911
March 20, 2009 11:38PM
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.
Army turning on civilians
Consider: The Army was used to kill and break up striking coal miners in the early part of last century in Kentucky.!!!
These men surely realized it was countrymen they were shooting at, no??
The fact that only a couple were killed may be due to poor shooting? or just shooting near the target to satisfy the Lt they were shooting??
At any rate, it would be hard to assume the Army would NOT attack civilians. It is the Officers that must decide it is wrong to kill fellow countrymen.
Any resistence to the government army must be the guerilla type, just like Iraq.
- Nightowl22
December 12, 2008 7:04PM
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.
Also remember Kent State
The Ohio National Guard shot and killed American students.
- Enlightened1
September 7, 2009 1:14PM
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 have my gun, just in case....
You said it all....
- gman1911
March 20, 2009 11:33PM
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.
They have and may again
Lest we forget, Federal troops were used just over 150 years ago to put down a 'rebellion' that ended in over 600,000 killed. During World War II, Americans of Japanese decent were rounded up out of fear and put in concentration camps. These are just some examples but, as Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
I hope and pray that it does not happen again but the founding fathers were correct in insuring citizens have the option of force should the government attempt to steal life and liberty from them. Think of it like this, in the military, I am told, you are taught to always follow command. If you do not obey, immediately, you may get someone killed. So, if you are ordered to do an act against a citizen, especially a citizen that does seem a little out there are dangerous, are you not pre-conditioned rather strongly to do it? Look at Germany, it was not that most in their army were necessary evil, just they were ordered to do things and then did them. No one successfully stood up to the dictator in the higher-ranks, where the orders come from, so every solder who stood up, and there were some, did so alone. It is the psychology of groups.
- dcunited08
November 12, 2008 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Post Katrina New Orleans
Soldiers, with disregard to the law , confiscated massive amounts of firearms . Most have never been returned
- silveravnt
August 27, 2009 12:11PM
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.
New Orleans
I understand that guns were confiscated by police , with the help of National Guard troops operating in a state military capacity, on the orders of the Mayor, Ray Nagin.
Regarding US troops firing on US Citizens: It has in the past (W Virginia Coal Miners, etc.). Posse Commitatus is still law , still emphasized at state NG level, but is also officially ignored.
Another factor if the effluvium really hits the air-movement system: There is now (formed I think AFTER Katrina) a loose organization of former and current service and law enforcement members who claim that they will hold to their oath, not carry out any unconstitutional orders, including to disarm law-abiding citizens. They call themselves "Oathkeepers".
- MikeS
September 22, 2009 12:34PM
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.
Exactly...
Exactly - Couldn't have said it any better. I think they do make me safer - but that's not the point...
- CommonCents
March 10, 2009 12:04PM
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.
Power of the People
That's what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. Do you think you know better than they? When they were the ones who lived under tyranny and risked their lives for freedom?
You said it perfectly SidAirFoil. Couldn't have said it better. The right to bear arms is to protect us from our own government. And in my view, the movement to disarm us is a clear and calculated way to slowly take away our rights and our power .
- mjays
March 25, 2009 12:14PM
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.
Some thoughts from an external perspective...
As an outsider, I've always found the idea that US citizens feel a need to arm themselves against their government as fairly curious. While I can understand the historical context in which the 2nd Amendment was made, getting my head around the present day relevance of it is difficult. From my (limited) observations, there seems to be a perception of the government as a monolithic ill-intentioned entity that is constantly plotting the oppression of the American people, yet I can see no credible basis for this perception, but perhaps its a cultural thing...
From my perspective, government is simply an organisational construct made up of people. People who have more or less the same basic ideas and values as those who distrust the government. It has no will of its own, and can only act through the actions of people. If the people who are acting on the government's behalf are citizens like everyone else, with the same values and beliefs, it seems doubtful that many of them would willingly turn of the majority of their fellows. In my experience, governments are not evil but rather benignly incompetent. When they do harm to people, it tends to be by accident rather than intent. To infer malfeasance from incompetence, and using it to justify an armed populace on the basis of an unlikely scenario eventuating, seems to me to be drawing a very long bow.
This brings me to a couple of questions that someone might like to answer for me (or at least comment on):
1. Where does the present day fear of government come from?
2. Is it a realistic fear (given the various constitutional mechanisms to prevent the misuse of power)?
3. Is being armed against hypothetical government oppression worth all the harm caused by the misuse of firearms ?
- Sesquipedalian
May 7, 2009 6:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
External perspective
Ses asks a few questions:
"1. Where does the present day fear of government come from?"
It came from a careful reading of history. Our founders studied ancient and recent (18th century) history, and realized clearly that the most serious threats to life and liberty ALWAYS come from one's own government, rather than from local criminals or foreign states. Think about all the great atrocities of history. Most (not all) are committed by governments against their own people.
2. Is it a realistic fear (given the various constitutional mechanisms to prevent the misuse of power)?
Constitutional republics like the US go a long way to ameliorating those threats. We've gone 230 years without major governmental threats to our liberties, and have achieved prosperity unimaginable even a century ago. But complacency is the enemy. No one ever worries about a fire until their house burns down. Besides, one of the constitutional mechanisms to which you allude is the Second Amendment. You can't praise the Constitution and all it's accomplished and then argue that those accomplishments justify changing the document.
3. Is being armed against hypothetical government oppression worth all the harm caused by the misuse of firearms ?"
This is the true price of living in a free society (and it's high). Many today argue illogically that the price of living in a free society is that we can't be truly free...that we have to sacrifice certain freedoms (like guns ) in order to enjoy the other freedoms without fear. This is a false choice. Freedom requires constant vigilance, and never becomes something to be taken for granted. It we must always be willing to pay for it. The cost of MY freedom is that I must acknowledge yours, even when you do things I don't like with it (like owning guns).
And please remember. The VAST majority of gun owners NEVER hurt anyone. To take away our right just because a few abuse that right would be like repealing the First Amendment because some people abuse their right to speak freely. It would be to treat ALL gun owners as if we were guilty until proved innocent. And that is anathema in a free society...no matter the practical benefit.
- SidAirfoil
May 7, 2009 3:25PM
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.
Some further thoughts
Thanks for your reply, SidAirfoil. Having considered your answers, I had a couple of ideas come to mind for your consideration.
You said that American's distrust stemmed from a 'careful' reading of history, but I wondered if 'particular' would be a more accurate word, because it seems (to me) that the American attitude to government comes with a set of implicit assumptions attached that may serve to hinder neutral analysis. Specifically, it seem to me that there is an anarchistic assumption at work that attaches a negative value to all forms of government (ie. all governments are bad/government is a necessary evil) and rankles at the imposition of rules on the individual by the state. If you begin with this sort of assumption, it is hardly surprising that American's are distrustful of their government.
My theory (and feel free to disagree) is that a good deal of this distrust stems from the American cultural narrative of the 'rebellious colony that fought for freedom from tyranny', and which views any form of government with great suspicion irrespective of whether that government is malignant or benign. I guess what I am saying is that it seems that the notion of 'government as the enemy' was relevant at the time of the American revolution and the drafting of the US Constitution, but that the distrust of government that was relevant then has become part of the American cultural narrative. It has subsequently been transfered down through generations to the point where it has become an almost irrefutable 'truth' asserted with almost religious conviction, long past the point where the situations that precipitated its invention have ceased to apply.
Regarding the value of constitutional republics and their ability to prevent tyranny, I think it is worth considering the effect that time has on entrenching institutional norms and preventing divergence from those norms. To put it more succinctly, the system dictates the behaviour of those acting within the system to a significant degree. In the context of government, each person knows (more or less) what their role is, what the limits of their power are, and that someone is (presumably) watching what they are doing and will intervene if they step out of line. Occassionally, some try to outwit the system, but most of them fail. In the cases where they succeed, it has more to do with the size and awkwardness of the bureaucracy than actual institutional weakness. What I mean here is that it does not automatically follow that the unstable political conditions that precipitated the American revolution are still relevant in the present day, where the institutions and practices of democratic government are deeply entrenched.
I take your point about the price of a free society , but I suspect that your definition of 'free' might differ significantly from mine. Personally, I see the freedom from the danger of random gunfire to be a more immediately useful freedom than the right to have a gun to fight against hypothetical political oppression. The point I am trying to tease out here is that maybe the concerns that provide the basis for the Second Amendment are no longer (as) applicable, and that you are arming yourselves against (and paying the price for) a threat that is largely illusory. Ultimately of course, its a matter that Americans must decide for themselves, but as an observer I can't help but think that the price you pay as a society for your particular brand of freedom seems awfully steep.
Finally, one more question if you don't mind. Having considered your comments about freedom and the extent to which government intervention into the affairs of the individual can be tolerated, how do Americans understand their relationship to the social contract? I ask this because Americans seem to tolerate far less 'government interference' in their lives than people in other societies, so I wonder how American's reconcile their individualism with the practical need for social cohesion.
- Sesquipedalian
May 18, 2009 1:30PM
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.
Not necessarily
Don't take my word for it. Instead, take the word of an English language expert and his analysis of the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd .html
- LagerHead
July 7, 2009 4:12PM
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.
A good argument
While I find your argument to be much more logical than most of the "he-man, chest beating" posts about gun ownership, I have a couple of questions for you:
1. How do you explain the existence of free nations (Canada, the UK, etc) that have strict gun control laws?
2. How do you explain the existence of free nations that have high rates of gun ownership, but low incidences of gun violence (ie: Switzerland)?
I believe the problem here may not be gun ownership, but the mentality of many people who purchase guns . I come from a gun-owning, hunting family with several police officers in it. My family members who owned guns were responsible, would never have thought to openly carry a loaded weapon (except while ranching, when a loaded rifle was in a carrier in the truck or horse scabbard), and were safe thoughtful people. The mentality of the people in our country seems to be that of provocation and intimidation. I don't think outlawing guns is the answer. We need to do something about the dumbed down, swaggering, spitting, crotch grabbing idiots whose answer to every problem rests in violence. These mass murders of families and random strangers have got to be stopped. I don't feel safe walking our streets any longer. And that isn't the America I knew, and I don't believe it is what the authors of the Constitution intended.
- Enlightened1
September 7, 2009 1:11PM
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.
Consider This
Consider this:
It is Midnight. Your wife and children are at home alone because you are working late. There is no phone in the bedroom where your wife is sleeping. Suddenly, she is awakened by the noise of something smashing. She sneaks quietly to the door of the bedroom which is open. She looks out and in dim light she can see at least two persons moving through the living room wearing masks. What should she do? Try to sneek to a phone? Remain quiet and hide and hope they do not come for her or the children? Personal experience says that she is likely in danger. The answer? I say the answer is buy her a gun that fits her hand, teach her to use it should she need to. You will never know what it is actually like to have this happen to you until it does.
- UltraConservative September 4, 2008 8:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
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.
Consider This
Same scenario. Your boys snuck out and then snuck back in... and did a piss-poor job doing it, breaking a lamp. Your wife is scared. She gets the gun out, and sneaks to the top of the stairs and shoots.
You will never know what this is actually like, hopefully... but this is what happens more often than not.
If you're so scared of someone breaking in, you should buy an alarm and a get a dog.
- SocialistBetty
January 8, 2009 11:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Couldn't agree more
Shooting first and asking questions later is the worst solution. While having a gun safely away from where the kids can get it can be good, it shouldn't be your first defense.
- Blue Linchpin
January 8, 2009 11:54PM
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.
Consider This
The wonderful thing about a gun is that it isn't a booby trap or some uncontrollable death machine. It is a highly controllable death machine. Say the wife stands at the top of the stairs, levels her firearm at the intruders, and demands that they stop what they are doing and explain themselves. The boys say, "Ma, it's me, everything's fine!" and the intruders either surrender, allowing the police time to get there, they go to jail, and no one gets hurt, or they try some funny business, in which case they die. Having a firearm is not enough. Knowing how to use it safely and effectively is just as important, if not more so. There's nothing wrong with having an alarm, a dog, and a gun.
- richardsonkr
January 15, 2009 8:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
That wee part of responsible gun ownership.
Aaaaand, in the event that you don't actually hear someone until it's too late, part of being a responsible gun owner is ensuring that access to you weapon is limited. In my room is a locked closet with a locked cabinet. In a separate closet is a locked safe with ammunition.
I Have to do this because I have a child. I can't take into account what my child will one day do, even if he appears to be going down the correct path. At the moment it's even more necessary because of my child's age.
My weapons of deer destruction are really of little use to me unless I have pre-warning that someone has entered my "zone". Can I say "breached my perimeter"? Is that too Sargento of me?
Same scenario... those aren't the kids, they're really intruders, and they're good at what they do. They are in your wife's room before she even wakes up. What good is that gun going to do her?
That's why it's the last line of defense. Buy an alarm, get a dog. If you're so worried about your family... suck it up. Besides... this guy has kids. You and I both know full well he doesn't have loaded guns. And if he does, they are securely locked. It's almost to the point of being useless, like I said.
- SocialistBetty
January 28, 2009 12:30AM
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.
The last line of defense.
"That's why it's the last line of defense."
That's exactly my point. A firearm is and should be your last line of defense. Say you have an alarm, and they get through without tripping it, which really isn't as hard as it sounds, the dog starts barking, so they shoot it, so you pick up the phone to dial 9-11, to find that they've cut the phone line, and now you're up there with no way to defend yourself and the knowledge that someone down there has a gun. That dog barking would have been enough to alert you to the presence of an intruder, allowed you to open your double locked safes and closets, which to me seems a bit excessive, but I digress, and taken care of the problem. If someone is good enough to get past the dog, you are screwed, plain and simple, but I don't think even a ninja could get past the dog without making some noise. Like I said before, there is nothing wrong with having an alarm, a dog, and a gun.
Also, you have mentioned yourself that you hunt. That is a measure of safety. If a natural disaster were to strike, and you were placed in a New Orleans type situation, you have the tools to acquire food and defend your home from looters. That is a part of safety.
- richardsonkr
January 28, 2009 4:25PM
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.
Sorry
If an intruder gets past my alarm and shoots my dog. I'm not calling 911. I'm chambering a personal defense round.
- silveravnt
August 27, 2009 12:29PM
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.
You're all wrong.
First, I am not using a gun as my last line of defense. I'm using as my first. What are you going to do? Ask the guy who's invading your home for a timeout so you can upgrade from a slipper to a knife, then from a knife to baseball bat, then from a bat to to a gun? No, come prepared for the worst, and hope for the best.
Second, Silverant, why are you going to chamber anything? You should have it locked and cocked and ready to rock. (Sorry, couldn't resist a little cheese). Seriously though, if you have an empty gun, sell it and get a free rock. ;-)
- LagerHead
September 22, 2009 4:01PM
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.
Money Issue
Some people cannot afford a dog. A gun is a one time investment, not counting ammunition. A dog you have to continuously feed, bathe, take to the vet, and keeping it alive. Besides, what will stop a robber from shooting your dog, taking away your protection and causing emotional pain(assuming you loved your dog)?
- GettinGwap
January 27, 2009 12:48AM
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.
"buy an alarm and a get a dog"
So the robber breaks in, shoots your dog, you're unarmed; now what?
- JKM121
March 24, 2009 1:29AM
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.
Hmmm....
Well it depends how redneck thrillbilly you are.....
Most robbers are there to steal stuff and get away with it. If they get caught it does them no good. If you're a robber and an alarm is going off, AND you shot a dog - now is when you run. Neighbors hear things like gun shots . The second the alarm was tripped an alert was sent out. The police are most likely already dispatched to the location... if they're worth anything other than the pain in the ass they are where I live and can drag themselves away from stopping people who are walking because ....they're walking..... At this point, what is the point of stealing anything? You're already going to be seen... and most likely if you stay to search the house to kill someone, you'll be caught in the act and possibly killed, too. The people who are in the house are already aware you're there so they're now either hiding or have the doors locked... which means it will take you longer and more bullets to get to them to shoot them... which is not why you're there anyway.
And if it was.. if your sole goal is to kill someone or ones, you're really effing stupid to have gone about it this way. If you wanted to kill the people, just walk in during dinner and shoot. You're more likely to get away with it than tripping alarms and shooting dogs.
If you really want to shoot someone... the fact that the other person has a gun won't make that person any safer, if that's your intent. It just means it's one more thing that'll be left for the family to decide what to do with after the person is dead.
Having a gun doesn't make you safer.
- SocialistBetty
March 25, 2009 1:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Have You Even Looked At A Newspaper?
"Most robbers are there to steal stuff and get away with it." That's true, guess where they can find the jewelry, the most money , and credit cards . In your wallet/purse, around your neck and wrist.
If a bad guy is so brazen as to enter a home with an alarm and shot the dog, do you honestly think that's as far as he'll go? Why not take hostages? Why not take that pretty little wife, or god forbid, that pretty little daughter?
That's a terrible scenario I know but guess what? You don't have a firearm to defend yourself or family. You are completely at the bad guys mercy. If he really is a bad guy, then mercy is definitely NOT what you are going to get.
And for your comment on the police? There's a saying, even amonst the police. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." The Supreme Court has ruled that police aren't required to protect it's citizens. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14766800&BRD=1585&PAG=461&dept_id=213470&rfi=6 It is up to the individual to protect themselves. So sitting in your bedroom "hoping" the bad guy(s) will just go about there business then leave. Well, that's a pipe dream.
As for me personally? I sleep on one side of the house and my kids bedrooms are on the other side with the entrances in the middle. God help anybody who tries to keep me from getting to my kids to protect them.
I am completely and irreversibly positive guns make you safer.
- Alocer77
March 26, 2009 8:41AM
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.
Can you provide proof of this Betty?
"[T]his is what happens more often than not."
Can you provide proof of this? This "you are more likely to kill a loved one than a burglar" myth is nonsense. There aren't nearly enough accidental shootings in this country to support that statistic.
And given the absurd support alarm companies give to their equipment, I think I'll pass. But don't take my word for it. Call the alarm company and ask them how long they warranty their equipment (3 months for the big three lettered one). After that, ask them whose responsibility it is to fix it? It's yours, by the way.
And as for a dog, if they're so vicious that they'll attack a burglar, I don't think I want them near my kids . And I'd rather not pay the thousands of dollars and the years of training to get a dog that is properly trained.
I think I'll keep my perfectly legal guns .
- LagerHead
July 7, 2009 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.
Dont discount Dogs
I'm what most consider a gun nut (6guns 1000+rounds). I've had three great dogs that have been great supplements to my family's security. They let the kids pull their ears and tails. My mut is about 40 pounds. He successfully protected my son and I from two Mastiff dogs. That one day was worth all the food I ever bought him. Mastiffs are about 200 pounds each and would have destroyed us.
Dogs can be both lovers and fighters.
- silveravnt
August 27, 2009 12:39PM
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.
Gun nut?
No, you're not a gun nut. I have so many guns I am not even sure how many anymore. And so much ammo that it cracked the corner of the foundation in the garage.
I love it when people find that out and freak out. I can only shoot one of them at a time, does it really matter how many I have? :-P
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 7:21PM
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.
Int'resting.
Dude. Are you home all the time? Is this secured?
...... Do you have a lot of fire extinguishers?
- SocialistBetty
August 30, 2009 7:59AM
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.
Why do you care?
No, NOYB, and No.
- camosoul77
September 7, 2009 6:11PM
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.
You are not a responsible gun owner
You don't even know how many guns you have??? You are not a gun nut, you're just a nut. You are the kind of person who will have the neighborhood kids break in, steal some guns, then go shoot up an entire school.
I can't imagine that any responsible gun owner would think what you're doing is safe or intelligent.
What it the purpose of having so many guns? Perhaps to make up for some other shortcoming in your life?
- Enlightened1
September 7, 2009 1:27PM
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.
The ignorant, arrogant, and judgemental
Some people crochet... Some people build muscle cars ...
I need not defend my hobby from arrogant and presumptuous sorts.
- camosoul77
September 7, 2009 6:10PM
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.
Then you're not fully protecting yourself
Not that this is any surprise, but you obviously don't read things fully, nor very well.
What good is your gun going to do you when there's already someone in your house with a gun pointing at your head? How are you going to get your gun then, sugar pants? I have guns .... do you think they magically appear in my hands whenever I want them to? Do yours?
The whole point is that guns do not make you safer. They are not magic charms that will prevent people from doing harm to you. They do not tell you the future. They are a measure of protection that only works IN CONJUNCTION with other things. With out those other things, your chances of actually getting to your gun go down significantly.
My dog (passed away last winter) never attacked anyone at all. But he barked at unfamiliar cars and people ..... and coyotes.... Dogs don't have to be vicious to alert you to the presence or an about-to-be-presence of a stranger in your home or yard.
Also. It's not that cool to recommend yourself.
- SocialistBetty
August 30, 2009 7:41AM
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.
Awww. That's sweet.
Thank you for your concern, but I am quite well protected, thanks.
You have unwittingly exposed one of the fatal flaws in the gun control argument: the "what if?" You hypothetical situation does nothing to support your position. Given that logic, the fact that my aunt was killed when an 18 wheeler hit her car and it exploded, killing her instantly, even though she was wearing her seat belt, I shouldn't wear a seat belt either, right? Wrong. Because the fact is, both seat belts and guns save lives every day. Just because sometimes they don't do it, doesn't mean you shouldn't take proactive steps to increase your chances of surviving when bad things happen.
But I don't want to leave your question unanswered. In your situation, chances are my gun would be completely useless. But it doesn't always turn out that way. Ask Tom Jones of College Park, GA, who on May 4 of this year shot and killed one of two home invaders who was pointing a gun at him and his friends. He didn't just surrender his life to the scum who had invaded his home, and saved the lives of 10 people inside his home. But, his gun didn't make him safer, did it? Wrong again.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html
Finally, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your dog. However, I don't see anything in your statement that would lead me to believe I would be safer if he had been my dog. Cars and people come and go all the time in my subdivision, so a dog barking at those with whom he is unfamiliar would tell me nothing. I have two dogs that bark at even familiar people. Either way, I don't put my safety, and certainly not that of my wife and two kids , in the hands (or paws) of anyone but me. Because ultimately, it is my responsibility, and mine alone.
- LagerHead
August 30, 2009 10:55AM
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.
Shaky.
Once again, you're not reading very well.
The question isn't about gun control . The question is: Do guns make you safer?
Alone? No.
Guns are not magical things that appear when you need them and tell you the future. A seat belt is nothing like a gun. It's like trying to compare apples with soccer balls. Okay, they're round, but that's about all they have in common.
So you live in an area with medium traffic. Again, at three in the morning, there shouldn't be anyone in your lawn, nor at your door. Your dogs barking ARE a great deal of protection, regardless of the fact that they bark at you when you pull in the drive, and pee with delight at the mail man. Not that I'm saying they actually do.
You're missing the point that without warning - a gun is just another item that is laying around. About as useful as a shoe horn if you have no way of getting to it BEFORE you need it.
That story? Not exactly gives all the facts, nor are they accurate. In fact, it's really hard to get a straight story. One article says they came through the front. Another says they burst through the patio. Some stories are posted on May 4th. Others later, and others earlier. Not that it means it's not true. But how did Tom get to his back pack and open it without arousing the suspicion of the gun-man? Second, if someone bursts through a patio door at a party, do you think it wise to stand there like cows? Third, why was Tom carrying a loaded gun around in his back pack where he could just whip it out and start firing?Fourth: If two gunmen separate the men and women and keep them in separate rooms, and Tom walks in to find the other guy about to rape his girlfriend - what were the other women doing? A gun requires one hand, at the least.
Of course you're going to say "Having a gun saved ten peoples lives!!!" You're going to be screaming inwardly that of course it made those people safer. IF that story is even true. We don't know. But. What happens if Tom had accidentally left that back pack on a bus?
The very point of having a gun is for the "what if"s" according to you, yet this is what you say gun control advocates use. It works both ways, foamy. I have guns for entirely different reasons. They don't actually include the "what if" scenarios. Nor does fear of death rule my life so completely that I ignore what common sense (which isn't exactly common) says and the rules of safety and carry my weapons around with me in a backpack.
Guns do NOT make you safer just by owning one. Sorry.
- SocialistBetty
August 30, 2009 5:58PM
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.
Betty, Betty, Betty
Of course guns don't make you safer by just owning one. No reasonable person would state that. For example, I wouldn't feel safe around you if you had 1,000 guns lying around you. I would actually run screaming. But that's a different story.
"Guns are not magical things that appear when you need them and tell you the future."
Wow, great imagined argument. I guess next you're going to tell me elephants don't fly. Thanks for the news flash, Kronkite.
"Your dogs barking ARE a great deal of protection,"
No, they are not. I ignore my dogs' barking completely. Can you please explain to me how they are then protecting me? Birds chirp in my neighborhood, too. And I pretty much ignore them too. Are they protecting me too?
"You're missing the point that without warning - a gun is just another item that is laying around. About as useful as a shoe horn if you have no way of getting to it BEFORE you need it."
Again, what if? What if I do have my gun when it is needed? Am I less safe, or more safe? I know, less.
"What happens if Tom had accidentally left that back pack on a bus?"
What if? What if? What if? What if this story was made up? Even though it's not, and I have no proof whatsoever that it is. Well, what if?
"Of course you're going to say "Having a gun saved ten peoples lives!!!"
Yea, because it did. Just because you imagined that this might be made up doesn't change the fact that it did. And all of your questions about why was he carrying a loaded gun, and why wasn't the alleged rapist using both his hands, and what if, and why and who, and where don't change a thing. It happened. It made those people safer, and you just can't stand it. Well I sure hate it for ya.
"Nor does fear of death rule my life so completely that I ignore what common sense (which isn't exactly common) says and the rules of safety and carry my weapons around with me in a backpack."
Like you said, you don't have all the facts. Is it not possible that maybe, just MAYBE, he had been carrying it in a holster on his hip while carrying his backpack, and upon arriving at the apartment where none of this ever happened, placed the gun into his backpack? I sometimes do something like that. Is it not possible that in a country of 360,000,000+ people, that two people might do something vaguely similar?
And as for fear of death ruling one's life: once again, I refer you to the seat belt example. No, I am not comparing a seat belt to a gun. Thanks again for inventing that little factoid. But an irrational fear of death doesn't have to rule over you to know that it's a good idea to wear a seat belt. You don't wear it for the 99.9% of the time you arrive at your destination without incident. You wear it for that one time - just one - where you don't. It only takes once. And wearing a seat belt - or having a gun - at that one time, MIGHT be the difference between life and death. And if you come out on the other side alive, the seat belt, or the gun, just made you safer.
- LagerHead
August 30, 2009 11:32PM
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.
Heeyyy... I'm Kettle. Nice to meet you, Pot.
Well apparently, I'm not reading fully either. The shooter was Bailey. Tom Jones was the reporter.
- SocialistBetty
August 30, 2009 6:00PM
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.
My boys arent stupid
Growing up around firearms they know that they would be walking into an ambush and that they had better identify themselves as friendly. My wife being trained in firearm safety knows not to shoot anything she cant see.
BTW I also have an alarm and a dog.
- silveravnt
August 27, 2009 12:23PM
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.
But
there a lot out there that are. More than you can count.
- mike1948
August 27, 2009 1:53PM
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.
Bra. Vo.
How many people get training before buying a gun? Another issue entirely.
Good for you for having an alarm and a dog and for educating your children that guns are not toys and on responsible gun ownership. Thanks.
It's problem that a lot people think guns are some kind of magic charm and make you automatically "safe". It's also a problem that guns are viewed by the media and by manufacturers of games and toys as just that - toys and game pieces. Guns are tools, and weapons. They can be dangerous, and should be respected for what they can do, both helpful and harmful.
But. I still don't think they make you safer in this kind of situation unless you have other measures of security. As I've pointed out - having many guns or a gun won't make you "safer" if someone is in your home and you find yourself eating carpet before you even forget what you were dreaming about.
Nor does having a gun make you safer if someone decides to wallop you a good one and jack your wallet, kick you in the crotch, throw dirt in your eyes and stab you in the kidney... or... something. The gun in bag won't do you much good because it can't see the future.
But. Whatever. I have them. I kill things. I eat them. I rescued the cat from coyotes. I scared a persistent Jehovah's witness (was't loaded..). They're locked. Some aren't even assembled. I don't feel safer. Just more prepared in the event of a natural disaster or jump in the price of ground beef.
- SocialistBetty
August 30, 2009 7:54AM
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 just caught this:
"Good for you for having an alarm and a dog and for educating your children that guns are not toys and on responsible gun ownership. Thanks"
"I scared a persistent Jehovah's witness (was't loaded..)."
Now that is too damn funny.
- LagerHead
September 22, 2009 4:08PM
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.
It happens more often than not?
Really? It does?
You make stuff up.
Gun owners are the type to IDENTIFY A TARGET before pulling the trigger. ESPECIALLY PARENTS.
Parents and gun owning parents think through scenarios like this all the time, every day. It is just plain ignorant to assume nobody else does just because you don't.
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 7:18PM
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.
One home envasion can easily answer this question.
I love my family. I protect my family. An intruder would not hesitate to use his/her weapon of choice. I would not hesitate to protect my family. I would choose this decision as opposed to living with what I chose "not" to do when someone I loved was harmed in a home invasion.
- kim42
September 4, 2008 11:31PM
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.
The point
The point is that my family isn't worth 'playing the odds' with. I'm not going to stand about saying "there was nothing I could do," when I can buy a gun and go kick some ass. There IS something you can do. But you can't wait until the bad guys show up to prepare for it.
My family deserves better than excuses and tears on their graves.
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 7:23PM
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.
Definitely More Safe!
Over 2 Million cases of defensive uses of guns every year in the US alone. Accidental deaths of children by so-called "accidental" shootings are consistently in the double digits typically between 50 & 80. In fact accidental is the wrong word. Negligent is the word to use. In every case of so-called "accidental shootings" multiple standard gun safety rules are violated, and in most cases the negligent discharge is performed by adults mishandling their guns while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Children are more likely to die by drowning in toilets, bathtubs, or buckets of water than they are to die by negligent discharge, especially if you follow standard safety practices & don't handle your guns while under the influence of drugs. Better yet, just stay sober all the time. You can have just as much fun & best of all, you actually remember the fun you had the next morning!
- DustinsGunBlog
September 5, 2008 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Yes and No ...
It's impossible to come to a rational "yes" or "no" in this question outside of specific context. There are far too many other related questions requiring an answer before one can even attempt to answer this one. What's the condition of the gun and its ammunition? Does the owner know how to safely use the weapon? Is the owner of the weapon proficient in its use? Can they hit where they aim? What's the context in which one is considering use of the weapon? Is one's argument, determined by the specific context, a rational or irrational argument? Has one checked one's facts for accuracy?
To the stated question, you are looking for a universal answer when none can be or will be found.
The real question here is this - is there rational argument for the right to possess weapons? My answer to that one is an emphatic yes. The right to private property is well established. The right to one's own life is well established. The right to defend oneself against unjust force or coercion is also an easy argument.
Perhaps what one wants to know is: ought we be at liberty to possess weapons? My counter question is this: according to which facts and by what logical argument do you claim to extend your personal right to your own life to the "right" to prevent others from possessing weapons?
In my own personal life, it is not the weapon alone that makes me safer, it is the rational state of mind behind the gun upon which all depends. Assuming a rational mind, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it or something equivalent to it and not have it.
- Naumadd
September 7, 2008 2:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes They Do
In 1991, I had 3 guys come at me in a parking lot, the only thing said was one of them muttered "just kill him", I quickley showed them a 9mm semi auto, didn't even point it at them, & they just turned around & went back into the darkness.
There was not enough time or distance to unlock & get back into the car, & going around ether end of the car to escape would have only put me closer to them.
I became a believer that evening, & a certified trainer the following year
- The Duck
September 19, 2008 8:09AM
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.
Safer?
All of those school shootings... I highly doubt that the kids went out and bought them themselves. More than likely, they were retrieved from home.
When you're out in public, anyone could have a gun.
Only government officials, such as the police, should carry guns.
- deepikaur
October 1, 2008 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
The Way I See It
Think about it. Criminals will always have ways to get guns. So what other viable option will level the playing field 100% of the time? A gun. And as far as accidental deaths are concerned, other inventions we made kill people. Take cars for example. I know cars have an adverse effect on the environment, but do you really propose banning cars? If this was the Medieval times, we would be having this debate about bows and swords. Guns are just another tool on the list that people can die by, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of them.
- GettinGwap
January 27, 2009 1:21AM
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.
All of those school shootings
They all got those guns from Charles Montgomery. He sometimes works as a food prepareer at schools or a janitor. He uses different aliases.
My scenario is just as made up and unfounded as yours.
BTW many prominent government leaders agree with "Only government officials, such as the police , should carry guns.", Hilter for example.
- silveravnt
August 27, 2009 12:44PM
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.
Brilliant!
200,000,000 dead people, killed by their own governments in just the last 100 years, disagree with you.
Jsut fine if you want to be helpless. Your choice. But to force that handicap upon others is sick.
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 7:25PM
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.
2nd amendment
Reading these comments makes me happy that there is an 2nd amendment right in the USA to keep and bear arms. Robberies in my neighborhood almost never happen at night. Only in the day when people are not home, because most people here have guns and a robbers biggest fear isn't the police , their biggest fear is an armed citizen.
- Timber
October 8, 2008 8:16AM
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.
Does Owning A Gun Make You Safer?
I don't want to live in a land where only criminals and political folks decide who can have a gun, too many politically inclined people turn out to be criminals also.
Speaking of guns and bigger bangs... If McCain had associated with unrepentant abortion clinic bombers would anyone at all vote for him? If not, why is anyone at all voting for Obama?
- CharlieBravo
October 14, 2008 12:05AM
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.
Law abiding citizens should have guns
Every criminal on the street has a gun.Whether its pointed at you or one of your neighbors or friends it makes sense for you to have the right to protect yourself from these dregs of society.
- zekiel4
October 19, 2008 7:19AM
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.
Think big picture
It is true that accidents happen and innocent people die when an irresonsible person leaves a gun in the wrong place around the house. Still, guns do not kill people, people kill people - sometimes by just leaving the gun accesible to an inocent child. But we must keep our eyes on the big picture. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. They had not only vission but also experience - gun control that removes all guns only makes it easier for the bad guys. The bad guys are not going to give up their guns, and they will be more willing to take a life to obtain anything they want knowing they are less at risk from retaliation from a would be victim. To see what would happen at athe national level if you take away our right to bare arms just spend a couple of days in Mexico. Just spend a few days in Monterrey driving a nice vehicle. Crooks do not hacitate to jump you because they know that, unless you are one of the bad guys, you are not going to have a gun. So they will even jump you with only a screw driver in their hands! It is an unfortunate truth, but as long as there are human beings willing to take what is not theirs, people have to be able to defend themselves.
- jfm
October 20, 2008 11:07AM
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.
I think the answer is simple
It depends where you live, work and play.
As for China,,I work with Chinese people and I was in China. One of them asked me "are you allowed to own a gun?" I said yes. Then he asked me "Do you own one?" I said no. He asked me why, and I had no good answer for him.
- walt1999
November 4, 2008 11:05AM
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.
Of course
Why does every political figure in the world surround themselves with firearms, and with armed guards?
Answer - because guns make them safer. They don't just make them feel safer, they make them safer in an undeniable, concrete way. You can even ask Barack Obama this question. The only HONEST answer he could give to explain his belief - that he should have guns but everyone else should not - is that his life is more important than are the lives of the rest of us.
About the only people who feel less safe around guns are those who are afraid of guns. Fear hyperbole rules their views on this issue.
- Carl in Chicago
November 11, 2008 10:18AM
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.
Bad Question
Owning a gun simply means you have a rather useful tool to insure safety to you and those around you. If you keep it in a shed, like a hammer, where you can not find it when you need it, it is no use to you. If you keep it in a conspicuous place or in the reach of children or the irresponsible, it actually makes you less safe. But if you keep it well-maintained and loaded, on your hip or in a safe, you have one of the most successful means of protection against a bodily attack from one to a small group of attackers (two legged or four legged).
This does not mean that you will be safe, or that you will even be able to use it in time, for this you must remain alert and vigilant (not vigilante) to insure you are not where an attack may happen. If, because you carry a gun, you choose to walk down dark alleys and go further in high-crime areas then you would normally go, it makes you less safe. With a gun you also have legal safety to worry about, if you use it you may go to jail. You will be investigated. I do believe the the collective ownership of the citizens does make our other liberties more sure but, don't forget, Patrick Henry's words, "Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel." It is the Second Amendment because it helps guarantee the First. The fact it helps with both putting food on the table and protecting your personal liberty from harm is just a bonus.
- dcunited08
November 12, 2008 9:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Statistics on gun deaths
Instead of making 'tis-'tisn't claims about gun violence, it's worthwhile looking at some international statistics. These can be found here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
The United States has more gun murders per capita than Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. The per capita rate in the United States is almost 28 per million while in Canada it is 5 per million, less than 3 per million in Australia and just over 1 per million in the United Kingdom. To express it another way, Americans are more than 5 times as likely to be killed by guns than Canadians, more than 9 times as likely to be killed by guns than Australians and more than 27 times as likely to be killed by guns than people in the United Kingdom.
It appears that the 'right to bear arms' comes at a terrible price.
- Michael Glass
November 15, 2008 5:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There's a payoff.
Yeah, and in countries like China, gun murders don't happen at all!
So lets all move to Communist China, everybody. Because it's so much safer...
The right to bear arms has been put in place so that our government will never be able to declare martial law . Perhaps it comes at a terrible price, but so does living in a country where no one can bear arms except the government. The PRC may have to deal with riots annually, but I'm sure the military owning all the weapons makes their lives so much easier.
- Livvy
April 28, 2009 10:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Getting back to the question.
Yes I feel safer because I am safer. I have used my gun on more than one occasion to prevent theft, assault and who knows what else had I not been armed. In all cases I did nothing to provoke anyone, never fired a shot and no children died from my weapon.
If you want to make an argument about the human cost of our freedoms then make the same comparison with automobile deaths (USA 155per 1M) and deaths by medical malpractice (Thus, America's healthcare -system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer . http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm ). Each of which kill many times more people per annum.
28 per million, I'm fine with that. Would you be more comfortable with only 5? You are actually ~4 times more likely to die in a car crash in Canada then murdered with a gun in the U.S. of A.
- jaker277
June 29, 2009 11:00AM
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.
Friendly fire?
Gun deaths at 28 per million work out at about 8400 deaths annually for a population of 300 million. If the United States had the same rate of gun deaths as Canada, the number of deaths would be about 1500. If the United States had the same rate of gun deaths as Australia, the number of deaths would be less than 900. If the United States had the same rate of gun deaths as the United Kingdom, the number of deaths would be about 312.
If other English-speaking democracies can do so much better, and still retain their freedoms, then perhaps there is something that the United States can learn from their experience.
You hav
- Michael Glass
June 30, 2009 4:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are repeating yourself.
Was there another point that you wanted to make? Yes 8400 deaths anually by guns in US but 46500 by auto. So what, I already stated that is an acceptable number. We also have a higher murder rate per capita total with or without guns. All the more reason to own one.
And the freedom I was speaking of was my freedom to own a gun, which you other nations have lost. Which seems to have done you no good there in Australia. I guess since self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence to own a gun there -
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
You are #1 just above the UK and Canada.
- jaker277
June 30, 2009 9:15AM
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.
Your freedom to own a gun - at what cost?
Do I understand you correctly?
Are you saying that your right to own guns is more important to you than thousands of lives that might be saved by changes in the gun laws ?
Are you saying that the lives of those lost because of gun deaths don't matter because more people die in car accidents?
Are you saying that the freedom that matters to you most is your right to own guns?
Are you saying that others' right to life takes second place to your right to own guns?
And by the way, please read the website you linked. It has this to say about the statistics it presents: "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime , than actual prevalence."
- Michael Glass
July 1, 2009 7:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, yes and yes.
There are currently almost 7 billion people living on Earth. Experts suggest another billion in the next decade or two. This is unsustainable.
So yes my freedom and security and that of my family and friends is worth a few thousand souls. It is survival of the fittest according to the rules of nature.
You claim uncommitted so I may just actually try to convince you for a minute.
I'm saying that if your objective was simply to save lives then you would be spending your time lobbying against autos and doctors . Look at our crude mortality rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_dea_rat_cru_per_1000_peo-crude-per-1-000-people
US and AUS are pretty close together. I am fine with these numbers. There are more than enough people in the world. Death is a part of life. But the only thing that makes life worth living is freedom.
Im saying that the only freedom that guarantees my other freedoms is my right to bear arms. It is live free or die IMO. I am a citizen not a subject.
Does your privilege, not right, to drive supercede the right to life of others? If we save just half of the people killed by cars we save 3X as many than by guns .
Yes I read the ws. "are often" = possibly or maybe but not certainly. The website seemed fine when you were using it to make your point but now somehow it falls short? Even with a 5% error that still puts Auzzies in third and the U.S. waaay down the list at #15. Do you think the error is 50%?
The bottom line is that this is America. And we hold our freedoms dear. There are those who would seek to constantly whiddle away at our freedoms, especially recently. See Patriot Act. But there are those of us who choose liberty over this illusion of safety.
And Obama brings broken promises and more war. Which I oppose!
To get back on topic... you live in Australia and you can make your own policy there and if you choose to come here then I welcome you with open arms and would die to protect you and your opinion. But America's voice is clear in support of the Second Amendment.
- jaker277
July 1, 2009 11:53AM
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.
the implications of yes, yes and yes.
Now that you have stated that your right to own guns is more important to you than thousands of lives that might be saved by changes in the gun laws ;
now that you have stated that the lives of those lost because of gun deaths don't matter because more people die in car accidents;
now that you have stated that the freedom that matters to you most is your right to own guns; and
now that you have stated that others' right to life takes second place to your right to own guns:
I won't try to convince you that reforming the gun laws might save lives. However, self interest might suggest the following courses of action.
If you want to do something to reduce overpopulation, try supporting the education and employment of women and girls.
If you want to do something about the road toll, try compulsory seat belt legislation, random breath testing for alcohol , airbags and other proven measures of harm reduction on the road.
If you want a higher standard of public health , consider the possibility of a national health service.
And consider the possibility that your safety might be enhanced if American gun laws provided that guns were less available to the criminal and the insane.
- Michael Glass
July 3, 2009 8:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Man, you'd better be pro-choice
That's all I can say to the Individual Rights > Human Life crowd.
- quantummechanik
July 3, 2009 10:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What freedoms?
Michael, you just named 3 countries that don't have the right to bear arms. How exactly did the maintain their freedoms?
And you're only talking about accidental shootings. Since firearms are illegal in those countries, the shootings that take place tend to be of the less accidental persuasion. I'm not sure what English speaking has to do with gun control or the right to bear arms, but there is sufficient evidence that gun control does not equate to less gun violence/ crime . Take Mexico for example. They have extremely restrictive gun laws , and very high gun deaths.
And what about Scotland? English speaking yet have the highest assault rate in the "developed world." (Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005) And according to a 2001 study by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, Australia has the highest contact crime rate per capita of the 17 top industrialized nations. In 2003 Canada's homicide rate was double that of the U.S. despite massive gun control efforts (Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online.)
So while more firearms necessarily equates to more accidental shootings, it also serves as a deterrent against crime, as numerous studies have shown and none that I have seen so far refute.
- LagerHead
July 20, 2009 2:50PM
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.
Freedom doesn't stop at the US border
Lagerhead, freedom doesn't stop at the US border. Other countries in the free world get along fine without an unfettered right to bear arms.
You claim that Canada's homicide rate was double that of the US. As you haven't backed this up with a link, I suggest that you consider this web page http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070718/dq070718b-eng.htm which suggests that crime in Canada is actually falling. Another web page says the following:
"Among selected countries with similar levels of economic development, Canada's annual homicide rate in 2006 (1.85 victims per 100,000 population) was less than half that of the United States (5.69), and slightly lower than that of Finland (2.12) and New Zealand (2.37). It was higher than that of Australia (1.45) and three other G-7 member countries: England and Wales (1.41), France (1.39), and Japan (0.64)."
href=' http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic '> href='http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic'>http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp'>href='http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic'>http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57
It therefore appears that your belief about Canadian crime rates is unfounded and that Canada and other developed countries enjoy a lower murder rate than the United States.
- Michael Glass
July 21, 2009 9:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are correct
That should have read that Canada's "violent crime " rate, not homicide rate, was double that of the U.S. (Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online).
You are also correct that freedom doesn't stop at the U.S. border. But the U.S. has enjoyed being one of the most free nations in history. It has a long and proud history of preferring to err in favor of personal freedoms. However, this is beginning to change. And it is not a good thing.
This is a perfect example. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution. And the only reason Brady and their buddies are trying to change that is because they have severe hoplophobia. They believe that either 1) my gun is going to jump out of its holster and begin firing randomly into crowds of little old ladies and children or 2) that as soon as I touch a firearm I will lose all ability to form rational thoughts and perceive every word and action as a deadly threat and attempt to neutralize said threat using deadly force. Both are completely ridiculous of course, but Brady and VPC, etc. don't believe that I can be trusted with guns . Well I don't believe people who refuse to look at facts and think rationally can be trusted with my rights.
- LagerHead
July 22, 2009 7:51AM
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.
You need to compare that
also to the gun owner per capita, and the gun per person rate as well.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And restrictions come at a greater price
Mexico has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. and has a higher murder rate by guns . How is this possible? Could it be that this is simply one statistic that could be used to formulate an overall opinion about gun control ? Could it be that there are other factors that need to be considered?
- LagerHead
September 22, 2009 4:18PM
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.
Evidence, please
Please supply evidence to show that Mexico has stricter gun laws and a higher murder rate by guns .
- Michael Glass
September 23, 2009 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ok.
This first link gives an overview of Mexican gun laws . You can see they have much tighter restrictions on the types of guns you can have, more steps to legally own guns, and generally restrict access to guns in general.
http://www.davekopel.com/espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm
Mexican Gun Laws
This second link shows international violent death rates, and breaks them down by gun and non-gun deaths . You can see that despite Mexico's tighter restrictions on guns, they have nearly triple the homicide rate by guns (9.88 vs. 3.72/100,000) and more than triple the total homicide rate (17.58 vs. 5.70/100,000).
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
While the U.S. certainly has a much higher rate than some countries with extremely strict gun laws - Japan, for example - countries like Brazil, which make it all but impossible to obtain a permit to carry a gun outside the home, have much higher gun homicide rates despite restrictions. So a simplistic look at rates without looking at other factors does not tell the whole story.
- LagerHead
September 23, 2009 11:33AM
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.
Comparing the US with Mexico and Brazil
Firstly, thank you for the links. Yes, the United States does do better than Mexico and Brazil. The question remains why the US does so much worse than more comparable countries such as Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. These are the countries most like the US in language, culture and social conditions .
- Michael Glass
September 23, 2009 8:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
But none of those countries have the same problems with illegal aliens that the U.S. has. It's quite a bit harder to walk to Australia, for example, from another country than it is to walk to Texas. Canada has a much more sparse population with fewer metropolitan areas, where crime tends to be concentrated. There are numerous factors that together all combine to answer the question.
- LagerHead
September 24, 2009 8:23AM
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.
Are illegal aliens the culprits?
Your reply seems to indicate that you regard illegal aliens and metropolitan as major culprits for the high rate of gun deaths in the United States. However, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand all have large metropolitan areas. England is particularly densely populated and yet it is notable for its low rate of gun deaths. Could it possibly have something to do with the availability of guns ?
- Michael Glass
September 25, 2009 6:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Carry a gun ?
I carry a gun, because I'm too young to be murdered, and too old to suffer crippling injury at the hands of violent criminals.
Thus:
I don't go armed, because I harbor a secret desire to kill people, any more than I wear a seat belt while driving, because I have some compulsive desire to become involved in traffic accidents!
I don't carry a gun, so that I can scare people. I carry a gun, because the world is a scary place!
I don't carry a gun as a delusional response to imaginary threats. I carry a gun, so that I can deal effectively with real threats!
I don't carry a gun, because I'm evil. I carry a gun, because I've already seen more evil than I ever wanted to!
I don't carry a gun, because I hate government. I carry a gun, because I've seen how woefully limited and impotent all governments are!
I don't carry a gun, because I'm angry. I carry a gun, so that I won't have to spend the rest of
my shortened life being angry with myself for being naively unprepared.
I don't carry a gun, because I want to become involved in a lethal confrontation. I carry a gun, because I want to die of old age, surrounded by family, in my own bed, not alone and hemorrhaging on a dirty street.
I don't carry a gun, because I'm a Cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die (of old age) and go to Heaven, I want to be a Cowboy!
I don't carry a gun, because it makes me feel like a man. I carry a gun because real men know how to take care of themselves, and the ones they love,and do so without apology!
I don't carry a gun because I'm "inadequate." I carry a gun, because, when unarmed and facing three brutish thugs, I am inadequate!
I don't carry a gun, because I love doing it. I carry a gun, because I love life!
At some point, all of us will have to wager our lives on the outcome of a single event. There are some things worth risking everything to save; some things, without which, there will no longer be anything to live for! At that moment, you either step up to the plate, or slink away. Either way, you'll never have another chance!
- cbunix23
November 16, 2008 5:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
sawmill king
The way I see it--a person has the right to bear arms--especially in his or her home's for protection only. However a lot of people purchase guns and do not know what to do with them at all. That is the kind of people that makes everyone else look bad. If a person is not instructed on how to use the gun--then they are a danger to themselves and the people they live with. Remember guns do not kill. But people kill. Remember the make my day law???? Anyone--it gives you the right to protect your self and your family as well. Lets face reality--if a person breaks in to your home with you in it--he or she means business--and you are in grave danger as well---so the only defense would be to have a gun in the house and know how to use it as well. I do not agree with the old cliche--make sure the robbers are in the house and then shoot to kill. However you can detain them long enough to call the law and have them picked up and put in jail instead---then press charges. As far as guns in a educational facility--I do not agree with that at all. These are just children that do not have a life line in their stable--and do not have enough common sense to use one correctly as well.
- flying eagle
January 25, 2009 2:23PM
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.
Not a bit safer
People with guns are not one bit safer - because if someone else knows they have this gun, they can simply surprise them from behind, and suddenly - another armed criminal is loose.
As far as I am concerned, people who apply for gun permits - have already failed a psychological stability test, for wanting a gun in the first place.
- Brian Valentine
January 29, 2009 12:08PM
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.
Lunacy?
Does this mean that every police officer who signs up knowing a pistol will be part of his uniform is psychologically unstable as well?
Desiring the most effective tools is not unstable, and when the task at hand is defend your freedom and life a gun is simply the best tool around.
- MilitiaJim January 30, 2009 12:09PM
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.
Wish I could agree with you
How many handgun owners have murdered their own relatives in a fit or because of a paranoid mis-identification of a possible "intruder"?
These people were obviously pretty unstable to begin with - but they just passed through the filter and got a gun.
The number of these cases - compared with the actual use of handguns for legitimate self defense - looks pretty bad to me, which is why most police chiefs seem to take a dim view of gun-toting citizens.
I have to agree with that view, I regret to say
- Brian Valentine
January 30, 2009 3:24PM
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.
That's a good question.
I have no idea how many people have had some sort of "fit" and shot a relative. While you're digging that up look into stabbings as well.
After that you need to find out about people who flipped out a little bit and committed no violence. (I'll help out, I'm in that group.) Then you get to compare it with the people who didn't even bother to call the police because they brandished a weapon and the threat made itself scarce.
I couldn't begin to tell you what's wrong with the police chiefs, but I can share a couple tidbits of information: CCW permit holders are five times less likely than the "average" citizen to be involved in a criminal incident. The places with the most restrictive controls on weapons seem to have the highest crime rates. Armed citizens have a much better record than the police regarding the accidental shooting of innocent bystanders.
Me carrying a pistol would make you safer, especially if you don't know I have it.
- MilitiaJim January 30, 2009 10:58PM
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.
My personal choice
I don't want a gun and after reading a story about some paranoid who shot his own 3-year old daughter dead through his bedroom door because he was convinced it was a "buglar" the thought of guns makes me sick.
I was in Iraq for two years after the Saddam government fell, and every day I saw the result of people using any gun they could get their hands on to defend their "freedom" apparently - bus loads of people, killed for nothing.
No thanks.
- Brian Valentine
January 31, 2009 9:35AM
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.
A necessary tool.
One of the things I remember from my time in Iraq was the lady who was terrified that we would take the house's AK-47. She was very afraid that the local wildlife, feral dogs, would come after the children. The family used their assault rifle to keep the children safe.
- MilitiaJim January 31, 2009 11:15AM
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.
A useful tool
Families in Iraq were allowed to keep an AK and one clip.
These are highly effective against a jihaddist with three 110 mm rounds wrapped in det cord in his white Opal, driving around to find something he didn't like so he could spark the cord and eliminate the target and himself.
Dogs were all over the place there; a shout seemed as effective against them as the report of a rifle.
- Brian Valentine
January 31, 2009 11:47AM
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.
I disagree...
I own guns .... but I happen to know they do not make me "safer". I own guns because I hunt. Anyone who says guns make you safer is naive. .....
Peace.
- SocialistBetty
April 3, 2009 7:03PM
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.
Great argument Brian
"As far as I am concerned, people who apply for gun permits - have already failed a psychological stability test, for wanting a gun in the first place."
Nothing says reasoned debate like accusing those who disagree with you of being mentally unstable. And as far as guns not making you any safer, I believe 1.5 million people per year would disagree with you. That's the number of defensive uses of firearms there are. And 99% of them end without a single shot being fired. Can you please explain to me how those people weren't safer with their guns? Can you also explain to the wife of an acquaintance of mine who just last week stopped a guy from carjacking her by pulling her sidearm how she was made LESS safe by having that firearm with her?
Are you going to use facts or just unfounded emotion in your arguments? Because if you want to use facts, they are going to work against you in this case.
- LagerHead
July 20, 2009 2:57PM
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.
Homicide statistics and safety
How many gun homicides in the US each year? A lot
How many out of those, were cases for which the victim was known to the assailant? A lot
What was the usual cause? Domestic dispute, somebody picks up the known gun in the house and settles the argument right away
Other common scenarios? Teen in the house knows where the gun is, gets it out, uses it for his/her means of "problem solving"
99% of guns REGISTERED out there might not be used against somebody, but there are an awful lot of guns out there that nobody, um, "took the time" to "register the item with police ."
A nurse I knew at I hospital I worked in as a kid carried a gun in her purse.
She felt safe.
An assailant either knew or guessed she was armed, he hid behind a corner near her apartment, hit her over the head as she walked by.
So, the world of criminals added one gun to their stockpile and it's lucky she wasn't killed for God's sake
- Brian Valentine
July 20, 2009 3:33PM
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.
No argument here
But respectfully, I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, domestic disputes result in shootings in this country. Yes, many victims know their assailant. But 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve a firearm of any type (BATFE, 1999). And of the homicides that involve guns , 94.4% are gang related (Homicide trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 17 2007).
"Other common scenarios? Teen in the house knows where the gun is, gets it out, uses it for his/her means of 'problem solving'"
Can you please quantify what you mean by "common scenarios"? If by "common" you mean less than .1% of all firearm deaths, 25% of which are suicides, then yes, that is a common scenario (CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1981-1998).
Most states don't require you to register your guns period, so I'm not sure what relevance your statement about that has.
I know a lady who, on April 2 of this year watched her husband get gunned down right in front of her. The attacker shot him in the back of the head, then shot his dead body five more times. It took him so long to get out his weapon, then to wrestle his arm free from two men that attempted to stop him that if she had been allowed to carry a gun in restaurants in this state (a condition that was remedied as of July 14th) she would have been able to save his life.
And as for the example of your nurse friend, that is a sad story. I'm glad that she was not killed in the incident and I hope she fully recovered from the attack. But the fact remains that over 4,000 people successfully defend themselves every day in this country with firearms . For every homicide , suicide , and accidental shooting , 10 lives are saved through defensive use of firearms.
To answer the question posed by this article, "Do guns make you safer?" ask yourself the following questions:
• If guns are effective enough to be a criminal's preferred tool, why are they not good enough to use for protection?
• Why do politicians insist their bodyguards be armed, but not you and I?
• If you and your children were face-to-face with a male attacker twice your size, what would you do; If you weren't armed? If you were armed?
• If guns are "too dangerous" to be in our society , then why do our leaders want to be the only ones who have them? Do you trust our leaders implicitly to protect you at all times?
• Which is better – more gun control and the eventual banning of all guns in our society, or not sitting by helplessly watching as an intruder repeatedly rapes your 13-year-old daughter?
• If we ever completely ban guns, do you think there would be no more armed criminals in America?
• With so many gun laws already on the books, why do "gun crimes" still exist?
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1 /gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf
Seriously. Take a minute to really ponder those questions. If you do, and you go out and talk to people who own guns and have used them in defense of their lives you will come to a couple of realizations. First, guns save lives. There are too many examples of people using them to protect themselves to argue with that. Second, the vast majority of gun owners are nothing like the picture painted by the media .
I am an active pro-gun supporter and have daily dealings with others who share a like mind. And I can tell you that they are very aware of and concerned with obeying the law , especially when it comes to the carry and use of their guns. Most of us know our gun laws better than the average citizen. We have to because even in states that are generally pro-gun (like Tennessee, where I live) there is a patchwork of different gun regulations and restrictions. For example, it will be legal as of Sept. 1 of this year to carry in our state parks, but many municipalities will be "opting out" of this law , banning guns in their parks.
So we always have to be aware of when and where we can and can't carry. And almost all of us obey those laws to the letter. Some by locking their guns in their cars before entering parks and restaurants that do not allow carry, and others by just not going there in the first place. There are plenty of other places that are glad to take our money .
Finally, for the record "a lot" does not constitute a statistic.
- LagerHead
July 20, 2009 4:10PM
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.
I reverse my views
Rep. Michele Bachman recently stated that she wanted an "armed and dangerous" citizenry in the event of imposed carbon taxes .
I used to be against gun ownership, I now support gun ownership in America.
Carbon taxes are the last straw in the Government intervention of people's freedom.
I endorse gun ownership by right-minded people in America, and I change my opinion completely.
- Brian Valentine
July 20, 2009 8:05PM
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.
The Right To Carry Is The Right To Be Protected
In every sense of the word, guns do make you safer, whether it is at your own home, or at a college campus. I am highly aware of the fact that many people are afraid of the fact that the wrong kind of people would be allowed to carry, but the essential truth that people forget to see is that there are plenty of responsible people that would utilize the ability to carry in order to protect themselves and others. It is fact enough that crime rate is lower in right to carry states.
- TrapshootingGirl
February 7, 2009 6:16PM
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.
pilgrim1776
The big problem in this country is the dumbing-down by the government schools and the maintenance of that dumbing-down by the totally controlled media.
The Second Article (they should never have been called amendments since they do not amend the Constitution that was designed to limit and restrict government) clearly states that the Right to Bear Arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and that is what all of the liberal, socialist and whatever other title they can be called, individuals fail to accept.
The video that has been shown on the internet about the young lady whose parents were murdered in a restaurant rampage by a madman clearly states the fact: The Second Article was specifically designed to protect the state citizens from GOVERNMENT!
- pilgrim1776
February 13, 2009 1:10AM
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.
Old West
You people are idiots.
When someone walks into a bank and holds it up... how does your gun make you safer?
When someone shoots you from a highway overpass.... how did you your gun make you safer?
When someone walks into your home in the middle of dinner... how will your gun make you safer?
Do you walk around with holsters and your six-shooter? What the fuck is this.... 1886?
Did their guns make Them safer? Or wait.... was that when everyone DID have guns... out in the open? Yes. Yes it was. And were they safer?
No. They weren't.
Guns do Not make you safer. Just like a basement keep you safe in a tornado unless you have advance warning - the same applies to a gun. Having one doesn't mean you're safer unless you have advance warning.
- SocialistBetty
April 3, 2009 7:10PM
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.
get real
SocialistBetty, while you are calling names, you are the one who it the idiot. You can't see the forest for the trees. You rant against truth and logic. Let me explain.
Why am I safer when some walks into a bank and holds it up ? That most likely won't happen if we have a free society where law abiding citizens can carry guns without having to jump through a lot of hoops. But it it does happen, I would be safer because I am a much better shot than the robber, and he won't know that I have a gun. But if he thinks that there might be some people in the bank with guns and he robs it anyway, he will get what he deserves.
When someone shoots you from a highway overpass? What have you been smoking? How many instances can you cite where someone shot a driver from a highway overpass? I think that such a lunatic would get a gun (or a bowling ball) and try to kill or maim people whether there are gun control laws or not. If someone is doing something like that, wouldn't you prefer that I (a law abiding citizen) have a gun to stop this dangerous activity?
Middle of dinner? Ha! If someone broke into my home in the middle of dinner he/she/it would be swiss cheese in short order. It would be pretty messy but it wouldn't disturb my dinner. Ha, it's funny to just think about it. I can't believe you asked such a stupid question.
I don't have a six shooter. THAT's archaic. I have much better guns than that. YES - guns make society safer. If gun laws prohibit gun ownership/possession, then only criminals will have guns. If criminals think someone in their house has a gun, they will try for an easier target. Just look at the examples of England and Australia. Their crime statistics have DOUBLED since they made their country "safer" by severly restricting gun ownership by civilians. The criminals still have their guns. That's why they are criminals. I'll still have mine. How about you?
If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, how are you going to defend yourself? With a spoon? Or a broom? Or are you going to call 911 and cower in a corner waiting for the intruder to find you and KILL you? I find it hard to believe that people like you can be so illogical. Defend yourself! The cops certainly won't do it for you.
- spatin
April 3, 2009 10:12PM
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.
idots? maybe.
The idiots are the people that go buy a gun, take it home, and put it up. Never bothering to learn how to properly handle it. Never sitting down with thier family and teaching them the inherent dangers of firearms . Yes a gun is dangerous. As to having an advanced warning, that is where practice comes in. Practice until you are sick of it. Practice makes you prepared. Being prepared gives you the ability to react quicker. To think more clearly. I myself have been around firearms my entire life. I am confident in my firearm skills, but I still practice. I don't own or carry a gun to to make myself feel safe, I feel it is my civic duty to protect my family, friends, property or even a complete stranger from any harm that is unforeseen.
- cjlee
April 9, 2009 8:17PM
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.
Questionable
My argument is that yes a gun will make you feel a lot safer especially in a situation where you and your family are in danger. But a problem is that when you have a gun, there is an easier opportunity to shoot another person, whether it be on accident, or on purpose. I did watch this one documentary about canada and in this one city, almost everyone had a gun, and at night everyone left their doors unocked. the worst they ever had was a few break-ins and one homicide in the late 1970's. Turns out the homicide was committed by an American who was visiting Canada, other than that no other crimes were committed involving a gun. I don't know how accurate the documentary was, it seemed to be legitimate. I found it very interesting.
- Shane
February 9, 2009 8:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let me add to this, Shane.
Kennesaw, GA passed a law in 1982 that required every household to have a gun. The last murder with a gun in Kennesaw, GA was in 1986 and the last homicide was in 1989, and was committed with a knife. Of course, guns didn't make them safer, right?
- LagerHead
September 15, 2009 4:35PM
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.
Mass Murder around World
Mass shooting events in the United States have been blamed on the availability of guns. But sudden violence happens around the world. This demonstrates guns are not the cause of violence.
In Japan recently a factory worker and video game player rented a truck, drove it into a crowd, jumped out, and stabbed seventeen killing seven.
Here sudden violence is called Going Postal. Most do not know that that name is a Culture Bound Syndrome. The same violence in Malaysia is called Amok. Among the Navajo it is iich'aa. It has been happening for centuries around the world.
Subliminal Distraction is a likely cause. The Virginia Tech, Redlake school, Joleka school, and Atlanta Day Trader shooters all had Subliminal Distraction exposure. They also had mental events near the shooting. SD is known to cause a mental break where it was discovered in business offices. The cubicle was designed to deal with the vision startle reflex to control the problem.
Schools are unaware of the phenomenon even though it is explained in college psychology. They do not offer Cubicle Level Protection or warn students.
Home computer use where others can move in peripheral vision are a likely source of exposure. Your subliminal sight in peripheral vision reacts to movement. It does not identify the object. You do that when you complete the reflex, turn and look.
Serious exposure begins when you learn to consciously ignore movement around you so you can continue working with out the startle. But you cannot prevent your brain continuing to detect threat-movement. The repeating subliminal appreciation of that movement will eventually color thought and reason.
You too can be a victim. Sudden violence is not the only outcome. Symptoms of exposure are fear, paranoia, panic attacks, depression and thoughts of suicide.
I am reminded of a saying from the old west. "God made man Mr. Colt made them equal." Guns do not cause crime, accidents, or suicides.
The issue is not safety. You cannot prevent sudden violence. Guns allow you to "Be Prepared" the Boy Scout motto.
Information from: http://VisionAndPsychosis.Net I am the Copyright holder for this site.
- Researcher
March 4, 2009 1:00PM
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.
A Belief
The Proper Handling And Use of Weapons - Man's ultimate tool, with a capacity for good and evil almost beyond comprehension, is the ultimate test of maturity and, indeed, wisdom. - Anonymous
From the time you pick up a firearm, you become a part of a system over which you have complete control. You are the only part of the system that can make a gun safe or unsafe.
A firearm is only an instrument. It contains no evil, no conscience, and no ability. It is strictly the intent , competence, and character of its user that decides the outcome of any and all actions taken with it.
Remember: no gun can be made accident-proof. A gun is just a machine, with no judgment of its own. It responds to your actions, whether wise or foolish. The only truly effective safety device is the mind of a cautious person who never forgets that a moment's carelessness can produce permanent tragedy.
I am a huge believer in the second amendment. I work at a Gun store and I've seen and heard the stories from customers who have been robbed as well as the managers who have been held up. Guns prevent crimes and If you talk to anyone where I work theyll tell you them same. We've seen people come in the store and try to "check," us out and once they saw all the employees carrying weapons they decided it wasnt a good place to try and rob.
- arukaen
March 8, 2009 6:07PM
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.
Gus can make you saffer and not just from people.
Living in a rural community, I know the benefits of owning a firearm. Where I live there are mountain lions, coyotes, vicious stray dogs, rattle snakes, and numerous other animal threats. I would rather have the comfort of having a firearm on my person or close by, than to have a knife or some sort of blunt object (Granted I have killed a rattle snake with a large rock before).
In regards to protection from people same thing I feel safe knowing that I have a firearm that is readily accessible if needed. I live by a few rules when it comes to owning and using a firearm. Assume it is always loaded, do not aim it at anything you do not intend to kill, and only use it as a last resort.
I do believe in gun control, but only in regards to Assault Rifles, fully automatics, and Maximum Magazine capacity. Assault rifles and fully automatics were designed with one purpose in mind, to kill people. Maximum magazine capacity, is in regards to the saying "bullets do not discriminate," the fewer rounds, the less likely to have any collateral damage. Limiting magazine capacity should be directly related to the Caliber/Gage of the fire arm. By this I mean the power behind the projectile. A 9mm has substantially less stopping power than a .357, and that less than a .45. Shotguns although they may be more powerful at close range, should be limited as little as possible. The reasoning behind this is, if all you have is a shotgun, and the person is at a distance, I would rather hit them several times, before they become within lethal range. Mainly because being peppered by a shotgun, in my opinion, would make many people think twice about coming any closer.
Although I do Support owning firearms, I also do support proper storage and personal safety precautions. Such as trigger locks, Safes, and storing them unloaded. These are all good precautions because if someone breaks into your house, and your weapons are not secure they can be used against you and your family, just as easily as they can be used for protection.
- Tctaes
March 13, 2009 9:23PM
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.
In total disagreement with your control over "assualt rifles"
Assault rifles are no different than any other firearm . With the exception of appearence. As far as fully automatic weapons go, the only way you can legally own one is to have a federal firearms liscense. Which envolves a background check, inspections, properly secured storage, and a nominal fee. Maximum capacity magazines are irrelavent. It's just that much more money you send down the barrel when you shoot. When you start talking about banning certain firearms, you leave the door open for other things. High capacity leads to bullet type. appearance leads to caliber. Pretty soon, your down to the pump shotgun and rimfire. If you haven't seen or heard about all of the anti-gun legislature, that is their sole purpose. COMPLETE DISARMAMENT. And anyone that can think for themselves knows that when a society can no longer defend themselve from tyrannicle government, freedom and liberty are no longer. Don't let it happen. Your classic styled guns or a weekend plinker using an AR type rifle. It's all the same to them.
- cjlee
April 9, 2009 8:39PM
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.
The police have no legal obligation to protect you
The police have no legal obligation to protect you or your loved ones. When the chips are down, you need to protect yourself, or allow yourself to be killed.
No one...no one...is going to deprive me of one minute of existence on this Earth. No one will take *my* life, or the life of my loved ones.
I choose to defend myself with a firearm . Let those who would take that away from me to come over to my house and live with me 24x7 and protect me from bad guys...who will *always* have access to guns ...even if we rounded up every gun from every household in the USA and dumped them into the ocean. Bad guys will *always* find a way to have guns, and use them against us.
- shooter
March 29, 2009 11:51PM
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.
it's possible
it is possible depending o how you use the gun it may get you killed because it might make you look threatning to someone else and then they could shoot you whereas it might be a good way to protect ourselves
- Drachaos
April 3, 2009 10:10PM
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.
anything is possible
Sure, I guess what you are saying is possible. If I have a gun and I stick it in the perp's face, he may think he is being threatened and react violently.
But that would be the last violent reaction he would ever make.
What? Am I supposed to just cower in a corner and let the perp do whatever he wants to do to me and my family?
Hell NO!
- spatin
April 4, 2009 12:33AM
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.
Safer? Depends.
Safer from criminals or safer in protecting our freedoms? In plain and simple words, the Second Amendment allows American citizens the option of overthrowing a corrupt government if the need ever arises. The Founding Fathers saw how England tried to disarm the Colonials in order to control them. The wanted to ensure that American citizens would always have the right to own and bare arms, thus the words, "..shall not be infringed". The government should always fear the people, not the other way around. Other checks and balances were written in the Constitution for the people to use, but the Founding Fathers knew from experience that only citizens with firearms could truely be free. There are many elected people today that would have been hung for treason in the late 1700's. Many citizens today are fed up with the government restricting their freedoms. Treaties being made that are not in accord with our Bill of Rights and laws create "permits" and "licenses" to exercise our Rights go against preserving our freedoms. Laws are needed to punish citizens who abuse their Rights. Not laws that punish citizens for exercising their Rights. We've seen a great increase in firearm and ammuniton purchases. I don't believe that people are in fear of crime as much as loosing their freedom. I honestly believe that any new laws that restrict or limit the Right to bare arms will cause a second Revolutionary War. These anti-Second Amendment people know not what they do.
- Otter
May 9, 2009 7:52AM
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.
Safer from who?
Does it make you safer from criminals? Yes, I think so.
For a long time I lived in a flat where none of the residents in the building were allowed to own guns of any kind. I was the only woman in the building and I am neither large or strong. Every weekend most of the men in the building would start drinking on Friday and wouldn't stop til Sunday. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every weekend I had some drunk stranger(s) knocking at my door in the middle of the night for no reason other than I was the only girl in the vicinity. I didn't know most of these men, and I didn't feel safe around them. Sometimes I wish that I were a large, intimidating man, but I am not. I carry a taser with me now because I know that physical pain (or threat of death) is sometimes the only way to communicate with certain types of people.
Do guns make you safer from your government? No.
America is funny in that it seems to think that it is a) a democracy , and b) protected from their government by the 2nd amendment. Americans spend four months out of every year working for their government, and most of that money goes to military defense, a branch of government that isn't legally required to protect its citizens. I'm sorry, but just because you don't call it socialism doesn't mean it's isn't.
- Cheerikiara
May 12, 2009 10:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Molon Labe
Three things, first take a good look at the picture at the top of the page. That is a single action revolver chambered for 22 long rifle. What is it being loaded for? Is it to hunt squirrel, shoot tin cans, shoot paper, for protectin from snakes and such while hiking, for self defense, or to use to intimidate or murder someone with. Your answer prolly says more about how you view this issue than what you have to say about it.
Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that right can be exercised for any legal purpose including but not limited to, protection against tryanny,(in my home state it is legal to resist unlawful arrest, up to and including shooting the cop, at least 15 states still allow this)hunting, self defense, target shooting, fondling with lustful thoughts if I so desire. Any legal purpose. Any legal purpose. Any legal purpose. Don't like it? Take it up with the Court.
Do guns make me safer?. No. Not anymore than seat belts, fire extinguishers, and not leaping from tall buildings. The safety is between your ears. If you've not enough sense to recognise a dangerous situation for what it is, and to take appropriate measures to limit and protect yourself from those those dangers, then don't whine becasue the predators amoung us wipe out your family. And don't think that because you are unwilling to take proper responsibility for you and yours, that others must be forced to make those same decisions. The rules say it don't work that way. Don't like the rules? Move somewhere the rules are more to your liking and leave the rest of us alone. It is a free country and you are free to move.
I don't depend on my gun to keep me safe, I've moved three times in last 30 years to reduce my families exposure to the cretins. If the situation look dangerous, it probably is. And if you don't do something to limit your exposure to the cretins, then don't whine when they make you a target. You play an active part in your victimization, by choosing to ignore and deny the rality of the world we live in. All the "What if there were no guns" "What if everyone could just get along" is just so much wishful thinking. If there we no water, people wouldn't drown, and if there were no cars no one would die in car accidents either.
Does owning a gun make you safer? NO. But neither does ignoring the fact that we live in a world full of dangers that we should take action to protect ourselves from.
- JohnH June 28, 2009 10:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
if criminals have guns why not me?
i believe that as long as criminals roam the streets with guns it is our right as law abiding citizens to protect ourselves against being made into a victem and as long as someone has something someone else wants the potential of crime is real its human nature and has nothing at all to do with living in the states or china or the north pole.If every person had a pistol on thier side walking down the street than the crime rates would drop not go up .Why would a criminal attack me for my wallet or kidnap my son if there was 20 guns in his face when he turned around?
- responsibl gun owner
June 30, 2009 11:26AM
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.
Responsibi
It's an interesting question, certainly. There's a book called "Leviathan", written by Thomas Hobbes back in the 17th century asking a similar question--Basically, how do I avoid getting killed by other people. He came to the conclusion that it's impossible to do anything alone that protects you--having a gun does not in fact protect you from guns . Having a bulletproof outfit might, but not simply having a gun. If someone wants to shoot you, they'll shoot you. The only protection we can really create for ourselves is systems of laws and government, that punishes people for murder . Granted, it's not something that works every time, BUT it's more effective than simply arming yourself and continuing on with your life. The state of humanity without law is a war of all against all, according to Hobbes. Peace comes through laws.
- quantummechanik
June 30, 2009 2:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm surprised at you
"Peace comes through laws"? Come on. There are hundreds of laws on the books regarding guns , yet they do not prevent gun crimes from happening. In contrast, gun ownership in this country is at an all time high. In 1986, only six states allowed you to carry a gun. Today 48 allow at least limited carry, with about 40 allowing most law -abiding citizens to carry. And murder rates are at a 35 year low. And there are over 4,000 defensive uses of firearms every day in this country, so the reality doesn't match your implication that guns don't protect you.
- LagerHead
July 20, 2009 4:15PM
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.
You May Feel Safer...
But it is no guarantee that you will survive an attack. Gun ownership, as I see it, creates a false sense of security, regardless. There is no guarantee that the homeowner with a gun will survive a home invasion, if criminals break into his residence. Crime rates are far lower in countries that do not allow citizens to own handguns (however, they may own hunting weaponry). I believe that the rising crime rates from guns in Canada are the results of organized crime and the increasing drug trafficking in that country. Still, Canada has a far lower per-capita handgun murder rate overall than does the United States, since Canadians do not have an automatic guarantee to bear arms. I do not believe that the writers of our U.S. Constitution meant for the Second Amendment to allow anyone unlimited unchecked access to firearms , but they did intend for citizens to freely protect themselves during times of war, especially at home. The numbers of handguns and firearms severely outnumber the entire population of our country, and that's a very chilling thought. It is time for some kind of change.
- camelcityman271
July 27, 2009 5:35PM
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 feel safer. Because I am.
"But it is no guarantee that you will survive an attack."
And if unarmed, you can almost certainly guarantee that you won't. But being armed helps even the odds at the very least and tips the scales in my favor at the most, depending on how the attackers is armed.
"Gun ownership, as I see it, creates a false sense of security, regardless."
There are approximately 4,000 people every day who would disagree with you. There are over 1.5 million defensive uses of guns every year, and in 91% of them not a single shot is fired. Merely brandishing a handgun has therefore been proven to be an effective deterrent against crime .
"Crime rates are far lower in countries that do not allow citizens to own handguns[.]"
What about Mexico? Are you implying that Mexico has a lower crime rate than the U.S. They have much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. but a much higher crime rate. Or what about Switzerland? Gun ownership there is very high, yet the homicide rate is relatively low. The countries that the anti-gun lobby uses as examples are countries, like Japan, that don't have a long history of gun ownership anyway, unlike the United States. According to the U.N. Scotalnd was the most violent developed country, with assault three times more likely than in the U.S.
"I believe that the rising crime rates from guns in Canada are the results of organized crime and the increasing drug trafficking in that country."
And despite similar trends in the U.S. crime is at a 35 year low here, while gun ownership is at an all time high. Coincidence? Maybe, but the FBI's crime statistics suggest otherwise. In their survey of all 3504 counties in the U.S. crime is shown to be significantly lower in counties that have few restrictions on gun ownership and carry.
"I do not believe that the writers of our U.S. Constitution meant for the Second Amendment to allow anyone unlimited unchecked access to firearms [.]"
Those who have studied the writings and lives of them disagree.
"Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution , and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
I could go on, but you get the point.
"The numbers of handguns and firearms severely outnumber the entire population of our country, and that's a very chilling thought."
Yes, it is chilling to me how 280 million (estimated number of guns in owned in the U.S.) outnumbers over 360 million (estimated number of people in the U.S.). Chills me right to the bone in fact. Even more chilling is the fact that 60-65 million homes have guns. And yet there aren't 60-65 million shooting deaths every year. Chilling. Brrrrr.
Do the research and you will see that guns in America do make you safer. No amount of emotional arguments or skewing of statistics, or even outright lying by the Brady Bunch, the antiFreedom States Alliance, or the aptly names Violence Policy Center will change that.
- LagerHead
July 28, 2009 10:59AM
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.
This post is social rather than gun related...
I am posting this article to broaden the perspective of not just firearms ownership, but both the limits of law , the acceptance of government by a people and why that is necessary.
For those of you who are going to poo-poo this article, I invite you to ponder just what is happening in the U.S. today, *inspite* of existing law and law enforcement. This article is somewhat longer than the permitted length, so here is the link.
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/index.php /contributor's-commentaries/71-you-and-i-cant-buy-the-gun-mexican-cartels-own
- Olderman
August 6, 2009 8:17PM
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.
Yes!!!
Why do you think the bad guys have guns ? Because they want to take advantage of those of you that don't have guns....watch an old western it's not all about shoot'em up bang bang. It's about protection from animals and humans that want to do bad things to you. If you have a gun and know how to operate it properly you are more like going to feel safer with it than with out it...Ask a Cop...which would he or she prefer to walk around and try and protect people with or without a gun?
- Rush2112
August 18, 2009 11:42PM
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.
There are coutries
Where the cops do not have guns on them at all times.
I hike daily and camp often and have never needed a gun. I've taken guns with me and shot rabbits and magpies, but I didn't need it.
The facts are in and owning a gun makes you less safe. You are more likely to die from your own gun then to die from someone else shooting , stabbing or otherwise attempting to kill you.
I love hunting , I love guns and I agree that if the right person has the gun not only you, but the people around you are more safe. The problem is that enough gun owners are morons and it stacks the facts up in opposition to guns.
- ttut21
August 19, 2009 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If by "facts" you mean "made up stats" then yes, the facts are in.
"The facts are in and owning a gun makes you less safe. You are more likely to die from your own gun then to die from someone else shooting , stabbing or otherwise attempting to kill you."
I've provided evidence to contrary on this site on more than one occasion. Maybe you can be the first to provide evidence supporting this position.
"The problem is that enough gun owners are morons and it stacks the facts up in opposition to guns . "
Same comment as above.
- LagerHead
September 22, 2009 5:34PM
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.
some reads pick and choose and we'll talk.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp ]
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
- ttut21
September 23, 2009 3:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you for providing the requested information.
The first article is a very good, unbiased presentation of facts about guns in general. It does a pretty fair job of just laying out a few facts without trying to push an agenda either way. I have had it bookmarked for quite some time.
In it, they use the smallest finding among 9 studies that show at least 764,000 defensive uses of guns per year. It also states that in 1995 there were a total of 1,400 accidental firearms deaths of persons of any age. Now, assuming (incorrectly, but for the sake of argument) that every single one of those accidental deaths was someone being shot with their own gun, that would still mean you were more than 11 times more likely to be killed by someone else than shot with your own gun. And that is all homicides (16,400). 70.3% of all homicides in 2004 were killed with guns (11,529). (See links below)
And that is leaving out attempted murders, which you also included. If you want to include attempted murders (described as aggravated assaults by the FBI studies linked below) then you're talking a whole new ball game. Now the number ( murder + attempted murder) skyrockets to over 870,000, meaning that you are now over 600 times more likely to be killed or have an attempt on your life than to be shot with your own gun (again, assuming that all accidental gun deaths are someone being shot with their own gun).
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html
The second link you provided didn't really address the question, so I won't make any comments one way or the other about the information in it, if that is OK with you.
- LagerHead
September 23, 2009 11:20AM
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.
Depends
For a person that has been raised around guns and educated about guns, guns can make you safer. But for people that have not been taught the proper respect for guns that just buy a gun to have around for protection. It is the most dangerous thing in the house. I once faced down a street gang that thought I was talking trash about them. If I had had a gun I would have gotten killed.
- mike1948
August 19, 2009 10:25AM
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.
There is no such thing...
...as too many guns . Child Death statistics are notoriously faked, referring to ' children ' as old as 32 years old.
A gun is no guarantee of safety. Having a gun will not make you immune to others, no. But it at least gives you a fighting chance.
Deliberately helpless, or even a small chance to fend for yourself?
DUH!
- camosoul77
August 27, 2009 6:55PM
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.
Does Owning a Gun Make You Safer?
Again don't blame guns on violence it is the idiot's That misuse them that are the problem.Let me ask you someone shooting at you would you feel safer you you had one too,I would.I feel safer knowing I got a better chance than an UNARMED VICTIM!!!!Yes owning a gun makes you feel safer.
- muffmonster36
September 2, 2009 1:11AM
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.
guns do make us safer
http://www.gonv.org/legacy.htm
- nevadajunk
November 10, 2009 10:15PM
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.
The Right to Bear Arms = The Right to Live
Do guns make us safer? Yes, they are a definite deterrent according to the Justice Department's own Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI. Guns on the Virginia Tech campus and at Fort Hood would have made those places safer, but the law abiding people in those locations were not allowed to be armed even though they could have legally carried their weapons outside of the campus and military installation.
- OIFtoUSC
November 16, 2009 7:28AM
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.