Well, there are perfectly good reasons for confiscation.
I just don’t want criminals or mentally disturbed people to be able to buy guns or keep previously purchased ones.
If there are other, less intrusive ways of doing that, I’m all for them.
Full automatics are quite useless for civilian use IMHO, and their damage potential in the wrong hands is enough grounds for me to be against them.
You have to draw a line somewhere.
Mr. Zambezi,
I guess this comes partially down to cultural differences. While there are plenty of guns in Finland, carrying one in public is regarded as something only criminals or loonies would do.
If the society is safe enough, I see no reason to allow firearms in public areas. They do pose a certain danger, and they are in no way necessary for keeping peace.
Danielinthewolvesden,
Hmm, yes, I don’t think retroactive registration would work at all, as the damage has already been done (ie. the wrong people already have their guns).
pldennison,
Most of the first world is quite peaceful without things like concealed carry, and I see no reason why the US couldn’t be one of them.
But should those names mean something to me? Can you give me a URL?
Most of the first world doesn’t have the population, average population density, or cultural idiosyncracies that the US does, either. Comparing things like this across countries is notoriously dangerous, because there are so many different factors which may account for differences in crime rates.
Anyway, John Lott and David Mustard published a (much-maligned but mathematically sound) paper in the Journal of Legal Studies, and Lott later published a book called More Guns, Less Crime. They used state- and county-level data from every single county in the United States over a 15-year period to examine the impact of various factors on crime rates. They used statistics including arrest rates, population, population density, income, unemployment, race, and concealed-carry laws. What they found was that the two biggest factors leading to decreases in the rate of violent crime were an increase in the arrest rate, and an increase in nondiscretionary (or “shall-issue”) concealed-carry laws.
States that passed shall-issue laws experienced decreases in violent crime greater than states that did not; and counties within those states affected by the laws experienced greater drops than counties who were already granting nondiscretionary permits. (There is a substitutability effect–property crimes, which are less likely to involve contact between perpetrator and victim, tend to increase.) Nearly all the examined effects were statistically significant at at least the five percent level. (Some were significant at the one percent level, some at the ten percent level, some were not significant.)
Lott’s work can be viewed as a PDF file at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf . The book is also worth checking out, too, because he examines both the political and academic controversy that met the publishing of his original work. Some of that controversy can be examined at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html .
I really, honestly recommend checking out the book no matter which side you’re on. It’s stats-heavy, but it provides much food for thought.
On the contrary, I don’t think “we” established that at all. We established that confronting an armed subject with either weapon would likely result in him firing at the homeowner. We most certainly did not establish any equivalence of effectiveness in defending your life. People often tend to think the image of the firearm-weilding homeowner as “comical”, well I have a different view - I think that the common media image of the homeowner armed with a baseball bat creeping down the stairs towards the intruder is not only not funny, but is silly and ignorant.
I suppose once things get that far, but that’s sort of like saying “What good will your gun do you after you are incapacitated?” I think that’s a set-up argument, since by definition once you are in that situation little will help you. Self defense with a firearm helps you avoid getting to the point of being “belly to belly” (ugh! Talk about sickening imagery!).
So you are contending that no other Western country allows possession of handguns? Even Canada does, and I believe Venezuela, Portugal, Italy. True, they are not as lenient as the US, but several Western countries certainly allow some ownership of them. Just look at the countries represented in the Olympic Pistol Teams for examples - even Germany has private citizens on it’s team - is Germany not a Western country?
I’m not picking on you (or not meaning to anyhow). But I think you need to modify your statement to refer to leniency of ownership, to be more factually correct. There are other Western countries that do allow handgun ownership, in a more limited sense, than the US.
I would just like to say that I have nothing to add to this discussion. Considering that I broke my arm yesterday, and my typing speed is cut in half (not that I was ever setting my keyboard on fire in the first place), I will decline from re-covering ground that has been so thoroughly covered.
Again.
ExTank “Nothing to see here folks; just paddin’ the post count.”
It’s sad when Canada is an example of weak gun control, but it still does allow private handgun ownership under many circumstances. Long guns are not yet required to be licensed, but will be as of Jan 1. Anyhow, this site describes handgun regulation in Canada.
Switerland has an extremely LOW violent crime rate, and every male citizen is required by Law to keep a fully automatic assault rifle* in his home or business. Clearly, the availabity or unavailability of firearms has little or no effect on the violent crime rate. It has nothing to do with GUNS, its the economy. Poor people commit violent crime. America, as rich as it is, has lots of poor people, thus lots of violent crime. A large gap between the rich and the poor, with lots of rich for the poor to resent increase this rate. Switzerland has few poor people, and thus low violent crime. The various subsaharan african nations have LOTS of very poor people, and they don’t even call it 'crime" there, it is insurrection. Notice, that the crime rate has gone down in direct ration to the increase in the economy, and the decrease in the unemployment rate. You want to stop violent crime? Guns-shmuns- Give poor folks good jobs.
the very weapon which is the very very worst gun of all, according to the anti-gun folks.
This is simply not true. Allowing nondiscretionary concealed-carry permits among law-abiding gun owners decreases the violent crime rate. Please read the link I provided earlier.