IMO, suicide stats are a piss-poor argument for gun control. I have never owned or used a firearm, but I am most certainly not comfortable with the government telling adults “You can’t have that because you might kill yourself with it.” The government is here to protect, not to babysit.
Robodude, I have stated twice that I am neutral on the position of gun control. If you want the exact state of my thoughts, I am torn between the less guns=more safety utilitarian argument and the libertarian argument you make. Given my (classical) liberal leanings, I suspect I’m going to eventually come down on your side.
That being said, I’ve never understood how gun registration is more intrusive than car registration. To me, that’s not a “gun control” issue, but I digress.
What I have been doing here is arguing that the utilitarian argument that pro-gun people make (more guns=more safety) is incorrect. The existence of a more efficient instrument with which to kill makes attempts to kill someone more likely. As most homicides in this country are heat of the moment/manslaughter situations, less homicides would occur if there were less guns. All I’m trying to say, and all I’m advocating is that pro-gun types base their arguments on your position.
Sua
You Guys Want Some Number?!?!?! go here. http://www.guncite.com/
They’ve got A LOT of statistics there. I’ll look for a Pro Gun-Control cite too.
OK. Well, the thing is that most gun deaths are caused by honest citizens with legal guns (or their family members), who in the midst of a domestic dispute or the like, pull out the gun and shoot.
Huh? In each case, the country had an army, which was armed with weaponry. The armyfought the rebels. BTW, in South Africa, the citizens who wanted to defeat the rebels (the Afrikaaners) had guns. The citizens who wanted the rebels to win (the blacks) didn’t. The rebels won. 
(although admittedly not on the battlefield)
If you want the Israelis to win (or at least survive), than this is an argument for gun control.
Or for the UN to even the playing field and let them fight it out. War isn’t always bad(actually, alot of the wars were good). If you take away the guns, then the war will never end and the two sides will fight forever. One of them must go. (I could Hijack again this, but I won’t.)
Have you read from the two sites I provided yet?
Just did, and Gah!! Man, I tell you, I hate when sides play with stats, and I have a feeling both sides are. the 2 million gun self-defense incidents v. the 150,000 gun self-defense incidents is a ludicrous discrepancy, and I have no idea who’s telling the truth.
Two things I did note, that were relevant to my discussion.
-
the gun-control site asserted that guns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than an intruder, and they provided a cite. The pro-gun cite simply asserted that this was a “myth”, and said that these types of murders are the “exception, not the rule”, but they provided no cite. The gun-control site wins that one.
-
OTOH, the pro-gun site had a much better discussion of gun suicides. While the gun-control site did provide citations, their discussion was half-hearted. The pro-gun site wins that one.
Sua
I’m just making sure.
You did read this section right?
Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?
About the 43 to 1 ratio.
I really don’t think Suicides should really count there.
Why: It was the person’s choice to end his life and not anyone elses. I know it’s illegal to commit suicide but I only think Hommicide and Accidents should count. All of this is IMHO(although my oppinion has never been “Humble”).
I’m sorry for hijacking this,(again), but if Abortion is legal why is Suicide illegal. They’re both virtual the same: Both are the choice to end a life.
Erp, no. My bad. The pro-gun site had a discussion of the issue at another place, and didn’t link to their full discussion. I (wrongly) assumed that that was the extent of their discussion.
Sua
Technical nit-pick - suicide is not illegal. If you attempt suicide and fail, you are not charged with attempted suicide. I believe if you went back far enough, you would find that it was criminal, but it’s no longer true. (If you suceed, you are obviously not charged with anything. You are outside the jurisdiction of the courts. :))
Enought, dammit! I’m in the office at 9:45 on a Saturday night, and instead of finishing my work and leaving, I’m posting here. I’m stopping. See yas in the A.M.
Sua
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
OK. Well, the thing is that most gun deaths are caused by honest citizens with legal guns (or their family members), who in the midst of a domestic dispute or the like, pull out the gun and shoot.
[QUOTE]
Umm, actually no. That is a false statistic caused by the FBI lumping in all those folks “well known” to to you, amoung “family”. Eg, if a member of a Gang shoots another member of his gang- that’s “in the family”. The original purpose of this stat was to differ between crimes caused by total strangers, and those caused by folks you know. Most Homicides are in a "crime’ situation, like a “drive by” or a robbery, and are caused by folks with criminal records. However, it is true that far too many are, indeed caused by the old “family arguement”- but generally that does not happen all at once- ie there are beatings & such that lead up to the shooting. Someone with no prior record of violence- just picking up a gun & shooting a memember of his family is rather rare- which is why, when it happens, we hear about it on the News.
Oh no… God, please no… NOOOOOOO!!!
The cite they provided… it was, by any chance, a guy named Kellerman? 'Cuz he’s been discussed before… and his conclusions aren’t… well… oh, just find out how obnoxious it is when Kellerman comes into a debate for yourself…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52992
Note the last two pages of the thread… ::shudder::… let’s avoid all that, in this one, shall we?
Well, this comment will probably wind up with me in the Pit, but it’s a cure for boredom so here goes.
While everyone runs around abhoring the numberof shooting deaths in the US and elsewhere, no one seems to mention something that has always seemed obvious to me. That is:
How many of those people NEEDED shooting?
That is phrased poorly, but consider it. If one dope-dealer, gang member, or {insert heinous criminal category here} shoots another, then why should that count against private gun ownership? For the vast majority of people, the shooting is a matter of complete indifference. I enjoy owning guns and see no reason why one criminal shooting another should result in me being denied that enjoyment.
Well, there you have it, my horrible and Non-PC opinions are out of the closet! LOL
Regards.
Testy.
SuaSponte:
A lot of gun control opponents believe that the government will use gun registration to know exactly who has guns so they can eventually confiscate them all. AFAIK, no politician has ever proposed banning cars.
Theoretical discussions of the pros and cons of outlawing gun ownership strike me as pointless. The bottom line is, in the US, there’s no chance that such laws would work. No one would obey a ban on the pvt ownership of guns: not criminals; not honest citizens; nobody.
If guns were completely outlawed, would all gun stores and gun factories be thrown out of business? Would the owners be compensated? How much would this cost?
I think if guns were outlawed, they would remain available, just as beer, wine, and liquor did during Prohibition, just as abortion was available prior to Roe vs. Wade. Guns would be smuggled in. Underground factories would be built. People would make their own guns. Gun ownership might well become increasingly trendy, as seems to have been the case with drinking during Prohibition.
This is really one hard-to-argue subject. In countless threads here on the board, I’ve seen it logically deduced that strict gun laws irreversibly lead to more crime - or to less. Likewise, it has been pointed out that allowing citizens to arm themselves to the teeth can only lead to less (or more) crime.
Listen: It’s a matter of culture, not of gun laws. And gun laws should reflect the culture, not the other way around.
Someone mentioned Switzerland - well-armed citizens, low crime rate. Or you can take Scandinavia - practically unarmed citizens, low crime rate. Take Rwanda - hardly any guns, and they fought one of the bloodiest civil wars ever with pickaxes. Or take Colombia - plenty of guns around and an extreme crime rate.
If you have a general & widespread attitude in society that having firearms for anything but hunting, sport, military or police use is borderline loony, then strict gun laws do make sense. This makes handguns black-market expensive, the sound of shooting means that someone’s in serious trouble and police will be called, the average burglar will go unarmed because a gun is counterproductive(and probably costs more than a Rolex - with an item that costly to sell, why is he burglaring ?).
The Swiss have armed themselves without it causing trouble because they’re Swiss and they just wouldn’t dream of using their assault rifles without authorization. It’s just not the way things are done in Switzerland.
Scandinavians in urban areas see guns in the hands of police & sometimes the military, and that’s it. The only notoriously well-armed criminals were the biker gangs, and the entire system fell down on these fellows like the proverbial ton of bricks. And crime stats are nice and low. People don’t just feel safe, arguably they are safe. Why would they (we) want to add guns to that equation ? Again, it’s a cultural matter - people can collect and shoot for fun, but you’d better not be caught armed in public. It’s just not the way we do things. Our gun laws reflect our culture, cause that’s the way we do things.
IOW: Shake off the illusion that gun laws - pro or contra - will have a huge effect. If you want Swiss crime rates, look at what reduces crime in Switzerland. I for one do not think the presence of an assault rifle in every home is the primary factor, here.
S. Norman
Norman, that was a very nice comment, I must agree (about comparing different countries). It often makes me giggle to see so many links and “CITE PLEASE” in GD because, well, if there was a be-all-end-all cite then it wouldn’t be much of a debate, now, would it? Of course, the sites usually just refer to statistics and such, so they aren’t unfoundd. I just find it amusing.
Anyway.
jshore et al, black helicopters? Sheesh. I know what you mean about those paranoids: you’d think someone was trying to take guns away from them!
Oh, wait…they are.
Testy hahaha. All I have to say about that. Well read!
(WARNING: Adobe Acrobat links follow)
Afraid I must correct you here, Sua. I quote the 1999 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, page 17 of the “Murder and Non-Negligent Homicide” section: “48 percent of all murder victims knew their assailants. 14 percent were releated to the offenders, and 34 percent were acquainted with them.” Later on the same page: “Thirty percent of the murders during the year were the result of arguments.” Thirty percent is not “most”.
The next page tells us what weapons were used. Of 12,658 murders, 8,259, or 65%, involved firearms (note that these numbers have been dropping steadily for 5 years). Assuming an even distribution, a little math would tell us that, of the 3798 murders resulting from arguments, 2469, or 19.5 percent of all murders, were the scenario you describe, “someone in the heat of argument grabbing a gun and shooting someone”.
Is it a problem? Sure, but what’s the way to solve it: address the problem of domestic abuse? Improve the economy and thus the standard of living? Take away everyone’s guns? I’m pretty certain that the last solution would be the least effective in preventing deaths, and you’d disarm domestic abuse victims as well as the abusers…