I don't need the State's permission to defend myself (Gun Control)

[El_Kabong]

How do criminals obtain guns? It surely must be the case that some criminals simply attempt to buy them from gun dealers. If this is indeed the case, having a process in place where someone must pass a criminal background check will at least make it incrementally more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms, and seems perfectly sensible to me. It’s not perfect, but what large-scale system ever is?

This, by the way, is why I grudgingly tolerate the security theater at airports, even though I hate it and have said so many times in this forum.

So far as I know, there is nothing that prevents a firearm from being used offensively except laws against its misuse and the inclination of its owner. Is the OP really a law-abiding citizen? He says he is, but I really have no way of knowing for sure. I don’t really mind all that much if the OP must pass through a controlled gateway before he obtains a particular firearm.

[Llama_Llogophile]

@hansel

Permits allow the government to establish and enforce standards for training, safe handling, transfer, sale, storage, etc. In other words, they’re the hook by which the government can establish policies to try to manage the effects of gun ownership, especially on innocent parties.

Seconded, and I’ll add that I’m sick of the whining about gun licensing. Hey Xan, want to talk about the hassles of getting a license to do something you want? Sit down and get comfortable - I’m a pilot.

Do you have any idea the hoops a person must jump through to get a basic Private Pilot’s license? You might, but for rhetorical purposes, I’ll assume you’re not an airman.

To receive flight training you have to prove U.S. citizenship, learn many strictly defined maneuvers and federal regulations, take two written tests, and prove your skills to the FAA during an oral and flight practical test. To say nothing of plunking down a hell of a lot of money.

All that to fly a Cessna or something similar, which is unlikely to do much damage to the public at large. And the FAA guys I know will tell you that all that hoop jumping is not to protect pilots - it’s to protect everyone else FROM pilots.

So you’ll get no sympathy from me if you have to go through firearm licensing and training. Seems the least you can do, given that you’re more likely to cause harm to someone with your gun than I am with my Cessna 150.

[hansel]

@Xan

Don’t see how it’s my problem.

It’s your problem because, unless you’re arguing that only you should be allowed permitless firearms ownership, then society must deal with the consequences of many people owning guns, one of which seems to be that a lot of innocent people get killed in firearms related mishaps.

We constrain rights just to limit their undesirable consequences. Why shouldn’t your right to defend yourself with a gun be similarly constrained when there’s obvious consequences?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Xan

Don’t see how it’s my problem.

It’s never YOUR problem personally. Everyone know that THEY are sane and reasonable, and should be CLEARLY trusted with whatever weapons they choose.

When guns are in the hands of virtually EVERYONE though… Some people are actually not safe, or sane, or able to control their temper.

But you say… “I’m Ok though! **I **should be trusted!”

Well, very probably true. However, when guns are freely available to every crazy, stupid or just plain unsafe person in a society though… things get very ugly very quickly. I happen to think that societies overall right to safety trumps your personal right to self defense.

eta … and what hansel said.

[Ravenman]

Well, I have the right to travel. That doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have the right to regulate my purchase and operation of a car. The state has a compelling interest in regulating things that are inherently dangerous.

[BrandonR]

@hansel

I agree.I disagree. First there is the non-negligible incidence of harm that comes from gun ownership, such as accidental discharges; there’s the correlation between suicide and gun ownership due to having ready means available; there’s innocent bystanders killed in shootouts, and children playing with their Dad’s unsecured revolver; and there’s mistaken shootings where a person who thought they were defending themselves blew away their wife because they fired at a threatening silhouette. Then there’s the fact that every illegal firearm carried by a criminal started its life as a legal firearm purchased by a legal gun owner, so widespread gun ownership itself is, in part, responsible for the availability of the guns that criminals carry.Permits allow the government to establish and enforce standards for training, safe handling, transfer, sale, storage, etc. In other words, they’re the hook by which the government can establish policies to try to manage the effects of gun ownership, especially on innocent parties.

Most of the items you listed were sheer negligence on behalf of the owner. In that respect, guns are no different from vehicles. Cars killed over 40,000 people in the US last year, does that mean the responsible car owners should be punished or have extreme restrictions placed upon them? Simple licensing I’m fine with; I’m talking about the more extreme restrictions (think California and Chicago). I also wouldn’t even consider the suicides by gun; people who are intent on killing themselves are going to do so regardless of if they have a firearm.

And lots of firearms come from foreign countries and their corrupt military officials, which is how gangs have fully automatic weapons which have been heavily restricted in the US (and the restrictions actually work).

I do agree that permits, in theory, allow safer operation of firearms. Unfortunately in reality they often do little to help that goal.

[MEBuckner]

@hansel

Interesting that this thread gets started just as this news is released:

epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

This casts some doubt on your claim that a gun is the optimal means to defend yourself, since it apparently increases your risk of being shot 450% in case you’re actually defending yourself.

I’m curious; from the Science Daily press release, it’s not clear if the researchers distinguished between law-abiding citizens with guns (with permits, presumably) and, say, drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense in the course of their business disputes:

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

Some people (e.g., drug dealers) live in a sub-economy (or a sub-culture more generally) where interpersonal or business disputes cannot be resolved through the processes of the civil justice system, and there is no recourse to the criminal justice system in the case of violent assaults. Drug dealers cannot take each other to small claims court; and if someone robs a drug dealer he can’t call 911. It’s as much a result as it is a cause of this rather Hobbesian existence that such people are more likely than others to carry firearms; simply put, they may carry guns because they’re more likely to be shot, rather than they’re more likely to be shot because they carry guns. Both the carrying of guns and the likelihood of being shot with guns would be the result of being employed in an industry that exists beyond the protection of the law.

Obviously the stats of such people going to be totally different than those of some middle-class accountant who carries a gun in her purse for self-defense (whether or not her gun really provides her with much protection).

Of course press releases don’t always tell the whole story, or even any of it. If this study was really mixing these rather different groups of people, I can’t say I think much of their results.

[Death_of_Rats]

@Xan

Don’t see how it’s my problem.

Which is what he would have said the day before, too, I am sure.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Xan

So you’re saying that because a gun is not necessary for defense I should be limited in the ways I can defend myself from someone?

Know it or not, you already ARE limited in the ways you can defend yourself from someone, see this page for starts.

@Mach Tuck

Seconded, and I’ll add that I’m sick of the whining about gun licensing. Hey Xan, want to talk about the hassles of getting a license to do something you want? Sit down and get comfortable - I’m a pilot. …

Thirded, I’m a big fan of not gun means of self defense. There are no hoops to jump through for me, there’s no concealed or not carry permit for a knife or other weapon (AFAIK).

You already are able use whatever means are available to you, but you better have a real good reason why you have that means at hand. 'Cause “I’m carrying this knife/walking stick/tire iron/baseball bat/etc for self defense” is an admission of intent to use said as a weapon and carrying a weapon ain’t legal.

IMHO, The Second Amendment died with the passage of the first concealed and /or dangerous/deadly non firearm weapon statute.

CMC fnord!

[hansel]

@BrandonR

Most of the items you listed were sheer negligence on behalf of the owner.

The point is less personal responsibility, and more innocent deaths. Give guns to a bunch of people who demonstrate sheer negligence, it’s frequently someone else who suffers from that negligence.

@BrandonR

I also wouldn’t even consider the suicides by gun; people who are intent on killing themselves are going to do so regardless of if they have a firearm.

This isn’t accurate, that a potential suicide will do it by hook or crook. I don’t have a cite, but my understanding is that the correlation between gun ownership and suicide has to do with impulse suicides, and that most of those wouldn’t be dead had they not had the means to do so immediately at hand.

@BrandonR

I do agree that permits, in theory, allow safer operation of firearms. Unfortunately in reality they often do little to help that goal.

Except that one of the ironies of the argument that gun regulations in the U.S. are ineffective is that the people arguing it (e.g., the NRA) are the ones who work very hard to make them so by lobbying Congress for loopholes.

[griffin1977]

@Xan

That gun permits are asking the State for permission to defend myself.

Why stop at handguns ? What about claymore mines ? I want the right to defend myself from airborne attach with SAMs, is the government contravening my rights by stopping me ?

[hansel]

@MEBuckner

I’m curious; from the Science Daily press release, it’s not clear if the researchers distinguished between law-abiding citizens with guns (with permits, presumably) and, say, drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense in the course of their business disputes:

The complete study is available here.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@BrandonR

And lots of firearms come from foreign countries and their corrupt military officials, which is how gangs have fully automatic weapons which have been heavily restricted in the US (and the restrictions actually work).

Tell me about it - in the Greater Toronto area, more than 50% of the gun crimes are done with guns obtained from the United States, abetted by the lax gun laws passed by US politicians.

Oh wait, that’s not what you meant.

Never mind.

[Revenant_Threshold]

You’re not only limited in the form you may protect yourself in, but the manner. That is to say, even with a perfectly legal tool to protect yourself, that doesn’t mean you can sit on your roof and shoot anyone who comes within twenty yards in case they plan to hurt you.

[Francis_Vaughan]

Heck why stop with guns and self defense?

I want the right to buy and use any drug I like. What the hell are they doing curtailing my rights to get blasted on crystal meth? Also, what about medical drugs? Why do I need a script to buy Vancomycin? All the info is on the web about how to use it.

Since I am a very experienced driver, with years of accident free driving, I should have a dispensation from speed laws. Most drivers are idiots and should restricted to low power cars and low speed limits, but the few of us über drivers should not be so restricted. Why does the government insist on curtailing my rights like this?

A very good friend of mine’s nephew was aflicted with Aspergers, and had significant issues coping. He found one of the farm guns and blew his brains out. He was 18. It isn’t clear he really understood that it would be permanent. Until you have been close to a tragedy like this any statments of “its not my problem” are simply ones of callous lack of understanding. One thing a government is supposed to do, and should do even in the face of vocal objections from minority interests is legislate in the best interests of the people. Worldwide the answer is clear. Societies where gun ownership is easy have higher death rates due to guns, and have higher death rates overall. There is another thread running asking about gun ownership laws around the world. The US is one of the most liberal, not one of the most restrictive.
Anytime you have a device specifically designed for efficient killing close at hand it can be a problem. One argument is that suicides are too easy. Suicides are just awful. They leave a pall across life that is worse than you can imagine. Not that people can’t find a legion of other ways to kill them selves. A friend of mine hung himself. But that takes serious effort and planning. In the countryside here there is a serious suicide problem. If not a rifle the favourite way of ending it is a motor vehicle. At high speed into a tree. But a gun in the house makes it very easy. People who suffer from an endemic depression are at real risk.

Here in Oz I simply feel totally safe. The chances of my ever encountering an armed criminal with any intent on harming me is close to zero. Sure, they might carry a knife or an iron bar, but these things can’t kill you at ten paces as you are running away. But also, you simply don’t come across such criminals in ordinary life. There are bad places, that have serious social and drug problems, but even drug related crime mostly involves someone breaking onto your house during the day and stealing your laptop.

Statistics are a slippery beast, at best. But simple homicide rates are interesting. The US homicide rate is 4.5 times that of Australia, and 3 times the UK. Clearly there are many underlying reasons for this, but one would imagine that at first pass the societies should not be that much different in terms of demographics. We get murders. And the lack of guns does not stop them. A couple of years ago a 69 year old guy killed his wife and two grandchildren with an axe. We had an ex-student killed, also with an axe, by a jealous lover. But where I live (a city of a million people) if anywhere in the city a gun is used, even if no-one is hurt, it makes front page news. Gun related crime is that rare.

But in the US this is impossible. There are so many weapons about that one simply has to accept that anyone, with any intent, be it criminal or self defence, will be have one. No amount of legislation will change that. So the society adapts. If you already live in such an environment, I suspect there is no solution.

You can trawl the statistics for ages, the FBI keeps stats on crime in the US. Interestingly there are three times as many murders with guns due to arguments as there are murders occurring during a robbery in the US. Indeed three times as many murders are not associated with any other crime as with the committing of some crime. Again, statistics are slippery things. But one is left feeling that that easy access to guns may account for a large number of murders. Three out of four murders do not involve any other crime. Yet two out of three murders occur with a gun. After guns, knives are the next favourite weapon. However half of all knife related murders are arguments. (Hint, don’t get into an argument in the kitchen.)

The upshot is that in the US, if you are not involved in illegal drugs or gangs, you are four times as likely to to be murdered by someone you know due to an argument than during an assault or robbery. That person will use a gun two out of three times to dispatch you. I suspect that up until that moment, most owners of those gun owners were upright citizens, with blemish free records.

[DanBlather]

@Xan

I should be able use whatever means are available to me.

Should you be able to shoot anyone who approaches you at night in the street? That is a means available to you.

[Uzi]

@Francis_Vaughan

I want the right to buy and use any drug I like.

You should have the right to do crystal meth if you want to. Why not? All the information is on the web as to why you shouldn’t do crystal meth, so you can’t claim no one new what would happen?

If not a rifle the favourite way of ending it is a motor vehicle. At high speed into a tree. But a gun in the house makes it very easy. People who suffer from an endemic depression are at real risk.

I’d rather have some guy blow his brains out than drive down the road into oncoming traffic to accomplish the same goal. Frankly, a person should be able to go into any hospital, ask for the ‘off me’ kit and be taken to some comfortable room to finish the program. What right do you have to say I should stay here if I don’t want to?

… but even drug related crime mostly involves someone breaking onto your house during the day and stealing your laptop.

My wife works at home.

Sure, they might carry a knife or an iron bar, but these things can’t kill you at ten paces as you are running away.

She has MS and can’t run.

Really what the argument is about is that the stupid, mentally unbalanced, unreliable people, and the those who associate with them, should be protected, while competent, sane, intelligent and reliable people shouldn’t have the best opportunity to defend themselves, usually from the latter. And thus the gene pool gets shallower.

[UltraVires]

The common theme I keep hearing is that while gun ownership is a constitutional right, we need “reasonable regulation” and that permits and licensing are reasonable restrictions on a constitutional right.

Fine. How about also requiring a permit to engage in free speech? Or to go to church?

Or how about those things that have been put into the constitution by judges? Henceforth government permission will be required to have an abortion, engage in sodomy, and interracial marriage (above and beyond the normal marriage license).

Acceptable?

While time and place restrictions might be appropriate, you can’t say that it is a right if you need to pay money and get permission to exercise the basic aspect of that right.

[Odesio]

@pedescribe

But you do not have the right to defend yourself in the best possible manner. Otherwise, we’d all have secret service details, all the time.

Being able to exercise a right doesn’t mean someone has to provide you the means for free. I’m covered by the 1st amendment but that doesn’t mean someone has to give me a book deal or a television show.

[Odesio]

@Francis_Vaughan

That person will use a gun two out of three times to dispatch you. I suspect that up until that moment, most owners of those gun owners were upright citizens, with blemish free records.

You suspect this, why?