Joe Bloggs and Guns

[RTFirefly]

Freedom - I will join you in avoiding territory we’ve flogged to death elsewhere. But I was only on one or two of those earlier gun threads, so feel free to tell me if I’m raising points that have already been covered.

If we can’t stop illegal drug trafficking, how do you propose to stop illegal gun trafficking?

There are a number of nations that have much stronger gun restrictions than the US does. My question would be: are they actually successful in restricting the flow of guns? And if so, by what means?

We have some posters from Europe on this board. Any of you folks care to tell us what the gun laws are in your countries, how you keep illegal guns out, and does it seem to be successful in doing so? Ditto Canada - speak up, y’all! (We must blame them and cause a fuss… ;))

If they can do it, then so can we. The question is, do their methods involve other infringements on liberty that Americans would tend to find unacceptable? Anyway, let’s see if we get any feedback.

Narile - Tom (tomndebb) responded to the Australia example, on the “Number One Reason…” thread, with the following:

The year after Australia’s gun ban, the single state of New South Wales suffered a spike of violent crime. That spike was consistent with other individual-year spikes that had been recorded in the last thirty years. (It was also bolstered by two specific instances of multiple-death crimes that would have been aberrant in any year in Australia.) That spike has not settled into an increased upward trend. It has been limited (so far) to that single year in NSW, alone.
There is a really impressive web site that spends a lot of time quoting NSW statistics out of context in order to support a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument that the reduction of legal guns has caused Australian crime to skyrocket, but it simply has not happened.

None of this says we should restrict guns anymore than we already do. But the example of Australia (and, I’m betting, the examples of Canada, various European countries, and Japan) suggest that much stricter gun control is eminently possible, and without causing massive crime waves.

---

“I truly believe that dragging Jesus Christ into partisan politics is a grave mistake. It will do Jesus no good at all to be seen in the company of politicians - apt to ruin his reputation, if you ask me.” - Molly Ivins

[ZeroCool]

well, i’m with garbod.

i recently heard that that there is a higher percentage of suicide by firearm than homocide by firearm.

so, not only do guns make it easier to kill others but it they also make it easier for people to kill themselves.

i’m not saying that if a depressed person didn’t have a gun they wouldn’t kill themselves, but why make it that much easier?

---

Question Authority

[jab1]

Manhattan said:

Reducing or eliminating guns, while arguably making the formerly-gun-owning families safer

to which Freedom said:

How does taking away the means to defend yourself and your family make you safer? You are safer WITH a gun in the house than you are without.

I think this is what manhattan meant: In 1997, the most recent year that has been studied and reported upon, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 32,436 Americans died from firearm injuries. Of those deaths, 17,566 were suicides, 13,522 were “homicides and legal intervention by firearms”, only 981 were considered accidents and the causes of the remaining 367 deaths were “undetermined whether accidentally or purposefully inflicted.”

All this data is available here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/data/nvs47_19.pdf You need Adobe Acrobat to read it. When you get the document loaded, look left at the table of contents. Click on “FIREARM MORTALITY.” When you get that page, look right and click on “TABLE 16” (which should be in blue) and you’ll see all the stats broken down by age and gender.

OTHER NOTES:

1. Out of a total of 32,436 deaths, 23,270 were of white people, or 71.74% of the total.

2. Out of a total of 32,436 deaths, 27,756 were of males, and of those, 19,673 were white males.

3. The age group with the greatest number of deaths (8,173): 15-24 years.

We’re safer WITH a gun than without one? I don’t think so.

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[Freedomx]

Cap’n Crude

I believe Manhattan’s reasoning here is that, as things stand, family members are far more likely to be injured/killed with the family gun (either by accident or through exchanging gunfire with invaders) than they are likely to be shot by criminals if the family isn’t armed.

The problem is, I do not accept this to be fact. I posted the statistics on one of the other threads. Accidental firearm deaths was around 900 for a year. Well below accidental drownings in pools. IMHO this figure tends to get inflated when people fudge the numbers and include intentional shootings. I agree that it is horrible when a 15 year old gets shot, but I lose some of the sympathy when I find out that the whole thing was gang and drug related.

RTFirefly

I also disagree with the Australia post. I don’t think we have seen any credible info in any of the threads to credibly claim what the real story on Australia is. Locking down the whole story on Australia would be new territory for this discussion.

Zarbod,

I also recently heard that there is a high percentage of people who use pills to kill themselves. Sharp objects and high buildings are also rumoured to be dangerous when a suicidal person is around.

I could be wrong, but I am going to throw out a uncited statistic anyway :)…

I am pretty sure that I read somewhere (I’m losing credibility fast on this one…) that suicides went up in England after they banned guns.

Even if it didn’t, I don’t plan to restrict my freedoms to the lowest common denominator. Do you really want to structure everybodies’ everday life to be “safe” for people with mental problems?

The suicide arguement holds the least water in my opinion.
If you guys are going to add up the number of accidental deaths and suicides, you are going to need a number to compare that too. If we are comparing numbers, there should be an objective way to determine if guns are good or bad, right?

I would like to throw in the deaths of everybody killed this century because they were kept disarmed by their government.

So total up all the people killed by:

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
In Rawanda
Pinochet
Mao
As far as I can tell, there has never been a people who became free peacefully. People must assert themselves and take their freedom. The people in this world who would take people’s freedom away from them are not likely to give up the power they have willingly. Throughout history slaves have been put to death for carrying weapons. Free men have always been allowed to carry weapons. Nothing has changed in the last 100 years that changes the last 6000 years of history.

[ExTank]

ZeroCool: If a suicidal person is going to off themselves anyway, whty restrict the rights if the other 149,999,999 (rough SWAG from the ATF)law-abiding citizens?

NuVoDaDa: You seem to be missiing some fundamental economic factors concerning criminal enterprises in America.

Wherever an item is banned to the public, but the public wants it, you have just created a seller’s market, with a non- or limited-renewal on the banned goods in question.

Where you have a seller’s market with those conditions, you have drastically inflated the price on the banned items.

Where you have a drastically inflated commodity, you have the potential for enormous profits.

Wherever you have the potential for enormous profits, you will always have those who will attempt to profit, be it legal or otherwise.

Prohibition is just about the best example that I can offer.

Alcoholic beverages were neither easy to manufacture or transport; not in the quantities that they were being demanded.

Yet when Prohibition went into effect, enterprising criminals, from the Kennedys to the corner street thug, went into alcohol manufacturing, smuggling and distribution.

[Glitch]

From “Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control”

[quote]
More than 15 studies have shown that citizens use guns in self-defense between 764,000 and 3.6 million times annually.

[quote]

Criminologist Gary Kleck has estimated there are more than 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

From “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”

Other studies show that criminals fear armed citizens far more than they fear the police.

An additional 9,000 to 17,000 criminals are wounded by civilians each year

From “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America”

Their fear is reasonable. Approximately 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed each year by armed civilians - more than three times the number killed by the police.

From “A Nation of Cowards,” The Public Interest, 1993.

Rather than conceding that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crime, supporters of gun control argue that citizens do not need guns for self-defense. After all, they say, “that’s what we have the police for.” But the reality is that at any one time, only 75,000 to 80,000 police are on duty to protect about 271 million people - which is why police primarily investigate crimes rather than prevent them.

From “Strong on Defense”:

…police rates for solving crimes are down from 91%in the 60s to 66% in 1993. For your information, there are two reasons why solving today’s violence is so difficult:
… (2) The 90s has ushered in a shift towards random, stranger-to-stranger violence.

…only 23 percent of rapists arm themselves beforehand…

See “Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft”

Research supports the view that an armed response works. For example, women faced with assault are 2.5 times less likely to suffer serious injury if they respond with a firearm rather than trying to defend themselves with less effective weapons or by offering no resistance. According to the Department of Justice, only one-fifth of the victims who defended themselves with firearms suffered injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with other weapons or with none.

Bottom line: Guns are the best means of self defense against violent criminals, especially in the hands of somebody who has taken the time to learn the proper way to use a gun and developed the proper mindset (see “Strong on Defense” and most Ayoob books).

The most accurate numbers for gun defense is 2.5 million per year. Compare that to 954,000 use of firearms in the commission of crimes (that is the high end estimate). The legal ownership of guns, especially in the hands of responsible and trained citizens, provides a great service to society as a whole. Yes, get guns out of the hands of criminals. Prosecute dealers who sell illegally! Nail them to the wall. Punish criminals who use firearms extensively. Do not take the guns out of trained, responsible citizens. Time after time this has been shown to be hazardous to everyday citizens (yes, random crime can happen to you. See “Strong on Defense”).

Philadalphia 1989 to 1997 (highest firearm murder rate in the 10 largest cities in the US, costs the city $50,000,000 a year in extra additional policing and health care costs), the State of Illinois (double the US murder rate, 20% higher rate of rape).

John Lott’s study (for the University of Chicago) showed that concealed carry laws reduce murder 8.5%, rape by 5%, and severe assault by 7%.

[nebuli]

I haven’t read many of the previous gun threads either, so I will also ask for foregiveness if I’m repeating what has already been said ad infinitum.

I do not own any guns and do not intend on owning any. For years I was mildly pro gun control- no problem with the idea of more restrictions, but skeptical that it would be any kind of panacea. Recently I read a statistic which has changed my thinking (I don’t remember the source, but it was in the mainstream media; I would have dismissed it if it was in a pro-gun source). In the US 13% of burglaries occur in residences which are occupied at the time. In Canada and the UK over 50% of burglaries occur while somebody is home. The experts seem to agree that this is because in the most US burglars make special efforts to case their targets and verify they are empty since they do not want to face the possibility of an armed occupant. While being burglarized is not pleasant under any circumstances, I think it obvious that it is preferable that no one be home (and especially)defenseless if a burglary is to happen.

Thus it seems to me, if that statistic is indeed true, that widespread gun ownership confers a type of “herd immunity” on all law-abiding persons, whether they personally own a gun or not. (I’m further assuming that a similar type of deterrence is probably occurring to some extent with other crimes also.)

As for RT’s question about other nations’ enforcement efforts, I believe valid comparisons could be made only if there were similar levels of desire to acquire illegal guns in all the jurisdictions- banning guns may be effective in certain areas only because there was not much inclination to own one anyhow. As an illustration, the UK’s restrictions on gun ownership seem to be adequately effective in Great Britain, but wholly futile in Ulster, despite the fact enforcement efforts in Ulster are much more rigorous.

[Freedomx]

Jab1,

I was composing my last post and your post was not up yet when I started.

You actually make my point for me. In my opinion anyway.

Out of 200 million firearms in America, there were 981 accidental deaths.

So, 99.99995% of the guns in America were NOT involved in an accident.

17,566 were suicides. Call me heartless, but this holds no water with me. Unless someone can prove to me that these people would not have killed themselves had firearms not been accesible, then I don’t think this is even worth talking about. And, even if that could be proved, I don’t think that effects my right to own a firearm.

13,522 were “homicides and legal intervention by firearms.” I could not find any place that broke this down into homicides and legal intervention. I’m going to assume all were homicides, just for the purposes of illustration.

These are the problems I see with the way you are using this number:

One: How many of these occur in high crime areas where it is criminal on criminal violence?

Two: How many of these deaths were caused by illegaly obtained firearms?

Three: How many lives were saved BECAUSE OF a firearm?

The way I see it, 13,000 people were murdered in 97 with firearms. I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of these were killed by people who are in illegal posession of a firearm. I am also inclined to believe that the majority of the deaths were criminal on criminal crimes. Any homicides left over are deaths that I see as possibly prevented by the presence of a law abiding citizen with a firearm.

The only number you have to offer as to the accidental death rate with firearms is lower than the number of deaths by swimming pool drownings.

Compare the 14,503 deaths (no suicides) due to firearms with the deaths due to alchohol.
19,576 Alchohol related deaths.

As I recall, this country tried to ban alcohol and it failed miserably.
Death is no joke. Accidental deaths are horrible. There is no acceptable death when you are talking to the survivors of someone who died.

Unfortunatley we have no promise of a pain free existence. No matter what we do, people will die. Swimming pools, alchohol, cars, 5 gallon buckets…

Where do we draw the line? How many deaths can a product cause before it gets banned? Don’t we have to look at the benefit any product gives to society? When you are a woman and someone breaks into your house at night, a firearm is mighty useful. Can you think of even one instance where alchohol is as useful?

[Freedomx]

from the Kennedys to the corner street thug,

What’s the difference?

[Narile]

Freedom: The Kennedys have better PR.
RT, Thank you, I will no longer use the Australia datum as an example until I have had time to investigate it closer.

>>Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry…unless the other guy is bigger than you.<<

—The dragon observes

[manhattan]

Hi. I just popped in to state that I’m really glad that I said:

Reducing or eliminating guns, while arguably making the formerly-gun-owning families safer…

Carry on. I’m back to GQ to find more threads to toss here.

---

Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine

[jab1]

Freedom, it’s like this: When I said we’re safer without a gun, I meant we’re at risk from both ourselves and others using that gun against us. “Smart” guns would prevent others from using your weapon against you, though it would do nothing to stop most suicides and accidents. (You could not use another person’s “smart” gun to kill yourself. But you could use your own.)

You want to buy a gun and take that risk, go right ahead. (It’s like tobacco; you want to take that risk, go ahead. Just please don’t smoke around me. I’m asthmatic.) No one can stop you as long as the Second Amendment exists. By the same token, I don’t think any government can require us to buy one. I think some small town in Georgia did pass such an ordinance years ago, requiring all its citizens to own a gun. Does anyone remember that? What happened? Was the ordinance overturned or not? If I lived there, I would have left and begged my friends and family to move out with me.

I abhor violence and will be violent only when absolutely necessary. And I will not deliberately and consciously kill, even in self defense, even if I’m certain the other person is trying to kill me. If I ever did kill someone, I don’t think I could live with myself, and I mean that literally. I would not wait for the state to execute me, I’d do it myself.

And I’m not suggesting that my views be imposed on anyone else. Having an opinion does not give anyone the right to force it on anyone else. I can live with you disagreeing with my point of view.

Ain’t freedom of speech grand?

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[Freedomx]

Jab1

I meant we’re at risk from both ourselves and others using that gun against us.

I do not think that people are very likely to have their own gun turned against them. In fact, the numbers I have seen show that people who defend themselves with a firearm are 2.5 times more likely not to be harmed than those who do not resist.

“Smart” guns would prevent others from using your weapon against you…

Most of the technology I have seen for smart guns would not protect you from being shot with your own gun. Since you are the one getting shot, you would be right there, so your braclet (or whatever else) would have the gun “activated.” This is assuming that they managed to take the gun away from you.

Imagine a 4’5, 80 pound woman pointing a .45 at a 6’5, 250 pound rapist. How is he going to get the gun away from her? Is just does not make sense. If he did get the gun away from her, is she any worse off than if she had never had a gun?

I think some small town in Georgia did pass such an ordinance years ago, requiring all its citizens to own a gun. Does anyone remember that? What happened? Was the ordinance overturned or not?

While this ordinance was never actively enforced, it is still on the books. I think that the law required every home to have a firearm in it. The crime rate has dropped through the floor since the law went on the books.

If I lived there, I would have left and begged my friends and family to move out with me.

It has been proved that putting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens lowers the crime rate. Every single state that has passed a “shall issue” law for concealed carry has seen a drop in crime. This means that the state had less murders, rapes and muggings than before the law.

If you truly abhor violence, then why would you move out of a place that was safer than the place you want to move to? Why do you equate guns with violence?

I abhor violence and will be violent only when absolutely necessary. And I will not deliberately and consciously kill, even in self defense, even if I’m certain the other person is trying to kill me. If I ever did kill someone, I don’t think I could live with myself, and I mean that literally. I would not wait for the state to execute me, I’d do it myself.

You say that you will be violent only when absolutely necessary. Do you think that people who legally own firearms are more prone to be randomly violent than you are? There has not been a single outbreak of violence in any of the states that have passed the “shall issue” laws, as a result of legally concealed weapons. In fact, the benefit of the laws has increased as time went on and more people decided to carry concealed pistols.

I don’t know if you have children, but if you do, I am sure you would rather kill someone then watch someone kill them. The same goes for your parents and your wife/husband (M/F?). As for your own life, I think it is more moral to stand up to a murderer and kill them, then to let them kill you and go free to possibly kill others.

And I’m not suggesting that my views be imposed on anyone else.

I appreciate this. Really. Most anti-gun people are gun grabbers. I can live with you disagreeing with my point of view also. The big problem comes when people think they DO have the right to impose their views on other people and advocate gun confiscation.

That is a difference of opinion that I can not live with. I think the gun debate would be a lot less polarizied if people on the pro-Second Amendment side didn’t see an effort to demonize and confiscate all firearms. We have seen it happen in England and Australia (coming soon in California :)), and we see a never ending stream of gun legislation coming down the road.

The biggest question I have, is that since it has been proven that allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms lowers the crime rate, why is there such a push to restrict and ban guns?

[garbod]

Thanks, this was actually a piece of devils advocate, I have a “friend” who is constantly asking why guns aren’t just banned and I know how annoying it is, for all the reasons you have just said.
I now have to write a paper on what should UN do about hand held guns (not the real thing), and thought that this would be a good way to find out if there was any new ideas out there.
All I would like to know is if there are any ideas out there of how to stop the problem of guns.

[Freedomx]

All I would like to know is if there are any ideas out there of how to stop the problem of guns.

What problem with guns?

Here is a question for you: How would you stop the problem with cars?

Although I am not inclined to help you with your homework anymore than we already have, the thought of a pro-gun paper making it’s way into a liberal college (H.S.?) campus makes me laugh.

Don’t forget to check out the following page.
http://www.sas-aim.org/

They have plenty of stuff for you to read.

[Spiny_Norman]

RTFirefly - since you asked, I’ll bring out the old soapbox. The only gun laws I know in detail are Danish (and, thanks to SDMB, those in USA ).

OK, Danish gun laws: Private possesion of guns is for hunters, target shooters and collectors exclusively.

Hunters have to pass an exam on safe handling of guns and game protection laws - not a formality, they actually have to be pretty skilled in handling their weapons. Target shooters have to be active members of a shooting club for at least two years before applying for a pistol permit. I don’t know the exact rules for collectors, but I do know it’s not that easy.

Members of the Home Guard keep automatic weapons (submachine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns) and ammo in their homes - about 60.000 weapons in all - that’s a bit over one percent of the entire population.

The rule for all the above categories is really simple: Break the rules once, and your weapon privilege is revoked for life.

You’re of course allowed to transport your weapon to & from its place of use etc., but carrying a weapon in a public place will often make someone call the police. Thus, hardly any guns are seen in everyday life except the pistols carried by police officers. A gun draws attention.

Criminals dislike attention, and are unlikely to be armed. Still, there is a black market for guns - most are stolen military and hunting guns, which are not really handy for carrying around. “Black” pistols are rare and hard to find, as is ammo for them. Using a gun to commit a crime is considered proof of “criminal intent” and carries an extra penalty under law. It also guarantees extra attention from the police - they HATE armed criminals and will devote a lot of energy to the case.

Most bank robberies are pulled off with the old “finger-in-the-pocket” routine. Most burglars are unarmed and will much rather escape than fight. (The typical burglar is a drug addict, and if he had a gun, he’d probably sell it to buy drugs). Robberies are normally committed with threats, sometimes knives are shown. Police officers are not allowed to even draw their weapons unless there’s no other possibility.

One noticeable exception is the idiot biker gangs, who fight their turf wars with grenades and rocket launchers - and their idiot copycats.

Ok, does it work ? IMHO, it does - but it’s probably not the laws, it’s a cultural thing. This is an unarmed society, we kinda like it that way, and expressing desire to own a gun for self-protection is considered a bit silly, verging on the immature (" Sheesh, do you think you’re Dirty Harry or something ?").

Even in the armed forces, enthusiasm for guns is considered something for green recruits - a seasoned soldier shouldn’t be any more thrilled by picking up a rifle than be picking up a dishbrush.

Hmmm, this got somewhat longer than expected.

---

Norman.

Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.

[Spiny_Norman]

BTW, garbod, what on Earth could UN ever do about “hand held guns” ? Last time I checked, they weren’t in the business of passing laws.

Norman.

Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.

[Freedomx]

C’mon Norman…

New World Order…

They are coming to get you…

[Spiny_Norman]

Scary!!

I wonder what they plan on prying from my cold, dead hands ??

---

Norman.

Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.

God, I just love saying that!

Ted Kennedy’s car 1
Three mile Island 0