# The right to own Guns! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2000, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740 "2000-05-28T16:49:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![JoeyBlades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@JoeyBlades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyBlades)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2000, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/101 "2000-06-13T14:54:57Z")
SPOOFE: > [@](#): > > … require gun educationg courses, genius. Easier said than done. How do you **REQUIRE** these courses? Do you force ALL American citizens to take the courses, whether they own a gun or not? Or is it just for gun owners? How do we identify who the gun owners are? How do you insure that all gun owners actually take the courses? Who pays for this education? All of this smacks of exactly the kind of firearms regulation that the NRA is fighting against. > [@](#): > > THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT AGAINST! I’m, frankly, not sure how to respond here. I’ll assume you’re talking about principles and not just some paranoid ramblings about our specific peace keeping agencies. In principle, if you’re going to rely on armed citizens to police the police, then they have to be armed similarly and they have to be organized. Given the relatively low proportion of the population that is armed and the nature of that armament, versus the arms of the military, I’d say your principles are a lost cause. Our law enforcement works because of trust and because their members are held accountable to the same set of laws as everyone else in this country. It’s just silly to think that armed citizenry somehow keep the peacekeepers in check. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t until they realized that he was a tyrant that it was too late. I, and many others, want to keep the potential for that happening again as far away as possible. Of course, all sane people want this. But you illustrate my points. (1) A tyrant would only be able to rise to power in our government WITH the support of the people. If he has the support of the people and the military, then any use of force to oppose him will be deemed subversive. (2) One of the things that makes our form of government so effective is that there is no absolute power in individuals. A tyrant, anywhere in our government would have his hands tied to the point where he couldn’t do anything tyranical anyway. > [@](#): > > And plenty of other countries where the citizens have no guns with plenty of tyranny. Somalia, anyone? Rwanda? If you think that this doesn’t happen, you’re foolish and naive. We’re not talking about these countries. I agree, there are countries where armed citizenry may be a necessity. I’m arguing that America is not one of these countries. If you think that the 20% of the American private population that is armed is somehow responsible for America being different, “you’re foolish and naive”. > [@](#): > > called upon by a crazy Commander-In-Chief to subdue the citizenship. Just what powers do you think the President has? > [@](#): > > However, if they were facing 50 million “crackpots” with guns, they’d have no chance, just based on shear numbers. No contest. Half a million, well armed, well trained military personel would have your 50 million citizens under control fairly quickly - especially after the citizens used up their one box of bullets shooting at shadows, each other, and themselves… I’m not going to continue to argue this point about guns as a deterrent against tyrany. I think it’s a silly proposition and I don’t think most people who own guns believe that’s why they own them. Most people own hand guns either because they anticipate using them for a crime or because they anticipate needing to use one to stop a crime or defend themselves in a life threatening situation. > [@](#): > > Here’s the passiveness of the gun deterrent… > > [snip] > > No bullets were fired. This is not an example of passive deterrent - this is active deterrent. Passive deterrent would be if Bob was considering breaking into the house, but reconsiders because the owner might be there and might have a gun. No doubt, passive deterrence occurs, but it’s not measurable. > [@](#): > > And, according to Max’s information, this happens 2,000,000 times a year. First, this number is in debate. As I have already explained this number is far too high to pass the general sanity test. Also, this number includes many other kinds of defensive gun uses than merely waving them about menacingly at burgulars. The number includes shots fired into the air, shots fired into the wall (missed the bad guy), shots fired into the bad guy, and shots fired into innocent people who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, but looked like a bad guy. It includes not just defensive uses against burgulars, but also battered wives shooting their husbands, abused children shooting their guardians, people shooting their angry neighbors whose wives they were sleeping with. It also includes a few crackpots who never used their gun defensively at all, but think it would be a bad idea to let the government take their gun away so they feel they need to justify having it by lying on random surveys… > [@](#): > > If a crook is that well-organized and has such a well-planned-out plot, then I doubt he’s only trying to get your gun. I doubt that most break-ins are designed to find guns. The guns are just a nice side benefit (if you’re a crook). Most crooks are after your electronics and other valuables they can sell. > [@](#): > > plus the difficulty in ensuring that said person would be gone long enough and the house will be empty… it’s just unrealistic and, again, foolish… No one said being a crook didn’t have it’s risks, but the risks really are not as bad as you paint. The bad guy generally looks for an isolated house where the lights are all out in the early evening, with no cars in the drive or the garage (houses with windows into the garage are more likely to be victimized). He’s pretty sure to be alone. Entry is usually through the rear of the house, leaving the back door open so he can bolt if the homeowner shows up. BTW, many burgulars don’t carry weapons because the penalties for armed robbery are much stiffer than simple burgulary and they are much more likely to be nabbed by the police than confronted by an armed homeowner. > [@](#): > > and… well… paranoid Wait a second. I’m paranoid? Call me naive or too trusting, but paranoid is silly. I’m not the one who has a gun just in case Bill Clinton decides he wants another, more permanent term of office or just in case some inept criminal breaks into my house to steal my TV and decides to pull a gun on me rather than running away. > [@](#): > > I really don’t agree, based entirely on personal experiences. The availability of guns only affects the percentage of suicides that involved guns. If there were no guns, we’d still be seeing roughly the same numbers of suicides. So, in my mind, suicide shouldn’t even be used as an argument for gun control (more of an argument for mental health, family values, social issues, etc.) Check out the CDC reports mentioned earlier. They support my position. However, just think of it logically. People who want to end their lives are feeling emotional pain - the last thing they want is to feel physical pain in their last moments. For this reason, most suicide victims choose painless methods for their death. Sleeping pills are a common method, but sleeping pills that are sure to be lethal are almost as hard to get as a gun, so it usually takes some preparation. Preparation means time to think. Time to think means that the victim might change their minds or at least, their intent might be detected by others who might intervene. Sleeping pills are not foolproof. They take time to kill and time to kill is time to save if someone intervenes. There’s always the carbon monoxide in the garage stunt. Again this takes some setup and there is plenty of time to reconsider or for someone to intervene. Some suicides (a much smaller number) try hanging. Again you have the issue of setup. You have to have a place suitable to get the job done. It’s almost certainly not painless, which will give the victim cause to reconsider. You can jump off of buildings or cliffs, but you first have to find a suitable height that can insure you die and then you have to get there. You have to insure that no one is going to intervene. Lots of time to think and rethink. Razors? Pretty painful and bleeding to death can be slow. Finally - consider the gun. So easy to go to the closet, point the thing at your head and pull the trigger. No thinking, little chance of intervention, probably no pain, very effective. If guns are not available, would that reduce the incidence of suicide attempts? Probably not, but it would force people to use other, less effective, means and this would probably result in fewer successful suicides. A large number of people who have failed in their suicide attempt have then gone on to have happy and fulfilling lives. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2000, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/102 "2000-06-13T16:36:53Z")
- somebody has been feeding you bogus information. Darkpyre sez: > [@](#): > > Sorry if this has been mentioned, but the gun laws only prevent the LAW-ABIDING people from getting guns. In Sweden, every person is required to own a gun or rifle. Sweden has just about the lowest crime rate in the world! Swedes are not required to own guns or rifles. The Swedish weapons law is like most other Scandinavian weapons laws: You apply to the police for a permit and you’d better be prepared to document that you need the weapon. Handguns and automatic weapons are mentioned in the same paragraph, stating that permits for these should be issued with extra care. Unfortunately, I can only provide a link to a Swedish text: [http://www.jit.se/lagbok/99667t.html#kap](http://www.jit.se/lagbok/99667t.html#kap). 1 - this is probably goobledygook to most, I know. Sweden - again, like other Scandinavian countries - does have a Home Guard as an integrated part of their defence. And homeguardsmen (and -women) keep their (automatic) weapons and ammunition in their homes. This might have started the misunderstanding ? I’ve never in my life seen a Swedish civilian carrying a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/103 "2000-06-13T17:41:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > - somebody has been feeding you bogus information…I’ve never in my life seen a Swedish civilian carrying a firearm. > \*\* Relax. He made a small mistake. He most likely meant to say Switzerland, not Sweden. Switzerland does require assault rifles in every household. Not the pretend “assault weapons” that congress cries about (any scary-looking rifle) constantly, but true assault-rifles (high velocity longguns capable of both semi- and fully-automatic fire). By the way, any weapon used in an assault is an assault weapon. That means if I hit you with a pointed stick or a rock, that stick or rock is an assault weapon. HCI and congress made up a purely arbitrary definition of the term in order to prey on the public’s fear of machine guns, because the terms sound alike. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2000, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/104 "2000-06-13T19:16:18Z")
OK, perhaps I should have been able to figure that out. OTOH, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, I suppose it’s OK to correct a factual error. And there are major differences between Sweden and Switzerland, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Darkpyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@Darkpyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkpyre)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2000, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/105 "2000-06-13T21:11:09Z")
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. "China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. “Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million ---
**Author:** ![JoeyBlades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@JoeyBlades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyBlades)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2000, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/106 "2000-06-13T22:15:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million Complete dribble - **AND** completely irrelevant. If you can’t make the voices stop, at least make them take it to MPSIMS. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/107 "2000-06-14T01:13:06Z")
JoeyBlades, I would like to point out the rudeness of dismissing information provided as “dribble”, “irrelevant”, etc., AND in classifying other posters as “insane”, just because they don’t agree with you. > [@](#): > > In principle, if you’re going to rely on armed citizens to police the police, then they have to be armed similarly and they have to be organized. NOBODY said anything about policing the police. The United States Armed Forces, the body meant to be held in check by the presence of an armed population, is the threat, not individual policing forces. Apparently, you’ve seen too many movies where every soldier is a good soldier. You see, the army is trained very vigorously to follow orders. Their orders go all the way up to the top to their Commander-In-Chief. Ergo, should a rogue president, be he popular or no, somewhere down the line decide to subjugate the populace with said military, he’d need to disarm the citizens of the United States first. I’ll give you a basic rundown of numbers: 50 to 1. Which means every 1 US soldier has to kill 50 citizens. If you had a quarter of a brain, you’d be able to see the tactical disadvantage the military has. I like how you pain all gun owners as doddering clutzes. It’s nice to know that you have such a high opinion of your fellow people. Contrary to popular belief, it ain’t too damn hard to use a gun. > [@](#): > > (1) A tyrant would only be able to rise to power in our government WITH the support of the people. If he has the support of the people and the military, then any use of force to oppose him will be deemed subversive. Why does a tyrant need popular consensus to take over the government? A rebellion, after all, isn’t based on popularity. The colonists during the American Revolution didn’t have the popular support of England, and they managed to get by just fine. And it doesn’t MATTER if a leader has the support of the people… if he uses the military to force people to abide by his wishes then he’s BREAKING THE LAW, and the Constitution. > [@](#): > > (2) One of the things that makes our form of government so effective is that there is no absolute power in individuals. Now I’m convinced you’re naive. If someone were to overthrow the US government, they wouldn’t give a crap about “our form of government”. > [@](#): > > We’re not talking about these countries Why not? Because their example proves you wrong? > [@](#): > > Just what powers do you think the President has? He’s in charge of the military, which is one of his powers that we’re talking about. If a President were popular, just as Hitler was popular, people would be more lenient to what he does. Eventually, this “Rogue President” would have the country in his grip. That is the worst-case scenario, but sane people must prepare for the worst and hope for the best. And based on the examples given (“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control…” etc.), I’m amazed that you can even consider this to be that astronomical of a possibility. > [@](#): > > I doubt that most break-ins are designed to find guns. YOU’RE the one that made the example of crooks stealing guns from people. I was showing you how irrational and paranoid of an idea this is. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/108 "2000-06-14T01:29:58Z")
Darkpyre wrote: > [@](#): > > "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. > From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. > > "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to > 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 19-something-or-other, Great Britain established gun control. From that year to the present, about 0 dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/109 "2000-06-14T02:37:09Z")
Finally. Sorry I took so long. > [@](#): > > First I’d like to ‘attack’ the “over 2 million defensive gun uses each year” claim. First, the accuracy of the number. The Kleck study was conducted in 1993. In that year, an estimated 42 million households had guns. Most estimates and surveys indicate that less than 50% of the households have guns for defensive purposes, but let’s be generous and say that we have 20 million households with a potential for a defensive gun use in 1993. Therefore Kleck’s study indicates that about one in ten households each year use their gun for defense against crime. This strikes me as rediculous, but to add even less credulity, the estimate of criminal violence by armed perpetrators in 1994 was just over 1 million (National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms) To begin with, why does it make a difference what “purpose” the gun is intended to serve? If I’m out hunting rabbits, and a thug attempts to rob me, I won’t cast away my rifle because I bought it for rabbit hunting. Second, that estimate of households owning guns is far, far too low. The generally accepted number by scholars in the field is roughly 50% of American households, or 70 million households. Two million DGUs (defensive gun uses) per year, distributed evenly among the gun owners, would mean 2.8% of households with firearms used their guns defensively. Of course, it’s unlikely that crime is distributed that evenly, but let’s go with it: that means that a given gun-owning household will defend itself with its gun once in 35 years. Somehow, that doesn’t stretch the limits of my beliefs. > [@](#): > > [http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt](http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt) > > This suggests that there are more people are defending themselves from armed assailants than there are armed assailants! Kleck addresses the flaws in this argument in POLICY AND PERSPECTIVE: THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN USE ESTIMATE DOWN, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1446 at 1452 (1997): > [@](#): > > [David Hemenway] argues that our estimates are implausible because our survey implies a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeds the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS. This argument rests on an unacknowledged assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by our survey is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, we had explicitly warned in our paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported either to the NCVS or police.” This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.[footnotes omitted] > [@](#): > > I also have a problem with Kleck’s survey. In fact, it’s a similar problem to what Kleck stated with the NCVS survey. Kleck argued that the NCVS survey was biased because people were less likely to answer honestly due to lack of anonymity - resulting in underinflated results. However, in Kleck’s survey, it was apparent that the questions were geared toward assessing the value of gun ownership. It’s highly probable that the gun owning public would tend to (1) look at nearly every incident they touched their gun as a defensive use and (2) exaggerate the number of defensive uses. I know Kleck recognized this and tried to adjust for it, but due to sample size, varying environments, etc. I think it is highly probable that Kleck’s survey is overinflating the number of defensive gun uses. Assuming a fairly random distribution of gun owning households and armed criminal violence, I would expect the number of actual defensive gun uses to be more in the range of 75,000 in 1993 (and that’s assuming that everyone who had a gun for defensive purposes used it during an armed attack - pretty generous assumption on my part). Your assumptions are neither generous nor even remotely fact-based. Note well that Philip Cook, the author of the article you linked to above and former believer in the “rare DGU”, has since retracted his support of the National Crime Victimization Survey, whose numbers you appear to believe. I quote Kleck, from the above article, page 1451: > [@](#): > > On the other hand, if [David Hemenway] really does believe the NCVS estimates are even approximately accurate, he may well be the last scholar in this field to cling to this belief. After touting the NCVS estimates of DGU for years, even authors as strongly wedded to the rare-DGU position as Philip Cook and David McDowall have ceased portraying the NCVS estimates as valid. Instead, they have shifted to the agnostic views that no survey, including the NCVS, can yield meaningful estimates or that “the frequency of firearm self-defense is an issue that is far from settled.” Either view is incompatible with the position that the NCVS estimates are at least approximately valid and therefore have settled the matter. By December of 1994, Cook had taken a position directly contradicting [Hemenway]'s seeming acceptance of the NCVS estimates, stating that there are “persuasive reasons for believing that the [NCVS] … yields total incident figures that are much too low.” > > We provided a detailed explanation of why the NCVS grossly underestimates DGU frequency and noted that its DGU estimates had been repeatedly disconfirmed by other surveys. Still, [Hemenway] uses the NCVS estimates as a standard against which he judges the DGU estimates of other surveys. He falsely claims that the NCVS asks “about self-defense gun use,” when in fact, as we pointed out, the NCVS never directly asks about DGU. Instead it merely provides Rs with an opportunity to volunteer information about a DGU in response to a general question about self-protection actions. Nor does [Hemenway] acknowledge that the NCVS is the only survey that ever has yielded annual DGU estimates under 700,000, and that its estimates, centering around 80,000, are far below those generated by at least fifteen other surveys.[footnotes omitted] Indeed, later in the article Kleck mentions the study to which you linked, on page 1460: > [@](#): > > [The NJI survey] almost exactly confirms our results. We estimated 2.55 million annual DGUs, using a person-based one-year estimate. The most comparable estimate generated by this survey was 2.45 million, well within sampling error of our estimate. Many of the other estimates were even higher.[footnotes omitted] Translation: Kleck’s numbers aren’t precise, just as any survey numbers aren’t precise. But he’s a lot closer than most, and the lowballing NCVS survey was flawed in its execution and does not jive with numbers produced by other surveys. (snip) > [@](#): > > As an interesting anecdote, I’m pretty vocal about my opinions regarding guns in my everyday life. Therefore I find myself in many discussions about the merits and demerits of gun ownership. In my 40 years, I’ve only known two people who have claimed to use a gun for self-defense. Interesting that both of these individuals report using their guns for self defense about a dozen times each. Also interesting that both of these individuals have a reputation for stretching the truth beyond it’s theoretical limits… I can’t argue with you about the company you keep; that’s your own business. > [@](#): > > Let me see if I get this straight. Sometimes twisted logic gets me turned around in my meager little brain. It seems that the assertion is that there is no correlation between the UK gun laws and the UK handgun mortality rate. The reason for this claim of non correlation is because the expectation is that there would also not be a correlation between handgun crimes and other violent crimes (rape, in particular), but that since both are lower in the UK, handgun laws have nothing to do with either… And you made fun of my logic!? That’s not the assertion; I’ll type slower for you. Before guns were tightly restricted in Britain, Britain’s homicide rate was already very low, much lower than the rate in the States. I make fun of your logic because you’re giving a cause (gun control) credit for an effect (low homicide rate) that PRECEDED the cause. It would be more honest to attribute Britain’s lower homicide rate to their broad use of the death penalty in murder cases prior to 1960 and the lingering effects on criminal behavior; while criminal behavior in America has long been associated with violence against persons, criminal behavior in Britain has long been associated with property crime. > [@](#): > > The flaw in this logic is that it’s entirely likely that the two types of crime are completely independent and that both are low for entirely different reasons. Is it true that their society is intrinsically less violent than ours? Maybe, but it’s more likely that some of the differences are a function of reporting and labeling. It seemed to me that the incidence of random street violence, bar fights, football hooliganism, and other acts of aggression was higher in the UK than in the US. I’ve spent a lot of time in both countries. The difference is that in the UK there was less likely to be a weapon involved since weapons are restricted and in the UK violent acts were less likely to be reported (it’s a machismo thing). Possibly. So where do you want to take this discussion? > [@](#): > > As for rape (snip…we ain’t talking about rape here) > [@](#): > > One final point in this line of reasoning. Even if the availability of hanguns in the UK has only a 10% impact on the statistic, that still implies that the UK handgun mortality rate is nearly 120 times better than the US due to the difference in handgun laws. And if it has a zero-percent impact? Handgun homicide wasn’t a major problem before the ban, it’s not a major problem now. I still fail to understand how you can credit the ban with a low homicide rate that existed before the ban. > [@](#): > > In summary, you argue that since the reported rate of two different types of violent crime is lower and since one of them typically doesn’t involve a gun, that UK gun laws are irrelevant. I argue that this simply means that the UK is doing two things right\* - one of which is restricting handguns. Damned if I can remember when I said the above. Care to dig out a quote? > [@](#): > > I was indicating a statistic reported a few weeks ago on the local news (the real news). The numbers were supposedly from 1999 and the claim was that there were about 200 more gun fatalities in Texas in 1999 than auto fatalities. I don’t recall the exact numbers and I can’t find a web site with the current data to back this up. Looking at a number of sites I’ve found that over the last several years the numbers have been pretty close, with gun deaths being a few hundred less. It’s still pretty sobering when you consider the number of guns in Texas versus the number of cars… and the number of hours each day that each are used… and the fact that cars are not designed specifically to be lethal. The murder rate in Texas has never even approached the vehicle accident death rate. The numbers I cited from the CDC give a difference of 1,323 deaths. Unless crime has skyrocketed recently (which would mean roughly a 62% increase in murdersin less than 2 years), vehicles still hold the throne. The news was wrong, plain and simple. > [@](#): > > One last thing about truth and numbers. All statistics should be suspect. The reason is that everyone presenting a statistic has an agenda and they are going to use their statistic to support their agenda. As a consumer of statistics, it’s my job to sort through the statistics and see what makes sense. I use a variety of sanity checks in my daily life, but probably the best one is very common sense. Your privilege. I find it hard to believe that the FBI and the CDC have anything to gain by skewing statistics; if anything, they’d OVER-report the number of gun homicides in order to “ban guns and get them away from people so no one can hurt anyone ever again.” But the numbers don’t seem to demonstrate that. Keeping that in mind, we do the best we can. We read scholarly articles, multiple surveys, government statistics, and come to our own conclusions. I’m frankly amazed, however, than anyone could possibly, when considering the available evidence, conclude that laws restricting the law-abiding from purchasing guns will solve society’s ills. > [@](#): > > I look at some of the related personal statistics that I am exposed to. I query friends and relatives and see if their experiences jibe with what the folks with agendas are trying to tell me. Here’s my little attemp to share with you my personal statistics on this subject. You don’t have to believe any of this (in fact, it’s your duty to build your own assessment). My only intent is to show how I’ve come to believe in the statistics that suggest guns do more harm than good: > > As I said earlier, I’ve been around for nearly 40 years. In that time I’ve owned a few guns (rifles) and have had hundreds and hundreds of discussions about guns. I used to use guns quite a lot for hunting and target shooting. As a Boy Scout, we had our own shooting range near by and I earned a rifle and shotgun merit badge. I was also trained and allowed to fire handguns of various types on the range. As a young boy this gave me a sense of power, but as a grew up I realized that this was not real power - it was merely a placebo. I eventually sold my guns to responsible people and decided that I did not need weapons to make me feel secure. > > (snipped stats) I haven’t tallied such stats about my own family and friends, but I can tell you the following: a guy who served as an usher at my brother’s wedding was later arrested and convicted for the earlier rape/murder of a young girl, along with two accomplices. No firearms were used by either party, unfortunately for her. The only murder I can think of in my family was committed with a length of pipe. A cheating husband killed the wife who was about to leave him. This was in Minnesota farm country, where guns are extremely common. Too bad she didn’t have one handy. Two guns have been stolen from my family, a shotgun and a 30-30. They were probably stolen because they’d have high resale value, just like the TV and VCR taken in the same robbery. And finally, more people in my immediate family have died as a result of HIV (1) or a car accident (1) than a gun (0). > [@](#): > > So, as I said, this is hardly scientific and really couldn’t be construed as proof, but by my reckoning, the statistics that suggest that guns are more dangerous to innocent victims than to criminals seem to be more consistent with my experience. Well, then, go ahead and believe the sole DGU survey with a result under 700,000, and believe Handgun Control Inc. when they claim “children” up to age 24 in their death statistics. But don’t cite them back to us as fact. The great weight and preponderance of the evidence is against you. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/110 "2000-06-14T06:57:50Z")
Heh - Actually the Switzerland/Sweden angle is quite interesting, seing as both countries have very low crime rates. Of course, the Swiss are armed because every male Swiss is a member of the military reserve, not because they have easy access to buy handguns on their own. And I’m willing to bet quite a lot that these assault rifles are inspected, registered and kept under very strict control by the Swiss Gvt. [tangent] MY WAG is that the reason most European countries have low gun crime rates is twofold: Guns are hard to come by, and the armed civilian is not considered a remotely heroic figure, but a loonie. [/tangent] ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/111 "2000-06-14T08:15:51Z")
Norman, you bring up an interesting point… America has a very different attitude about EVERYthing (including guns), and in ANY debate, those different attitudes need to be taken into account. The reason it’s rarely taken into account, however, is that “country attitude” is hard to measure. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/112 "2000-06-14T09:18:23Z")
Norman: in Switzerland, the “armed citizen” IS the army, and they are very proud of it. Altho there are restrictions on those assault rifles, they are still there, in nigh every home in Switzerland. If Herr Switzer really wanted to, he could pull out his full-auto assault rifle and go “postal” just about anytime. But they don’t, mostly, because they are SWISS, and not Americans, or Germans, or Albanians. But, also, because occasionally when some idiot thugs try to rob Herr Switzer’s clockshop with their Sat Nite spcls, he blows them away with his machinegun. But they would have to be REAL idiots, as everyone knows that every able- bodied “Herr Switzer” is a trained marksman with machine gun. Keeps the “scum” down pretty good. Does this mean this would work in America? Probably not, we are not Swiss. But does that mean you can compare some other European country with few guns & a low crime rate to America? Equally, NO! Comparing Americans & American crime rates to other counties is worthless. Oh, and if we ARE going to compare “rates”? Japan & Sweden, nearly gunless countries, have suicide rates many times that of the USA. Hell, if we are going to ban things because people kill themselves with them, the Golden Gate bridge, with some 4000 suicides, should be closed down yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/113 "2000-06-14T11:36:14Z")
Daniel: More or less what I was trying to say. Cutting and pasting from European crime stats isn’t really useful in a debate about American weapons laws. And being European, it of course irks me a bit when faulty information is presented about my fellow Europeans (and Scandinavians) - enough to make me delurk for a while. Darkpyre mentioning Sweden by mistake made it impossible for me to resist the temptation of bringing up the restrictive Swedish weapons laws (and low crime stats). About the Swiss being able to defend their homes (and country): It’s an admirable system, no doubt - and I’m sure you’re right, it probably cuts down on the breaking and entering. Still, the Swiss don’t carry weapons outside their homes (assault rifles do so clash with three-piece banker outfits), and yet they’re not set upon by handgun-toting criminals. Again, a cultural thing. Finally: Yup, Scandinavia has high suicide rates - it’s not the culture, it’s the bloody climate. ---
**Author:** ![Darkpyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@Darkpyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkpyre)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/114 "2000-06-14T15:01:28Z")
tracer: Since Great Britain and Austrailia have put gun laws into effect, the crime rate has in fact risen. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/115 "2000-06-14T17:28:43Z")
Thought I should mention this: [Neal Knox report on the first day of Emerson Second Amendment case](http://www.calnra.org/knoxrpt1.htm). Background: Timothy Emerson had a temporary restraining order (a kind of restraining order that doesn’t require a hearing before it’s issued) filed against him by his ex-wife. Because he owned a handgun, he found himself in automatic violation of a provision of a Texas law that prohibits persons under restraining orders from owning firearms. A federal judge right here in Lubbock, Texas decided the case on Second Amendment grounds (rather than on “failure to meet notice and hearing requirements” grounds), stating that the law violated the Second Amendment right to individual gun ownership. The text of the decision can be read in full [here](http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/PDFs/emers_2.pdf) in PDF format. The United States appealed, and the case is now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The first day of arguments has passed, and the link above recounts some of what happened. A few quotes: > [@](#): > > The government prosecutor said the Second Amendment only applied to arms issued to militia members, in Dr. Timothy Emerson’s case either the Texas National Guard or Texas State Guard. Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., a George Bush appointee, told [the prosecutor] he was misreading the 1939 Miller case. > > The court held in Miller that there had been no evidence that Miller’s sawed-off shotgun was a militia-type arm. Nothing was said about the gun having to have been issued. > > … > > Judge Robert M. Parker, appointed by President Carter, and to the appellate court by President Clinton, told the government: “I don’t want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Garwood (the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries.” Looks like we’ll soon have a favorable interpretation of the Second Amendment from a federal Court of Appeals. ---
**Author:** ![SPECS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/da6949/32.png) [@SPECS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPECS)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/116 "2000-06-14T18:38:37Z")
In 1787 the American Revolution was still fresh in everyone’s mind, and the last thing anyone wanted was another monarchy. However, the Articles of Confederation had proven too weak, and the constitutional convention met for the purpose of STRENGTHENING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They did the best they could with available resources, but they and the entire public understood government’s inherent tendency to tyranny - thus the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment to prevent government from rendering the public powerless. That reasoning will always be valid. ---
**Author:** ![JoeyBlades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@JoeyBlades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyBlades)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/117 "2000-06-14T21:21:29Z")
SPOOFE: > [@](#): > > JoeyBlades, I would like to point out the rudeness of dismissing information provided as “dribble”, “irrelevant”, etc., Ah… so you agree that gun control in these countries is directly RESPONSIBLE for ALL of these deaths? That is what Darkpyre said. I submit that whether or not these people had access to guns (and I’m sure many still did), they would have most likely been killed anyway. Also, there are plenty of examples where gun control was instituted and no tyrany ensued. That’s why I think it’s dribble. I called it irrelevant because, as I said in my previous post, very few Americans believe that they keep handguns in their homes to guard against this type of scenario. In other words, this is not **THE** argument. However, **SOME PEOPLE** seem to be holding on to this position… > [@](#): > > AND in classifying other posters as “insane”, just because they don’t agree with you. I did not classify anyone as insane. Darkpyre opened that door. > [@](#): > > NOBODY said anything about policing the police. The United States Armed Forces, the body meant to be held in check by the presence of an armed population, is the threat, not individual policing forces. I use the term ‘police’ in the generic sense - An agency or government body to regulate, control, or keep order. I included the military in my generic use of the term. I might point out that if the military is a potential threat, so too are the local police. > [@](#): > > Their orders go all the way up to the top to their Commander-In-Chief. Ergo, should a rogue president, be he popular or no, somewhere down the line decide to subjugate the populace with said military, he’d need to disarm the citizens of the United States first. I suggest you read the “Posse Comitatus Act”. This basically says the President can’t do what you propose unless “expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress”. This addresses some of your later statements so I won’t bother to repeat later. > [@](#): > > I’ll give you a basic rundown of numbers: 50 to 1. Which means every 1 US soldier has to kill 50 citizens. If you had a quarter of a brain, you’d be able to see the tactical disadvantage the military has. No please. Run it down for me. I’d like to know how these untrained citizens of limited armament are going to compete with trained soldiers with automatic weapons, grenades, tear gas, and armored tanks. True, the citizens **COULD** inflict some damage, but realize that not all of them are even going to fight. Some would undoubtedly be in agreement with the government, more would be simply apathetic, and many more would be petrified with fear. Note: I wasn’t even going to respond to this at first, but you insulted the size of my brain… [wink] > [@](#): > > I like how you pain all gun owners as doddering clutzes. Not ALL. I think there are many responsible people with guns. I just think they are in the minority. The “doddering clutzes”, not to mention the malicious vermin, are in the majority. If we lived in a world where only responsible law abiding people could own hand guns, we would not be having this discussion. The only time this discussion comes up in countries like Great Britian is when they discuss the chaos that the American people must endure. They look at us as simpletons, quick to shoot our load at the first sign of excitement. Sadly, the first question that I was asked by people I met for the first time when I lived in the UK was, “How many guns do you own?” Questions 2-7 usually had to do with firearm violence in the US, as well. This is our sad, pathetic legacy to the rest of the world. > [@](#): > > It’s nice to know that you have such a high opinion of your fellow people. I callz 'em as I seez 'em… > [@](#): > > Contrary to popular belief, it ain’t too damn hard to use a gun. And even easier to misuse one. > [@](#): > > YOU’RE the one that made the example of crooks stealing guns from people. I was showing you how irrational and paranoid of an idea this is. I’m the one who said a large number of guns used for criminal activities are stolen and that a large portion of these are stolen from citizens who owned the guns for self protection. I’m not the one who said that crooks break into homes specifically looking for guns. Big difference. ---
**Author:** ![JoeyBlades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@JoeyBlades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyBlades)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/118 "2000-06-14T22:11:27Z")
Darkpyre > [@](#): > > tracer: Since Great Britain and Austrailia have put gun laws into effect, the crime rate has in fact risen. I’ll assume you meant to say that gun related crimes have risen, since this is the point of the discussion. I checked and you’re right, in 1998 the incidence of gun related crimes rose 10%. I also checked on the nature of this increase. According to the UK National Crime Squad, an estimated 50% of these crimes were committed with ‘imitation’ firearms. Many of the remaining ‘genuine’ firearms are Berettas, 9mm Uzis, MAC 10s, or some other automatic weapons and they are usually related to gang or IRA activity. These kinds of firearms are controlled, even in our nation of ‘generous’ gun laws. If you really did mean to say the overall crime rate has risen in the UK… right again, however that is largely attributed to auto theft which is undeniably out of control in the UK. This is because it’s so easy to get stolen cars out of the UK and into neighboring countries with high demand. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/119 "2000-06-14T22:26:16Z")
. > [@](#): > > I think there are many responsible people with guns. I just think they are in the minority. The “doddering clutzes”, not to mention the malicious vermin, are in the majority Which is why with 200,000,000 guns out there, we see 12,000 accidents and homicides a year. As for your dismissal of the “protection against tyranny” argument. You can’t dismiss something merely because a “majority of americans don’t believe it.” First of all, you have no knowledgeof what the majority thinks. Second, a majority of Americans might not understand their rights as they are delineated in the constitution, but that does not diminish their rights contained therin, nor does it change teh reasons for granting such rights. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2000, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740/120 "2000-06-15T11:05:42Z")
Joey: > [@](#): > > Ah… so you agree that gun control in these countries is directly RESPONSIBLE for ALL of these deaths? That is what Darkpyre said. I submit that whether or not these people had access to guns (and I’m sure many still did), they would have most likely been killed anyway What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. The quote that you referred to me as saying had nothing to do with crime, it was referring to the “potential tyranny” issue, not crime rates. > [@](#): > > I suggest you read the “Posse Comitatus Act”. This basically says the President can’t do what you propose unless “expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress”. Man, you really ARE naive, aren’t you? There’s a law that says someone can’t do something, so he won’t do it. Sure. Go ahead and think that. Here’s a BIG surprise for you, genius… there’s a law that says you can’t take something that doesn’t belong to you, yet people are doing it every day. Why the hell do you think I used the term “rogue president”? > [@](#): > > I’d like to know how these untrained citizens of limited armament are going to compete with trained soldiers with automatic weapons, grenades, tear gas, and armored tanks As someone else pointed out, the Vietnamese did an excellent job of it, and they were OUTNUMBERED. Imagine the same scenario, 'cept the Viet Cong have ten times as many people on their side. > [@](#): > > I might point out that if the military is a potential threat, so too are the local police. The “local police” aren’t trained every day to unquestionably obey the orders of their commanding officer. The “local police” would be part of the body _resisting_ subjugation by the military. > [@](#): > > I did not classify anyone as insane. Darkpyre opened that door. Now you’re just lying. True, you didn’t literally use the word “insane”, but you tried to make certain people out to be insane with your arguments: > [@](#): > > Any American who believes that they need a gun in the house to protect themselves from tyrants, is a fanatic in my book. And a fanatic with a gun is much more dangeraous than a criminal with a gun… > [@](#): > > This is just the sort of over-the-top, paranoid individual that I would prefer not have access to guns. To him, everything looks like a conspiracy plot to take over his street > [@](#): > > True, and pigs could evolve wings and take to the sky if we allowed them to acquire a taste for birds. If you have a counter for someone else’s argument, present it. However, just because an argument contradicts your beliefs, and you can’t counter it, don’t just pooh-pooh the argument by saying it’s all just “nutcase conspiracy theories” or what-not. AND you said all that before Darkpyre joined the thread. Present facts, not lies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-own-guns/20740.md?page=7)