To be fair, Spiny, Freedom did qualify his comments with his comments about the average Joe having no power. A well-armed populace can be a way (not the only way… and, admittedly, not the best way) to ensure that the populace retains a measure of strength.
I will admit that I don’t know too much about the deeper social situations in Denmark (sorry), but I’m willing to bet that many factors contribute to the perception that guns are not as essential as they are often considered by some in America.
(Man, that last bit was a long sentence… I hope it makes sense.)
The possession/non-do. of guns is just one among a huge number of factors influencing the amount of violence in a society. If you were to magically disarm everyone in a violent society, they’d still fight. And if you somehow managed to arm everyone in a previously peaceful society, it’d presumably still be quite peaceful.
I’m a little late on the reply but, to December’s remark, that guns are taken out of the hands of law-abidding citizens who actually stop some crime, does not make sense. Those people who read “Solider of Fortune” magazine and think them and their magnum’s will wipe out crime need to wake up from their wet dream. It’s not gonna happen. I think the only people who need a license to carry a concealed weapon are practicing police officers, private investigators, and possibly bounty hunters. When I say practicing, I mean those who actually do the job, not just someone who says they are to get a license.
Really? Are you implying that citizens, carrying legally concealed weapons have never stopped a crime? Taken at face value, I could interpret your statement that way. I assure you this is not the case.
You’ve also posted the implication that the only people who practice concealed carry are Soldier of Fortune readers and irrational, to boot. This is false.
And the most disturbing thing I glean from your post, is that you do not feel law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by the very means they may be threatened. Why is that?
Michael James Tyler, please read the first two pages of the Kleck article linked to in one of my replies above. As you read keep in mind that it was written by a liberal criminology professor. If anything, he has (or at least had before researching) a political bias against guns but he puts honesty and academic rigor above his political beliefs.
In fact anyone interested in this topic should read the whole article. It is very interesting.
Yes ,Uncle Beer, I am questioning the value of an army of
crazy people thinking they are the new police. Just because you are paranoid of everybody around you doesn’t mean you can put everyone at risk by hiding a weapon. I also read a lot in the newspaper about people trying to make citizens arrests on innocent people. If those people were the “Solider of Fortune” people you so much protect, they would have probably wanted to blow the “crimnal’s” head off.
And yes, I think that it is a crazy magazine.
Oh, and by the way I did not mean that no crimes have never been stopped by armed citizens, but if we gave a bunch of 5 year olds guns too will might stop some crimes aas well.
And one more thing, I do seriously acknowledge the difference between owning hunting rifles/hunting shotguns and carrying around pistols for “society’s protection”.
I see nothing wrong with owning, using, or collecting hunting riffles. Although I don’t personally hunt. Not for any moral reason but just because I never tried it.
Just what “risk” do you mean? And who is “everyone?” The fact is, there are, I believe 33 states now, that permit some form of concealed carry. And in none of these has there been any manifestation of this “risk” to the general populace to which you allude. Please explain.
[sup]Anyway I’m only paranoid because everyone is out to get me.[/sup]
So. The only people carrying guns are crazy?
Sure. But if we gave guns to people and trained them to properly carry and use them (and informed them of their legal liabilities if they do indeed use them) wouldn’t that prevent even more crime? No offense, but you are making my point. That concealed carry may indeed prevent some crimes. But to you, this is bad.
I’d also appreciate your answer to the final question of my previous post: “And the most disturbing thing I glean from your post, is that you do not feel law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by the very means they may be threatened. Why is that?”
Well, then it’s good that the vast majority of gun owners (and those who practic concealed carry) aren’t crazy or think that they are the new police. Doesn’t that make you feel better?
I agree. Isn’t it a good thing that someone practicing concealed carry doesn’t automatically put everyone else at risk?
Wow, that’s terrible. Perhaps you can provide a cite, so that we may properly write a group letter to said newspapers about our concerns for this practice?
Wow. I’m glad that we have a master of psychology on the Boards to enlighten us to these things. I was not aware that simply reading a pro-gun magazine transformed someone into a bloodthirsty, violence-mongering maniac.
Well, good.
Jeez! I am in awe of your brilliance! 5-year-olds! That’s the key to stopping crime! A bunch of kindergarten vigilantes, running around, capping the bad guys! And that’s exactly what the NRA and gun-rights advocates have been suggesting!
Good for you. But do you acknowledge the similarities?
Nor should you. Because there is nothing wrong with owning, using, or collecting ANY firearm.
Well, I meant guns in general, Kalashy. I mean, hell, those old flintlocks and muskets are junk, but they’re still collector’s items. It’s like getting a card collection… to have the whole thing, you need to get the Michael Jordan’s and the Dennis Rodman’s.
Wow. I’m impressed with your powers of perception and clarity of thought. With just 8 whole posts to your name (as of the time of this writing) you categorically insult the people of (yes, UncleBeer, you are correct) 33 states, including populous ones like New York and California (I would mention Texas, too, but I fear I would offend your sensibilities).
You just know without a shred of thought or evidence that anyone who carries concealed, or desires to, is a camo-wearing, card-carrying militia member who watches Rambo movies to elevate their testosterone before going out on the prowl a-la Chuck Bronson looking for criminals to blow away.
Never mind about people who work or own businesses in high-crime communities, such as my late-night telecommunications job with Bell South a few years back in south Dallas city, a notoriously violent/high-crime area. Or the people at the Blockbuster Video in Nashville, TN, who’ve been held up at gunpoint twice in three weeks.
Nope, according to you, the only people who want to carry concealed are ultra-violent nut-jobs. We must be a truly sick country, though, with 33 states allowing concealed carry.
Hell, you should be a profiler for the F.B.I., good as you are. We wouldn’t be wondering who’s sending Anthrax through the mail if you were on the case.
I’m not suggesting that we turn back the clock. Establishing a modern nation without a high level of gun ownership is very different from establishing some Taliban-like Middle Ages kingdom. Take Japan, for example, gun ownership rates there are very low (or so I’m told), yet I’d hardly describe it as a brutal place.
As far as the average person having no power, I’d say that’s as true in Japan as it is in the U.S., but that’s not really either here or there.
True enough, it is a valuable thought to keep in mind.
True, but guns are used for offense as well. I suspect everyone would agree that guns used in self-defense aren’t the problem.
Not a frivolous idea. There are other free countries with low gun ownership rates. As a practical matter, you are correct, this country could not be turned into a free country where nobody had guns because of the vast numbers of guns already present.
I was thinking more along the lines of: If some new country were to be established (since we’re engaging in flights of fancy, let’s assume it’s on the Moon), would it be better that it be established with no gun control or some gun control? I think that question is central to the issue, even though, as a practical matter, we’ve got guns and we’re stuck with them.
I’m not sure very many criminals would go through the trouble of manufacturing their own guns. Is that a problem in nations with low gun ownership rates? (Japan? Denmark?) I suspect it might prove easier to turn to different types of crime or smuggle in a gun should one prove necessary.
There seems to be some dispute over these figures, as Kimstu posted a bit after you did.
Rapes? Maybe not. Murders? Yes… I’d think the connection between murders and availability of guns obvious.
I don’t know; how many crime do criminals not even attempt because they are afraid of an armed victim? How could such numbers even be obtained?
That’s a contradiction. It can’t both be a myth and happen. Sadly, it does happen, a colleague of mine and his wife died during a crime of passion. Neither were criminals.
It might be that you underestimate the role crimes of passion play in the overall scheme of violent crime, but then again, perhaps I overestimate it. Either way, it would be useful to have figures, if they are available.
Perhaps the training could either weed out the crazy guy/girl so s/he couldn’t pass or make him/her think twice before doing something stupid?
Thanks for your help in clearing that up.
It seems as though the whole statistical debate that follows the posts so far is a bit inconclusive; or at least controversial. No surprise to anyone, huh?
But Freedom does make a good point later: using force to disarm anyone who would merely use their weapons in self-defense is morally questionable at best, tyrannical at worst, regardless of how others are using their guns.
Well said, Spiny Norman!
Anyone care to venture on whether America is a violent society or not? How about whether guns act as a restraining force or a release for this violence? (Talk about a loaded question, I guess the obvious answer is both ;).)
United States 1993 vs Japan 1994 Rates Per 100,000 population:
Total Homicide and Suicide 18.57 vs 17.34
Homicide 5.70 vs 0.62
Firearm Homicide: 3.72 vs 0.02
Total Suicide: 12.06 vs 16.72
Gun Suicide: 7.35 vs 0.04
The overall Homicide/Suicide rates are essentially the same. Comparing firearm deaths is of no use. Only comparing total violent deaths matters, because without guns people use something else. How else to explain the overall Homicide/Suicide numbers being roughly equal? There are cultural differences: Shame in Japan making them less likely to murder and more likely to commit suicide. Plus a suicidal father murdering his family in the US would be considered a “family suicide” in Japan. Comparing 2 or 7 or 15 cherry picked countries is of little empirical value. It is more valid to compare ALL countries. See a table below. Beware of studies that exclude countries like Brazil and Mexico.
Sara Brady and others do not believe Self Defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun. She has stated that the only legitimate reason is “sporting purposes”.
There is no dispute about the numbers by honest scholars actually interested in the true number. There is no evidence that the estimate is more likely to be too high than too low. Please read this
You will see the people who “dispute” the numbers are engaging in wild speculation without evidence. Saying some people “dispute” something is not evidence, especially when those people offer no evidence of their own. In fact anti-gun scholars Cook and Ludwig did try in a major government financed survey to contradict the evidence, but ended up CONFIRMING Klecks 2.55 million estimate (Their number was 2.45 million)(Kleck p.125) Only after that did they suddenly decide surveys are useless. Then they based new a book on a survey asking what people would pay to avoid gun violence, ASSUMING laws would reduce violence, and projected a $100 Billion cost of guns! http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y1849579Y1841312/qid=1007496330/sr=1-1/002-0578783-2856048
If you mean more guns = less murders there IS a little evidence, but if you mean the opposite I would say that there is no evidence of that. Look at the numbers for yourself:
Brazil and Mexico have very restrictive gun control laws. Most of the countries in the table above the US have strict gun control laws, except Switzerland and perhaps Austria. Israel, at the bottom of the list has widespread civilian gun possession. I do not mean these examples alone are evidence but if you look at ALL countries there is a negative but not statistically relevent relationship. My point is that there is no positive relatioship.
If you can’t obtain such a number do you assume it to be zero? There is a potentially big upside to gun ownership that is harder to measure than the down side.
I meant that it is a myth that such things represent a significant ratio of total deaths, but I did not make this clear. The numbers are available. Beware of anti-gun researchers citing “acquaintance homicides” or similar. This includes cab drivers killed by first time customers, pimps and their employees, drug dealers killed by their customers, customers killed by their drug dealers, gang members killed by rival gang members they knew, etc.
