# Should Firearms Be Banned in America?



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

A co-worker of mine was shot to death at a party this last Saturday night.
I didn't know him personally but he seemed like a nice enough guy, not involved in gangs or at least he didn't fit the appearence of someone who is.
He just must have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That, and the recent school shootings have still not swayed my stand on banning guns which I'm against. Crooks will always have a way to get guns so it will leave everyone else defensless.

However, America still has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. Why is this so and what if anything can be done about it?
I laughed at the idea that one politician had of allowing teachers to have guns in the classroom but now I wonder if that really is where we are headed. Will all states offer permits to carry concealed weapons? My mother and stepfather retired to Nevada and they both got this permit. Maybe somebody knows what the murder rate is in Navada, I don't but I don't think it's very high. Of course Nevada also isn't as densly populated like LA and it's many inner cities where much of the crime takes place.
There doesn't really seem to be any practical solution does there?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

This is an emotional issue for many forumites, judging by previous threads on the topic. Taking away the gun of some people is, to them, on the same moral plane as kidnapping their mother. 

That said, though widespread fast and easy gun ownership obviously makes crime much easier, I tend to think that the violent culture has much more to do with it. If a magic wand could be waved and all firearms disappeared, the number of deaths would plummet since that easy way to kill someone would be removed, but there would still be violence and death.

The fact is, it's extremely complex and difficult to work out. There are countries with widespread gun ownership and virtually the same pop culture that have radically lower rates of gun violence. Banning guns (if such were actually possible, which I highly doubt) would result in more people alive at the end of the year, but many would argue that those life savings would not be worth the loss of freedom to have a gun.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

burnedandfrozen said:


> A co-worker of mine was shot to death at a party this last Saturday night.
> I didn't know him personally but he seemed like a nice enough guy, not involved in gangs or at least he didn't fit the appearence of someone who is.
> He just must have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> That, and the recent school shootings have still not swayed my stand on banning guns which I'm against. Crooks will always have a way to get guns so it will leave everyone else defensless.
> ...


If you search the Interchange archives you will find several exhaustive threads treating of the people's right to keep and bear arms, its purpose and effect. Aside from abortion, there is probably no more enduringly contentious issue in American public life than state regulation of firearm ownership. Discussion of the matter is generally quite pointless.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

burnedandfrozen said:


> ... However, America still has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. ...
> 
> ... Maybe somebody knows what the murder rate is in Navada, I don't but I don't think it's very high. Of course Nevada also isn't as densly populated like LA and it's many inner cities where much of the crime takes place ...


Really?

Top Ten Countries
(1) Columbia
(2) South Africa 
(3) Jamaica 
(4) Venezuela 
(5) Russia 
(6) Mexico 
(7) Lithuania 
(8) Estonia 
(9) Latvia 
(10) Belarus 
......
*(24) United States*

FYI, Nevada is 4th worst State
(1) Louisiana 
(2) Maryland 
(3) Mississippi 
*(4) Nevada *
(5) Arizona 
(6) Georgia 
(7) South Carolina 
*(8) California *
(9) Tennessee 
(10) Alabama

Cities is quite different
(1) Washington, DC 
(2) Detroit 
(3) Baltimore 
(4) Memphis 
(5) Chicago 
(6) Philadelphia 
(7) Columbus 
(8) Milwaukee 
*(9) Los Angeles *
(10) Dallas

That's sad about your co-worker.

You have interesting ideas. When talking about "rates", you should look at the per capita numbers; and not mix your cities, states, countries.

Sure LA is bad, but Nevada is a worse state than California and the US is not really one of the worst standouts in the world (but still in the Top 25).


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

I like guns and I own guns. I don't want to give up my right to bear arms.

Handguns happens to be a very high profile instrument when it comes to homicide. Automobiles are another way of injuring/killing others. There will be the same uproar when we try to ban certain people from driving.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Really?
> 
> Top Ten Countries
> (1) Columbia
> ...


America seems to be the only developed country on the list.


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

First, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your co-worker.

However, before considering making an inanimate, amoral tool illegal, perhaps we should consider making the act of taking another's life illegal, since that was a conscious act on the part of the attacker.

Oh, murder is already illegal? Well then, wouldn't making guns illegal simply mean that those who use them legitimately can no longer use them as intended, and those who use them illegally will continue to do so?

Just something to think about.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

as stated, we have discussed this a great deal. I don't believe that guns should be illigal. I do believe that most people who own guns don't need them, and most of the guns out there are unessasary, and that the more guns out there, the easier it is for people who may kill other people to take that extra step and kill people.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> America seems to be the only developed country on the list.


Well, the US is (24) 2nd behind Russia (5) among the G8, but almost three times France (40) 3rd on the G8 list.

Mexico is (6) with 13 which tends to skew US numbers in the SouthWest (look at the Top Ten Worst States - Nevada, Arizona, California).

The per Capita numbers add some perspective to the rank.

Country (rank) Per Capita 100,000:

Columbia (1) 61.7
South Africa (2) 49.6
Jamaica (3) 32.4
Venezuela (4) 31.6
---
G8
---
Russia (5) 20
...
US (24) 4.4
...
France (40) 1.7
...
Canada (44) 1.49
...
UK (46) 1.40
Italy (47) 1.28
...
Germany (49) 1.12
...
Japan (60) 0.4


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

burnedandfrozen said:


> I laughed at the idea that one politician had of allowing teachers to have guns in the classroom but now I wonder if that really is where we are headed. Will all states offer permits to carry concealed weapons?


Unfortunately the politician you speak of is the governor of my home state Missouri. Needless to say, I am not a fan of Governor Matt Blunt. St. Louis city and St. Louis County do not allow concealed carry of weapons, and as far as I know Kansas City does not either. I have no problem with guns being used for protection in the home, or for hunting activities, but I do not like the idea of concealed carry. How am I to know that those carrying guns are properly trained in the gun's use? Bullets travel a long distance, and I do not want my family or myself on the receiving end of a missed shot by a well meaning citizen. For example, if I happen to be in a convenience store or bank that is being robbed, I would prefer that the robber take what he came for and leave, rather than a citizen pull out his concealed handgun and open fire. I have been in this very situation. The robber pulled out his weapon, told everyone to get on the ground, and then he took the money and left. The police caught him in an alley a few hours later. Most criminals, I would assume, would prefer to get in and get out, without incident. I prefer to leave the law enforcement and public protection in the capable hands of the police.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Really?
> 
> Top Ten Countries
> (1) Columbia
> ...


Interesting that Maryland is the second-worst state for homicides with California coming in at #8. Both of them have some of the most strict gun-control laws of any states in the union. The majority of the cities on that list have very stringent gun-control laws. All this just goes to show that there is little correlation between easy availability of firearms and violent homicide.

As for the figures in for the G8 countries, I know that France has a fairly high incidence of household gun ownership. I don't know the current figures, but about 15 years ago they stood at a surprising 30% percent, which isn't too far below the U.S. rate, which is supposed to be about 42% these days. (I am not really sure how these figures are arrived at.) Germany had a household gun ownership rate of about 10%, yet its homicide rate is only fractionally lower. I assume Canada has a fairly high rate of household gun ownership, yet its homicide rate is very low. In the case of France, especially, I can only wonder if the large Arab minorities don't kick up the homicide rates considerably, with the same holding true in other Western European countries--certainly it has been a problem in my ancestral Holland.

Japan's very low homicide rate is often cited as proof of the success of their extremely stringent gun laws. However, the counter argument runs that Japanese-Americans have the same access to firearms that other Americans do--and a fair percentage Japanese-Americans are enthusiastic firearms owners--yet they actually commit homicide at a lower homicide rate than in Japan.

There are many complex social and cultural factors that go into creating high rates of homicide. Easy availability of guns has a certain specious plausibility as a cause, but the argument falls down on critical analysis. The actual factors are much more complex. It has been pointed out that Americans beat and stomp each other to death at a much higher rate than, say the British do, but nobody can argue that we have more hands and feet per capita than anybody else.

Widespread civilian gun ownership may actually deter some types of crime. Criminal invasions of occupied homes are much rarer in the USA than in many other advanced nations, in all probability because the bad guys here know they are likely to catch a bullet!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Interesting that Maryland is the second-worst state for homicides with California coming in at #8. Both of them have some of the most strict gun-control laws of any states in the union. The majority of the cities on that list have very stringent gun-control laws. All this just goes to show that there is little correlation between easy availability of firearms and violent homicide.
> 
> As for the figures in for the G8 countries, I know that France has a fairly high incidence of household gun ownership. I don't know the current figures, but about 15 years ago they stood at a surprising 30% percent, which isn't too far below the U.S. rate, which is supposed to be about 42% these days. (I am not really sure how these figures are arrived at.) Germany had a household gun ownership rate of about 10%, yet its homicide rate is only fractionally lower. I assume Canada has a fairly high rate of household gun ownership, yet its homicide rate is very low. In the case of France, especially, I can only wonder if the large Arab minorities don't kick up the homicide rates considerably, with the same holding true in other Western European countries--certainly it has been a problem in my ancestral Holland.
> 
> ...


Excellent points. One aspect I enjoyed about Mr Moore's documentary _Bowling for Columbine_ (which, admittedly, I did not see until a couple of months ago) was that the problem of gun violence in America is inscrutably complex. I tend to believe, though, that a return to a gentler, more civil culture would go a long way toward stemming violence of all kinds.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Why is the South so much more violent than the North East, is economic or cultural?
(1) Louisiana 
(2) Maryland 
(3) Mississippi 
(4) Nevada 
(5) Arizona 
(6) Georgia 
(7) South Carolina 
(8) California 
(9) Tennessee 
(10) Alabama


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Criminal invasions of occupied homes are much rarer in the USA than in many other advanced nations, in all probability because the bad guys here know they are likely to catch a bullet!


 I was going to say earlier that I didn't think Americans are three times more likely to shoot at someone as members of the other 'G7' countries, but only three times as likely to hit what they shoot at! LOL

just-kidding, of course, no one should get bent out of shape over that comment ;-)


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Why is the South so much more violent than the North East, is economic or cultural?
> (1) Louisiana
> (2) Maryland
> (3) Mississippi
> ...


Poverty, one would imagine. I suspect that even in the more affluent states that the shootings are mostly happening in the poorer areas.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> Why is the South so much more violent than the North East, is economic or cultural?
> (1) Louisiana
> (2) Maryland
> (3) Mississippi
> ...


******* culture....


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

JRR said:


> ******* culture....


But are the shootings done mostly by '********', or by members of historically disadvantaged minority groups? Hopefully someone can provide statistics to lift this out of the realm of mere conjecture.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> But are the shootings done mostly by '********', or by members of historically disadvantaged minority groups? Hopefully someone can provide statistics to lift this out of the realm of mere conjecture.


I think he is speaking of the belief promoted by Sowell that ******* culture isn't specific to Whites anymore and was/is detrimental to all ethnic groups raised in it.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Historically the South has always had a reputation for being the most violent part of the country. Foreign travellers and northern obsevers from the early 19th century onwards frequently comment on the frequency of knife fights, brawls, gouging matches and the like. Jim Bowie could certainly be said to have been an archetypal Southern figure. Southerners of the upper class had a culture of honor that made them much more frequent participants in duels even into the post-Civil War period.

Much more than in other parts of the country, the South has exalted courage and daring and a code that demands that an affront not go unpunished. Doubtless the racial tensions in the South have exacerbated violence--moreso in the past than recent generations.

The stereotype of the South as more violent was frequently an element of Northern anti-slave, anti-Southern propaganda in the years leading up to and during the Civil War. In Northern art of the period depicting Civil War battles, the Northern boys were often depicted as clean-cut and stalwart, the Southerners as wild barbarians--long-haired and bearded.

Conversely, the Southerners despised the Northerners as craven, greedy, spineless money-grubbers--devoid of courage, daring and honor. This emboldened them, especially prior to and in the first years of the war.

Poverty may be part of the story--both Southern poor whites and blacks seem more violence-prone than many other segments of society. However, it is not the whole story. Northern New England, for example, is a pretty hardscrabble sort of place to make a living, but it is not notoriously violent.

I just hope I haven't offended TOO many people with this post. I was merely trying to be historically descriptive, not hurt anybody's feelings.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Just musing about burnedandfrozen's original post. I am happy to report I have never been to a party where anything remotely like that happened. The nearest thing I can recall to that was that there was a young woman at my church that was I was very fond of (too young for me, however). She had a close friend who was killed at a party. He was brained with a bottle of wine! I merely raise this story to state that homicide is hardly contingent on the availability of firearms. According to the best information we have, medieval England had a horribly high rate of homicide--far worse than the most crime-infested American cities--yet they had no guns at all.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

jpeirpont,

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all developed countries and members of the European Union and NATO.

Karl


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Kinda wonder why the homicide rates are so high in the Baltic states. I thought those little countries were doing pretty well.

It is of interest that Belarus ranks so high for homicide. Although I don't know anything definite about their gun laws, given what a tight totalitarian/authoritarian operation that unfortunate country is supposed to be, I would have to presume they are among the toughest in Europe. Just proves, I suppose, that even having a police state can be a poor guarantor of public safety.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> jpeirpont,
> 
> Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all developed countries and members of the European Union and NATO.
> 
> Karl


I guess it depends on your source. I hear developing more when refering to them.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

We would be so much more civil if we poisoned each other's coffee instead of shooting each other.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

I raised this factoid in another thread, but one of my history professors had done a lot of work on violent death in America. Turns out that it's one of the easier things to track over time since one of the few things we know about even the poorest or most illiterate person is how he died. 

His findings were that violent civilian deaths (which not only included murder but also accidents, etc.) declined as the country industrialized through the 19th century up past WWII, with a few exceptions: a brief spike after WWI when cars became more commonplace, and among the black community. Black Americans were among the groups least likely to join the industrial economy, so this exception also makes sense.

Moral? You create a culture where showing up on time, sober, and ready to sit down to do a day's work counts for something, you'll eliminate a lot of the random weirdness that precipitates accidents and gives people spare time to think about killing their neighbors.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Firearms owneship ans carry is one of the fundamental rights of free people liaving on a free land of USA. Some liberal bigots are trying to take that freedom away from the population in favour of anti-American UN drivven world government. This idea must die with its inventors! UN is the enemy outpost on our land. God given right to keep and bear arms will proudly fly together with our flag ans will olnly succumb together with democracy.

Molon labe!


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Liverals, eh? I'll keep a weather eye out for them.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Liverals, eh? I'll keep a weather eye out for them.


Ahh? What?


----------



## ceaton (Feb 15, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Interesting that Maryland is the second-worst state for homicides with California coming in at #8. Both of them have some of the most strict gun-control laws of any states in the union. The majority of the cities on that list have very stringent gun-control laws. All this just goes to show that there is little correlation between easy availability of firearms and violent homicide.


it shows that there is little correlation between easy *legal* availability of firearms and violent homicide. it's quite simple to get a gun in Maryland, laws notwithstanding.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> But are the shootings done mostly by '********', or by members of historically disadvantaged minority groups? Hopefully someone can provide statistics to lift this out of the realm of mere conjecture.


Minority groups still have ******* culture. Go live with them for awhile, and also live with white hillbillies. You'll see that the values and culture are quite the same.

You can be a ******* and not be white.

Also, white ******** are fairly prone to violence if offended. If you want proof, go to a BW3s (prole heaven sports bar) and start making fun of their teams, drivers, etc...

For stats and stories the following books are fairly informative:

https://www.amazon.com/Black-******...ef=sr_1_1/102-5399386-0534534?ie=UTF8&s=books

https://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed...ef=sr_1_1/102-5399386-0534534?ie=UTF8&s=books

https://www.amazon.com/Born-Fightin...91/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-5399386-0534534?ie=UTF8

https://www.amazon.com/Cracker-Cult...ef=sr_1_1/102-5399386-0534534?ie=UTF8&s=books

Cheers


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The only successful ban on a weapon was the Papal decree against greek fire. this lasted until the 'invention' of napalm. Quoting Geronimo at his surrender, " give up your guns my people. We can still kill Mexicans with rocks."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

JRR said:


> Minority groups still have ******* culture. Go live with them for awhile, and also live with white hillbillies. You'll see that the values and culture are quite the same.
> 
> You can be a ******* and not be white.


I thought for a moment that I may be misunderstanding the term '*******', but then I consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, and it appears I am at least not entirely wrong:



> *1.* _U.S._ *a.* A member of the white rural labouring class of the southern States; one whose attitudes are considered characteristic of this class; freq., a reactionary.


and


> *1971* _Days of Martin Luther King, Jr._ IV. 329 The fearful Southern red-neck, committed to the credo that the black man is a bridge between the animal kingdom and the human, derided the speech as typical '**** shouting'.


Which seems to highlight the inappopriateness of an African-American being referred to in this manner.Ineed I've never heard of an African-American referred to as a '*******' before this thread. Is it a very common usage?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I thought for a moment that I may be misunderstanding the term '*******', but then I consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, and it appears I am at least not entirely wrong:
> 
> and
> 
> Which seems to highlight the inappopriateness of an African-American being referred to in this manner.Ineed I've never heard of an African-American referred to as a '*******' before this thread. Is it a very common usage?


Ah, no. Not among African-Americans, not among ********.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I've never heard of an African-American referred to as a '*******' before this thread. Is it a very common usage?


It's new and comes from one of the books linked to above. I don't know if he coined the usage or not.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594031436/


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Which seems to highlight the inappopriateness of an African-American being referred to in this manner.Ineed I've never heard of an African-American referred to as a '*******' before this thread. Is it a very common usage?


You know what I think it'sinaccurate to say they were called ********. I think it's more accurate to say that Southern Blacks and ******** both are products of cracker culture.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> It's new and comes from one of the books linked to above.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594031436/


I just did a bit of research on Sowell and it appears that he is very right-wing. Who would have guessed?

Sowell: _They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality.

_


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I just did a bit of research on Sowell and it appears that he is very right-wing. Who would have guessed?


A conservative economist? Yeah, what are the odds of that? LOL ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

I haven't read the 'black *******' book, but I have read two of his economics books.

The problem with the Sowell books I read was not they were over-simplified, light reading for economics, but that he had to do so for the average American to get through them. When I read his books and realize that most of it is a watershed for the majority of Americans, it truly starts to bother me.

It's sort of an 'Econ for Dummies', but the 'Dummies' are your average, college educated, working professional.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I just did a bit of research on Sowell and it appears that he is very right-wing. Who would have guessed?
> 
> Sowell: _They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality.
> 
> _


C'mon Philip, you can do better than that...

Media Matters?... LOL...

They are certainly an unbiased source...LMAO...

Sowell is an African American as well. Also is a fellow at the Hoover Institute.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JRR said:


> C'mon Philip, you can do better than that...
> 
> Media Matters?... LOL...
> 
> ...


I wonder what he would think of Walter Williams at George Mason? LOL

https://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html

https://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

https://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

If someone I know flies into a violent rage against me, I would hope that they don't have a gun nearby to act while the iron is hot.

Gun control laws seem (to me) to be basic common sense. Speaking to Americans in the past, they have a different perspective.

Let me tell you, it's (near enough to) impossible to kill someone at 50 feet with a knife. But with a gun, it's quite easy. Just ask the Columbine shooters.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Newton said:


> If someone I know flies into a violent rage against me, I would hope that they don't have a gun nearby to act while the iron is hot.
> 
> Gun control laws seem (to me) to be basic common sense. Speaking to Americans in the past, they have a different perspective.
> 
> Let me tell you, it's (near enough to) impossible to kill someone at 50 feet with a knife. But with a gun, it's quite easy. Just ask the Columbine shooters.


All very true. I wonder what our gun-toting friends think of trigger locks. Gentlemen?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

JRR said:


> C'mon Philip, you can do better than that...
> 
> Media Matters?... LOL...
> 
> ...


All that shows is that African-Americans and members of the Hoover Institute can be very right-wing, too. What else is new?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I wonder what he would think of Walter Williams at George Mason? LOL
> 
> https://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html
> https://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/





> Whereas, Europeans kept my forebears in bondage some three centuries toiling without pay,
> 
> Whereas, Europeans ignored the human rights pledges of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, Whereas, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments meant little more than empty words,
> 
> Therefore, Americans of European ancestry are guilty of great crimes against my ancestors and their progeny.


That is non-sequitur. He begins by making claims about the crimes of Europeans, then says 'therefore, Americans of European ancestry are guilty'. Not very masterful logic.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> https://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html


This link is full of such faulty devices as proof by assertion and rule-based morality.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> All very true. I wonder what our gun-toting friends think of trigger locks. Gentlemen?


Any gun not being properly carried by it's owner should be secured in a gun vault.

A trigger-lock seems to be something you put on a gun you leave laying around. Which is punishable negligence in my State, Florida.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Newton said:


> If someone I know flies into a violent rage against me, I would hope that they don't have a gun nearby to act while the iron is hot.
> 
> Gun control laws seem (to me) to be basic common sense. Speaking to Americans in the past, they have a different perspective.
> 
> Let me tell you, it's (near enough to) impossible to kill someone at 50 feet with a knife. But with a gun, it's quite easy. Just ask the Columbine shooters.


Ok, but if they were 20 feet away, had a butcher knife, and were flying into a violent rage at you, would you want a gun or would you rather take the chance of being hacked to death? Merely showing the person that he had brought a knife to a gunfight may be enough to cool thier violent rage.

Related, there was recently a bill voted on to prevent the disarmament of the public during states of emergency. It passed, however I think 98 or 99 members of Capital Hill voted against it (including my House member). To me that says "in a state of civil chaos where the police have limited control and can't enforce the law or protect the public (a New Orleans type situation), we want to be able to disarm the law abiding so they can't protect themselves." Almost all Republicans, and many Democrats including Senator Clinton, voted for it.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> Ok, but if they were 20 feet away, had a butcher knife, and were flying into a violent rage at you, would you want a gun or would you rather take the chance of being hacked to death? Merely showing the person that he had brought a knife to a gunfight may be enough to cool thier violent rage.
> 
> Related, there was recently a bill voted on to prevent the disarmament of the public during states of emergency. It passed, however I think 98 or 99 members of Capital Hill voted against it (including my House member). To me that says "in a state of civil chaos where the police have limited control and can't enforce the law or protect the public (a New Orleans type situation), we want to be able to disarm the law abiding so they can't protect themselves." Almost all Republicans, and many Democrats including Senator Clinton, voted for it.


Interesting, but doesn't this lead to a Bugs Bunny situation with each person pulling out bigger and bigger guns, to have more firepower than the other, until one person can't lift theirs anymore?


----------



## Dr James Ryan (Feb 8, 2006)

If you dont believe this is a contentious issue, visit the thread I started in February- It ended up being one of the longest in AAAC history!

Ever since taking up carrying a pistol in recent years, Ive followed the RKBA debate closely. It gets tiresome because the most vocal people are so entrenched in their beliefs. I believe it's worth keeping the debate alive, though, becuase a huge portion of the population is fairly ambivalent on gun-control. These are the people who have little direct experience with firearms, and whose opinions have been formed almost solely from film, television, and the news media- all of which portray guns with a negative bias.

Im not claiming that there is some anti-gun conspiracy in the media- it's just their nature to sensationalize. Movies and newspaper articles about responsible gun ownership do not move product.

Anyways, the (inaccurate) firearm portrayal in the popular media for the last 50 years has shaped the perceptions of folks who dont have hand-on experience with guns. Due to the demographic shift of the population from rural to urban and suburban locations, the percentage of Americans without firearm experience is at an all-time high. I think that's how, in the last 30 years, guns came to be viewed as mysterious object of evil by a sizable chunk of the population.

In my experience, you wont change a person's opinion on guns by reasoning with them. Usually because these people's opinions were borne out of emotion, rather than reason, but Im digressing... They only sure way Ive found to change people's minds is to put a gun in their hand. Without fail, the people I have taken shooting reconsidered some of their preconceived notions in the following hours and days. The cognitive dissonance between the guns these people have seen in film and the one in their hands seems to be enough to get them questioning things. Anyone who cares seriously about the RKBA needs to get as many newbies behind the trigger as possible.

There are some exceptions- our member globetrotter seems to have extensive experience with firearms, but supports restrictions. Most members of my trap club dont support the right to own "assault weapons," but I think that has more to do with snobbery than anything. Im not equating you with them, globe!

Getting more directly to the subject of this post, I think most arguments for gun control in America are extraordinarily weak. Read the opinion page on any given newspaper and see the kind of appeals you get.

-Writers call for "common sense" laws without bothering to explain exactly why, for example, a superficial safety measure such as requiring locks to be sold with every new handgun is "common sense."

-Another tactic is to concoct highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios instead of citing any actual evidence. Read the opinion pages of any state where concealed carry laws are being introduced to the legislature. Opinion writers muse about petty arguments, road rage, and customer service disputes turning deadly. The old "blood in the streets" and "wild west" arguments. Strange how these writers struggle to strengthen their case by finding any evidence of this behavior increasing in the 40-some states that have recently passed concealed carry. Laxplayer on this thread expresses worry about catching a stray bullet from a concealed weapons holder. Im willing to bet the ratio of people successfully defending themselves with a firearm who dont hurt bystanders to those who do hurt bystanders is nearly 10,000 to 1. And even in that 1 case, liability exists.

-Unprovable counterfactuals come up a lot in the debate. Columbine would not have happened if the gun-show "loop hole" had been closed. Hinkley wouldnt have shot Reagan if there had been a hand gun waiting period.

-The most common arguments are simple emotional pleas and cliches. Why would anyone ever need one of those evil looking military style weapons? Do we want our children walking about in a world where anyone on the street could be packin heat? There's too many guns on the street- we need to get the guns off the street! etc...

The intellectual dishonestly of the anti-gun crowd never ceases to amaze me. I live near Philadelphia, which had a string of fatal shootings a few weeks back, and the first thing the mayor talks about in the news clip is how there are too many conceal gun permits in in Philadelphia. Im pretty sure none of the 150+ murders in Philly this year have been committed by concealed weapons holders.

Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most is when people want to deny me the right to carry a gun because they believe I have no "need" to do so. I respect the choice of anyone who decides they dont want guns, but I dont appreciate them denying me my rights because of their lack of imagination. What if economics dictate that I live in a bad neighborhood? What if my spouses deranged ex-boyfriend makes threats on my life? What if we applied this "need" test to restrict other areas of life? When debating the 2nd amendment in the bill of _rights_ it's amazing we're even discussing what people "need."

I dont live carry a gun because I believe Im in danger on a daily basis- my gun is catastrophic insurance. It's not much different than using fire insurance on my home, or the seatbelts in my car- precautions that arent likely to validate their "need" in any given year. The TV in my living room is likely to break within 10 years, but I didnt buy insurance on it. You ensure the things that arent easily replaced&#8230; Oh, I better stop now- I could write for days!


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Thanks for the interesting stats guys. I'm also sorry if this is a re-run of similiar recent posts, I didn't follow it which may explain the re-tread.
While I'm against banning guns, I'm also not sure about going the opposite way and allowing concealed wepons permits. About five years ago a armored truck was held up by several crooks with semi auto rifles in the parking lot of my work. The truck guards and the crooks exchanged fire, one bystander was killed several others injured. Until then, we had security guards that were unarmed. Now they are armed and all I could think of was "Great, more bullets now are going to be flying around if another hold up occurs".

Even though I didn't know my co-worker all that well, he was still seemed like a nice guy, couldn't have been more then 25 years old. Just a really tragic thing. This party he was at by the way was in a fairly bad area. By that I mean it's got its share of gang problems and other crimes. I certainly wouldn't be out partying in that part of town. When I learned what part of town it happened I wasn't the least bit surprised.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Thanks for the interesting stats guys. I'm also sorry if this is a re-run of similiar recent posts, I didn't follow it which may explain the re-tread.
> While I'm against banning guns, I'm also not sure about going the opposite way and allowing concealed wepons permits. About five years ago a armored truck was held up by several crooks with semi auto rifles in the parking lot of my work. The truck guards and the crooks exchanged fire, one bystander was killed several others injured. Until then, we had security guards that were unarmed. Now they are armed and all I could think of was "Great, more bullets now are going to be flying around if another hold up occurs".
> 
> Even though I didn't know my co-worker all that well, he was still seemed like a nice guy, couldn't have been more then 25 years old. Just a really tragic thing. This party he was at by the way was in a fairly bad area. By that I mean it's got its share of gang problems and other crimes. I certainly wouldn't be out partying in that part of town. When I learned what part of town it happened I wasn't the least bit surprised.


That is tragic.

With the armoured truck robbery, why weren't the guards able to lock themselves inside? Or are they permitted to shoot out gun ports?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> That is tragic.
> 
> With the armoured truck robbery, why weren't the guards able to lock themselves inside?


Locks are banned. It's unfair for only some fortunate few to have access to all that cash just driving around in trucks while others are starving.

;-)


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Interesting, but doesn't this lead to a Bugs Bunny situation with each person pulling out bigger and bigger guns, to have more firepower than the other, until one person can't lift theirs anymore?


This is where Capitalism comes into play. Work hard, buy a bigger gun, live longer. j/k


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Dr James Ryan said:


> Opinion writers muse about petty arguments, road rage, and customer service disputes turning deadly. The old "blood in the streets" and "wild west" arguments.


Let me offer some anecdotal evidence on that, then.

In a country where gun ownership is very restricted, the usual NRA argument goes, "only criminals get to have guns". That's not exactly what happens in reality. What actually happens is that only _serious_ criminals have guns. And you can expect that your average thug or petty criminal won't.

Now for the anecdotal evidence. France has troublesome run-down urban ghettos, as I believe most countries have. Sometimes there is civil unrest. Last year was a prominent case, with almost a full month of what was rather unappropriately labeled "riots" in the international press. Yet after a full month, the total of deaths was exactly _one_. We're talking massive civil unrest here, in several metropoltian areas for many consecutive nights. What do you think the total would have been in a country with more prevalent gun-ownership? (the main damage was car-burning and a few damaged public properties)

I don't claim that solves the discussion, of course. And this example should not in any way be seen as some sort of moral lecture to America. Still, my personal point of view is that I'm rather glad I live in a country where the chances I encounter a gun-fight in my whole life are about zero. Heck, most policement don't encounter one in their whole career...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Let me offer some anecdotal evidence on that, then.
> 
> In a country where gun ownership is very restricted, the usual NRA argument goes, "only criminals get to have guns". That's not exactly what happens in reality. What actually happens is that only _serious_ criminals have guns. And you can expect that your average thug or petty criminal won't.
> 
> ...


Good point as always.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Let me offer some anecdotal evidence on that, then.
> 
> In a country where gun ownership is very restricted, the usual NRA argument goes, "only criminals get to have guns". That's not exactly what happens in reality. What actually happens is that only _serious_ criminals have guns. And you can expect that your average thug or petty criminal won't.
> 
> ...


Interesting post.

Do you have a theory on why France has almost 150% of the per capita homicide rate of Germany? For those not keeping score ... Germany is a country estimated to have ~33% firearm ownership, only ~12% legally and strict gun ownership laws. Surely then the difference ~20% must be "serious criminals". In fact, according to German police statistics, only 0.004 percent of armed crimes are committed with a legally obtained firearm. I think you only have ~62m people and they have ~82m people (~10m are legally armed).

So, why wouldn't these "serious criminals" be killing people at a much higher rate than that of the French?

And what is in your estimation the chance of an American encountering a gun fight in their lifetime? And your own chances by comparison are "about zero"?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Interesting post.
> 
> Do you have a theory on why France has almost 150% of the per capita homicide rate of Germany? For those not keeping score ... Germany is a country estimated to have ~33% firearm ownership, only ~12% legally and strict gun ownership laws. Surely then the difference ~20% must be "serious criminals". In fact, according to German police statistics, only 0.004 percent of armed crimes are committed with a legally obtained firearm. I think you only have ~62m people and they have ~82m people (~10m are legally armed).
> 
> ...


Sources, please?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Sources, please?


https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Do you have a theory on why France has almost 150% of the per capita homicide rate of Germany?


I was merely offering some anecdotal evidence. I freely admit I have not studied the subject in deep enough detail to know (or be able to explain) all the statistics. Probably because where I live this is not even a debate.



> And what is in your estimation the chance of an American encountering a gun fight in their lifetime? And your own chances by comparison are "about zero"?


When I lived in the US, in Chicago, I knew people who had witnessed a gunfight. I knew there were places within walking distance from my home I was not supposed to walk to. (although things were better when I was there in 2001 than they had been before)

Such things do not exist on that scale here in my personal experience: I dont know anybody who has ever witnessed a gunfight except for a friend who happens to be an Air Force pilot. Heck, I cannot even remember when was the last time I heard about one on the news. Right now the news is all about some civil unrest and gang fight last week, but those thugs were throwing bricks, not bullets.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> I was merely offering some anecdotal evidence. I freely admit I have not studied the subject in deep enough detail to know (or be able to explain) all the statistics. Probably because where I live this is not even a debate.


That's odd to me. There are many interesting statistics in Germany. I think the Interpol statistics originated while Interpol was HQ there? I can't specifically remember. The history of Interpol being moved to Berlin and then Paris it seems like an obvious comparison people would be making. But, so be it.

IMHO, Germany is getting worse and will do worse than France in the next statistics. So you have that going for you. The interesting thing is Germany's current gun-related problems are a huge influx of weapons that are already illegal.



Étienne said:


> When I lived in the US, in Chicago, I knew people who had witnessed a gunfight. I knew there were places within walking distance from my home I was not supposed to walk to. (although things were better when I was there in 2001 than they had been before)
> 
> Such things do not exist on that scale here in my personal experience: I dont know anybody who has ever witnessed a gunfight except for a friend who happens to be an Air Force pilot. Heck, I cannot even remember when was the last time I heard about one on the news. Right now the news is all about some civil unrest and gang fight last week, but those thugs were throwing bricks, not bullets.


Isn't that more for the same reason that others throw rocks and not shoot guns? Like the Palestenians, for instance. It has nothing really to do with access to guns or gun control. It's a political tactic and public relations decision?

I have to say I find it rather hilarious (The Palestenian's that is). At a funeral there are several thousand firing AKs in the air, but when Israel comes to finish a fight started by a rocket attack, mysteriously they only have rocks. I've always wondered about the political triangulation that determines why they don't at least make a 'good show' of it.

Oh well.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Isn't that more for the same reason that others throw rocks and not shoot guns? Like the Palestenians, for instance. It has nothing really to do with access to guns or gun control. It's political tactic and public relations decision?


Well, to believe in that conspiracy theory in the French case you have to believe those are organized events and I don't think anybody serious here does. The pattern is completely wrong.

I don't know about the Palestinian case, I had not thought about it like that, but it seems to me the current uprisings are now fought with rockets and guns, not with stones. Apparently they have more weapons than they did 20 years ago and it seems they are not reluctant to use them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> I don't know about the Palestinian case, I had not thought about it like that, but it seems to me the current uprisings are now fought with rockets and guns, not with stones. Apparently they have more weapons than they did 20 years ago and it seems they are not reluctant to use them.


Yes, the Palestenians love bombs and hit-n-run rocket attacks. But, I'm talking about standing and fighting "the invader"/"occupier".

In Lebanon, it seems some of the Hezbollah would stand and fight. Bully for them. I can respect that, but I don't think that happens much in Palestinan areas. They seem to 'save' their small arms for internal clashes between factions.

Just my observation. It's probably something cultural like views on private property rights.


----------

