Gun Laws

[RussUK]

No it isn't. The primary purpose depends on who is using it, just as it does when using a knife. Could be whittling wood, preparing a meal, or carving up a human body. Depends on who is using it.

Put your way, one could say the primary purpose of a vehicle is to hurtle heavy pieces of metal, glass, plastic, and human bodies through space at high speeds, too.

There are legitimate uses for owning a gun. Or a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or an explosive. The person is what decides whether the gun (or knife, or bat, or explosive) is to be used for good or bad.

Spare us the rhetoric. It's not there.

As I've said ten or so times over the years, everything I've read points toward the gun violence problem being an economic one. Canada has a lot of guns, too. So do other countries.

While i agree with this in terms of the "modern" uses for firearms, historically they were desgined as a weapon on war by the Chinese in the 13th Century AD. During this period bows were used for hunting. Its only reletivly recently, with the advent of rifled barrells, that firearms started being used for hunting and sport (the old smoothbore weapons were too inaccurate).

I agree with your point that there are legitimate reasons for owning them, like the aforementioned hunting, and i think this is one of the problems. I can get a licence here in the uk for a shotgun for use in clay pidgeon shooting, rabbiting and pheasant shoots. What is to stop someone getting one just to use it as a "weapon"?

This is where i think laws on buying/owning guns will fall down. How can you tell a farmer he cant own a shotgun just in case he goes postal and goes on a spree?

Its happend here in the uk in recent years with a taxi driver who went round shooting people with a shotgun and rifle he owned legally and of course Raul Moat did the same (however with an illigal sniper rifle).

 

As a Brit, im happy we have strict gun laws. If the police are tooled up then the criminals have to do the same. its would be a never ending arms race

 

[Jeremie Boop]

Well, not all gun purchases require a background check ...

"Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. 

Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. Five states, most recently Colorado and Connecticut, mandate universal background checks, an even more stringent standard that imposes background checks on almost all gun purchases, including over the Internet."

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

In all honesty, I think the gunshow loophole needs addressed. And I don't see it as increasing restrictions, just addressing a flaw in the system. Considering they are opening a booth with the express purpose of selling guns, they should have to do a background check. Since checks don't take all that long these days there's no reason not to really. I could understand why they didn't require them back then, when it could take days to hear back. Since times have changed there's no reason they can't revisit this and rectify it.

[newtogolf]

I was attempting empathy; and thinking regarding what are the extent of 2nd Amendment Rights and what are reasonable restrictions. The 2nd Amendment, as interpreted, does not state the government can't reasonably restrict the right to bear arms, and it does not say it can -- the law takes the Second Amendment and balances several public interests to interpret it

You can't have a law that includes open ended subjective criteria.  It will become a slippery slope that can eventually lead to the banning of gun ownership by private citizens. 

If you want to pass a law that defines a specific list of drugs that one cannot be currently taking if they want to buy a gun purchase I'll consider that. 

If you want to pass a law the requires subjective evaluations or subjective criteria or mental conditions I'll fight it. 

I have zero trust for this current government and those that follow until term limits are passed for all elected officials.  I have zero confidence the government and police force can keep me and my family safe.  I have zero confidence that our government will be effective in getting illegal firearms off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.  Therefore I'll take personal responsibility for protecting myself, my family and my property. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by newtogolf

[Braivo]

I read the whole thing and respect the opinion. I even agree with the premise to a degree. If instructors in a school were armed and trained, they could prevent far more deaths when an armed killer enters the room. I also agree that making it mandatory for every classroom instructor in any school to have a concealed firearm is untenable for several reasons (aside from being wildly expensive and just honestly dumb). I don't see what voluntary arming of teachers will solve, though. I would wager that 95% of college professors wouldn't arm, and 80% of other teachers wouldn't do it. So out of the 15 or so mass shootings in the past 5 years, 1 or 2 may have had fewer casualties.

Mass shootings are not the big problem, though. 273 of gun homicides since 2009 were due to mass shootings. Almost 12,000 gun homicides occurred in 2013 alone. That's nearly 60,000 over a 5-year period. Then there's nearly 19,000 annually from suicide. Another 90k or so in 5 years. Suicides are 5 times more likely to occur when access to a firearm is available. It's much quicker and easier. For every "who cares if you want to kill yourself" you might throw out there, there's a depressed bullied teenager who ends his/her life over something small.

And as to mental health - it's a red herring. Serious mental illness, like bipolar 1 or paranoid schizophrenia with hallucinations, etc. are not as common in these cases as you might think. Social anxiety disorder, depression, etc. are so common among youth that I couldn't see crisis intervention helping much unless the parents buy in.

Anyway, enough said from me. Enjoyed the reads.

Thank you for reading the post. I am glad to have an honest debate with someone that will consider both sides of the argument, even if just for a moment. I think you bring up an excellent point about mental health. But I think this correlates with what @iacas is saying regarding economics. 

Every other argument is addressing the symptom and not the disease. 

Let's look for the disease then.

There are two main problems. 

1) Inner-city crime

2) Mental Health - Suicides and Mass Shootings (basically glorified suicides)

I won't tackle the first one as it does not relate to what we are talking about here. Most of us are not affected by the inner-city criminals killing each other, and the little media attention it gets would support that. We are concerned with the stuff that "hits home" so to speak. The random violence that impacts our children, the son of a friend that killed himself, etc. 

So I would like to start the discussion looking at number 2. If we are to find the cause we have to look at the facts. 

A) Since 1980, 70% of all suicides have been white males

B) Since 1980, 64% of all mass shootings have been carried out by white males

C) White men make up only 31% of the population

Why such a disproportionately large number of these acts committed by white males? 

Or does race really have nothing to do with it? 

Most of these shooters came from upper-middle class homes without fathers. 

Is it fatherless homes that create this dynamic? Similar to the large amount of fatherless homes in the inner-city?

Why do suicides correlate with unemployment?

These are the questions we must answer to find the root cause of this problem. 

The fact is the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, and gun laws may change slightly over time, but drastic change is unlikely. Where else can we look for solutions?

[Mr. Desmond]

You can't have a law that includes open ended subjective criteria.  It will become a slippery slope that can eventually lead to the banning of gun ownership by private citizens. 

If you want to pass a law that defines a specific list of drugs that one cannot be currently taking if they want to buy a gun purchase I'll consider that. 

If you want to pass a law the requires subjective evaluations or subjective criteria or mental conditions I'll fight it. 

I have zero trust for this current government and those that follow until term limits are passed for all elected officials.  I have zero confidence the government and police force can keep me and my family safe.  I have zero confidence that our government will be effective in getting illegal firearms off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.  Therefore I'll take personal responsibility for protecting myself, my family and my property. 

Who is disputing that?

They already have a background check system ... but there are loopholes and states have their own set of laws.

It's tough to get things done in this country, not only to govern, but gheez, try being an attorney for a company that deals in about 35 states, and all with different laws. It is nuts, and one reason we can't compete in business or with progressive laws. Other developed industrial nations do not have our limitations.

[Gator Hazard]

@Braivo, I think the other statistic that would be relevant is the age of the shooters.  But also shooters lash out at their environment, we have seen several mass shootings on military bases lately by men in their mid to late 30s, however the statistics are overwhelmingly in favor of what you have shown and the age of these white, middle/upper middle class suburban kids is typically in the 16-23 years of age range.

We will never stop all of these types of crimes, and they do happen in other developed countries, maybe not as much as they do in ours but they happen.  How many is an acceptable amount?  No one has really asked that question.  Isn't one a year even too many?  No laws or limits on anything can guarantee that people will behave in a socially acceptable manner all the time.  Sociology and psychology are soft sciences for a reason.  You could conceivably have twins, those twins have identical everything, including upbringing, however, there is no guarantee when Johnny gets rejected by the high school teacher or cheerleader that he will react the exact same way as Jack does.  Each of us in our own lives have experienced this, the fighter who is usually more than willing to engage in a brawl for whatever reason just doesn't engage,or the opposite of that: the quiet kid who usually does everything to avoid a confrontation but one time decides not too.  

These are not things that can be controlled en masse, raising children right and being involved is the only way to stop adolescents from raging and expressing their rage in the most inappropriate manners.  Unfortunately not all parents are as engaged as they should be with their children.  Mommy and Daddy, or just Mommy are probably too busy trying to keep the mortgage paid and the lights on, and the child support checks coming in.  So many dynamics that go into why these kids go off, so many different combinations that lead to the same end result.  Gun laws (although good and I agree with stricter gun controls) will never stop all of these things from happening in America.  Tim McVeigh, the Boston Marathon Bombers, heck even Columbine kids had pipe bombs too.  There is something wrong with the way we raise our kids and the pressures society puts on us to keep up with the Jones's and corporations to always beat last quarters earnings if they want to keep the stock price up that trickle down to the employees not taking their vacations, not using their sick time when sick and focusing more on work as their primary function in life and not their children.  And this is from a guy who is a large supporter of capitalism and the American Way.  I just think the American Way and American Dream have been derailed.

A good thing to look at would be the differences between America of the not always having a mass shooting, and the one we live in today.  What are the differences, what of these differences can be correlated to this type of behavior?  Can any of them be changed?  Guns have been in American society for far longer than all of these shootings have been, no one is making that point, so what has changed?

[iacas]

For me it keeps being mind blowing that people actually believe that a waepons run is the answer to a saver society.

@Silent, how much reading have you done on the topic? Seriously? Because repeatedly, it's demonstrated that more guns does often lead to a safer society.

Armed victims are injured less and killed less frequently than unarmed individuals. There are a ton of stats on this, and I feel like you're just out of your depths here, arguing purely from an emotional position where you think it's possible to have an ideal world.

To paint the simplest of examples, if you're a thief looking to rob a house, are you going to rob houses in the neighborhood where you regularly see a bunch of deer hanging from the porch in the fall during hunting season, or the neighborhood with a bunch of "anti-gun" political things stuck in their yards? Are you going to rob the house with the NRA bumper stickers on their cars, or the one with bumper stickers that say "Guns = Murder!"?

Second make guns and ammo very difficult to acquire legally yet completely accessible abiding to homeowners and the second amendment.

Let's imagine a situation where homeowners could obtain guns but criminals could not.

Don't you think the criminals would just rob the homeowners with guns? Or find other means of acquiring guns?

[Mike Boatright]

It's an unwinnable fictional scenario that will go on and on forever. There are a few nations like sweden that have very little violence yet people have guns literally everywhere kinda like a no win for everyone. Forget stats just use common sense and realize these nutters may or may not have gotten the means to commit the crimes if it weren't so easy for em to do so.

[Silent]

 

 

@Silent, how much reading have you done on the topic? Seriously? Because repeatedly, it's demonstrated that more guns does often lead to a safer society.

Armed victims are injured less and killed less frequently than unarmed individuals. There are a ton of stats on this, and I feel like you're just out of your depths here, arguing purely from an emotional position where you think it's possible to have an ideal world.

To paint the simplest of examples, if you're a thief looking to rob a house, are you going to rob houses in the neighborhood where you regularly see a bunch of deer hanging from the porch in the fall during hunting season, or the neighborhood with a bunch of "anti-gun" political things stuck in their yards? Are you going to rob the house with the NRA bumper stickers on their cars, or the one with bumper stickers that say "Guns = Murder!"?

Let's imagine a situation where homeowners could obtain guns but criminals could not.

Don't you think the criminals would just rob the homeowners with guns? Or find other means of acquiring guns?

That's not fair: I've read every single word in this topic so far. We will never agree on this subject I guess, but both you and me did bring up fair points. 

The line you quote from me says a saver society. Not a saver individual situation. In the posts I made in this topic not once I denied that in a specific situation a gun might be helpful. I even quoted someone (twice) who said that if someone with a weapon was around at the Oregon attack, the death rate might have been lower. And I agreed with that, but stated as a reply that if the attacker didn't have a gun the death rate probably was even lower. I also stated that, in my opinion, it shouldn't be a case about guns vs guns, but a case about preventing people (like) that to obtain guns in the first place. That in total, your society is not saver by bringing in more guns. You might disagree with me, you probably do, but don't try to put me in a corner like I haven't read into the reactions in this topic. That is not true, and not fair.

 

 

True, but that really is an American way of looking at it. And I really don't mean that as an offence, I don't know how else to explain it. You're focussing on 'hey, we need to defend ourselves from people with guns, so let's bring in more guns', while instead you should focus on (in my opinion) the solution of preventing people (like that) to obtain guns in the first place. Wouldn't that save even more lives? You honestly believe that 'hey, let's bring more guns into society' is making it saver for people in general. You point to North Korea, but wouldn't it be more fair to compare USA to other western society's who do have stricter gun laws? 

 

Or let me ask you this. Why do you think school shooting happen pretty much on a regular basis, while in other western / modern society's they pretty much don't happen at all. You'll have to look for them with a magnifying glass to find them, while in the USA you just have to open the newspaper (figure of speech). Why? You really believe that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact it's much more easy to get a gun compared to most other western country's? It's completely unrelated to your gun laws? In fact, you're saying with stricter gun laws it would happen even more because you can't defend yourself? If have a very hard time believing that...

 

[Jeremie Boop]

That's not fair: I've read every single word in this topic so far. We will never agree on this subject I guess, but both you and me did bring up fair points. 

The line you quote from me says a saver society. Not a saver individual situation. In the posts I made in this topic not once I denied that in a specific situation a gun might be helpful. I even quoted someone (twice) who said that if someone with a weapon was around at the Oregon attack, the death rate might have been lower. And I agreed with that, but stated as a reply that if the attacker didn't have a gun the death rate probably was even lower. I also stated that, in my opinion, it shouldn't be a case about guns vs guns, but a case about preventing people (like) that to obtain guns in the first place. That in total, your society is not saver by bringing in more guns. You might disagree with me, you probably do, but don't try to put me in a corner like I haven't read into the reactions in this topic. That is not true, and not fair.

 

 

 

He's not talking about you reading the posts here, he's talking about reading up on the subject from outside sources. 

[Silent]

He's not talking about you reading the posts here, he's talking about reading up on the subject from outside sources. 

Ah, my apologies in that case. In Dutch we solely use the word 'topic' for online discussions like this one, so I guess I misunderstood that line. My apologies @iacas. It doesn't change my point though that I not was denied the fact that a gun can save your life. If I get robbed in my house, and I know how to use a gun, it might save my life. I never denied that, so there is no need to hold that against me. I tried to make a point about if the society is saver with more guns, or with less guns. I believe in the 'less guns' principle rather than bring in more guns. That being said it might be very difficult, if not impossible, to change around the things that already set in motion. Your laws now and in the past (among with a lot of other things ofcourse) brought you where you are now: and that is a society with a lot of guns, and a society with a lot of gun deaths. I'm not judging, I'm just saying that from an outside point of view we look at the USA regarding this subject quite surprising: we just don't understand that there is a group of people who believe a weapons run is the answer. Someone else said that if there is a problem, you should find a solution at the source. I don't believe more guns is the solution, no matter how much I've read about it already. 

[iacas]

I tried to make a point about if the society is saver with more guns, or with less guns. I believe in the 'less guns' principle rather than bring in more guns. That being said it might be very difficult, if not impossible, to change around the things that already set in motion. 

Here's the problem as I see it: you "believe" in something, but have nothing but your own thoughts and ideas to back it up. You haven't done much research into this. The simple fact that Canada has more guns and yet less violent gun crimes than the U.S. doesn't tickle you the way it should, or Sweden, or Israel, or other countries that have a TON of guns.

You're arguing based on your ideal. You don't like guns, and you think if you can magically have less guns, the world will be a "safer" place. Yet as the article someone quoted before says, that's not the case, and people who have spent their lives studying guns, gun control, shooting statistics, etc. don't agree:

For information about how more guns actually equals less crime, look up the work of Dr. John Lott. And since liberals hate his guts, look up the less famous work of Dr. Gary Kleck, or basically look up the work of any criminologist or economist who isn’t writing for Slate or Mother Jones.

 So on one hand, as I've said before, we have the emotional "but think of the children!" type of response, and on the other, some actual facts and figures and common sense stuff.

The basic gist of it - and bear in mind my information ranges from between 15 and 8 years old (not that I imagine much has changed since then), because that's when I last had the time to read about this kind of stuff with some depth - is that if you're not an inner-city black guy (or another type of "minority" which doesn't mean an inner-city minority, as that would be white), you have very little to worry about.

And if you do live outside the inner city, you're in fact a fair amount safer if you or someone close to you is armed. Not only will someone close to you be able to stop a mass murder or something more quickly, but you'll be less likely to be a victim of other violent crimes like a break-in, an attempted rape or solo murder, etc.

Again, the gun violence issue in the U.S. is almost entirely an economic issue.

I'm taking the time to read that article cited earlier today, and here are a few little snippets:

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.
And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

So, while I don't necessarily agree with everything the guy has to say, and I'm only what appears to be 0.04% of the way in (though, I guess a lot of the scrolling is comments), I think it's likely a good read, and would like to hear some specific comments on it.

[mcanadiens]

These mass killing events seem to be what spurs each successive bout of pleas for gun control. I wonder what these mass murderers would do if they couldn't get a hold of a gun.

Would they throw up their hands,say "Awe shucks, guess I can't kill anybody today" and stay home?

Would they go the Chinese route and start with the blades?

What about a bomb? With proper design, it would make the gun attacks look minor.

 

Edited October 8, 2015 by mcanadiens

[tmac20]

 

Here's the problem as I see it: you "believe" in something, but have nothing but your own thoughts and ideas to back it up. You haven't done much research into this. The simple fact that Canada has more guns and yet less violent gun crimes than the U.S. doesn't tickle you the way it should, or Sweden, or Israel, or other countries that have a TON of guns.

You're arguing based on your ideal. You don't like guns, and you think if you can magically have less guns, the world will be a "safer" place. Yet as the article someone quoted before says, that's not the case, and people who have spent their lives studying guns, gun control, shooting statistics, etc. don't agree:

 So on one hand, as I've said before, we have the emotional "but think of the children!" type of response, and on the other, some actual facts and figures and common sense stuff.

The basic gist of it - and bear in mind my information ranges from between 15 and 8 years old (not that I imagine much has changed since then), because that's when I last had the time to read about this kind of stuff with some depth - is that if you're not an inner-city black guy (or another type of "minority" which doesn't mean an inner-city minority, as that would be white), you have very little to worry about.

And if you do live outside the inner city, you're in fact a fair amount safer if you or someone close to you is armed. Not only will someone close to you be able to stop a mass murder or something more quickly, but you'll be less likely to be a victim of other violent crimes like a break-in, an attempted rape or solo murder, etc.

Again, the gun violence issue in the U.S. is almost entirely an economic issue.

I'm taking the time to read that article cited earlier today, and here are a few little snippets:

So, while I don't necessarily agree with everything the guy has to say, and I'm only what appears to be 0.04% of the way in (though, I guess a lot of the scrolling is comments), I think it's likely a good read, and would like to hear some specific comments on it.

Where did you get this fact from? It's entirely false.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

[Silent]

 

Here's the problem as I see it: you "believe" in something, but have nothing but your own thoughts and ideas to back it up. You haven't done much research into this. The simple fact that Canada has more guns and yet less violent gun crimes than the U.S. doesn't tickle you the way it should, or Sweden, or Israel, or other countries that have a TON of guns.

To be honest, that is not completely true. I did read quite some articles as well as other people's opinions on here about it. And not just European articles and opinions. Not that European thoughts should be of less value (maybe an outside-in view is in some cases more objective), but I think it's a good thing I don't base my opinion solely on what people around me say.

You're arguing based on your ideal. You don't like guns, and you think if you can magically have less guns, the world will be a "safer" place. Yet as the article someone quoted before says, that's not the case, and people who have spent their lives studying guns, gun control, shooting statistics, etc. don't agree:

 

 

 Why do you think that? That's not the case. In fact, if I would be living in the States and maybe when the crime rate of where I live is high, I might get a gun myself too. You have the misconception that I believe that a gun can never make you saver or save you. I never said that, and I do believe it can save you. Again you give me an article stated that when people with guns around can be helpfull when someone wants to commit a mass shooting. I never argued against that. What I did say was that I strongly believe that trying to get the gun away from the one who wants to commit that crime would probably save even more lives, and that in my opinion that's better than the solution to arm more people.

 

About your economical argument; I will give you that, it might be a big factor. The situation like it is, is a combination of all kinds of things. But that still doesn't explain the school shootings happening. Also, is the economic situation that much different from (almost all) other western countries? I think there are tons of factors in play, but do you honestly believe that your gun laws is not one of them? That is has absolutely nothing to do and is completely unrelated to the current situation of a lot of gun deaths? Not a little bit more than other Western countries, but a lot more.

Like I said before: changing the gun laws won't change anything tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. And maybe never, it might be 'too late'. Point is that if you bring a lot of legal guns into society, the amount of illegal guns will also increase. If I decide to become a criminal tomorrow in Holland, I absolutely have no idea at all how to get my hands on a gun. Living in USA I probably know how to, and I problably know people who already have them. And if I want to commit a robbery on a gas station in USA, I probably will make sure to bring a gun to the party because chances are you as employee have a gun too. So than the question is: did that gun really made it saver for you, or did it make it less save because I will bring a gun also. And that's what I mean when I said that in my opinion your society in total is not saver with all those guns, and that a weapons run is not the answer in my opinion. Not that a gun can never save your live, but that when a society is flooded with guns, it's also easier for criminals to get one (there are simply more guns out there to get), and the chances on escalation are higher.

We'll probably never agree, but I do try to have a constructive discussion and I do 'like' the subject. Not too much emotion here, just a bit surprised that our society's, culture and mentalityare alike on a lot of things,  yet also so different.

[saevel25]

 

Here's the problem as I see it: you "believe" in something, but have nothing but your own thoughts and ideas to back it up. You haven't done much research into this. The simple fact that Canada has more guns and yet less violent gun crimes than the U.S. doesn't tickle you the way it should, or Sweden, or Israel, or other countries that have a TON of guns.

 

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

From what I have read USA has more firearms per capita than any country in the world and it's not even close. Though, I wonder how the stats are skewed if one person owns like 50 guns. I would like to see % of people who own at least one gun. Not sure anyone ever got that data. 

Here's an interesting graph. I will say this. For the Homicide Rate in the US. They have an EXTREMELY LOW Homicide rate if you actually compare it to the number of guns per 100 people. I think we would consider USA an outlier on this graph. Really there is no direct correlation between Homicide Rates and Small Arms ownership even in countries that have very strict gun laws. 

 

Graph with out USA on it. 

 

[Silent]

 

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

From what I have read USA has more firearms per capita than any country in the world and it's not even close. Though, I wonder how the stats are skewed if one person owns like 50 guns. I would like to see % of people who own at least one gun. Not sure anyone ever got that data. 

Here's an interesting graph. I will say this. For the Homicide Rate in the US. They have an EXTREMELY LOW Homicide rate if you actually compare it to the number of guns per 100 people. I think we would consider USA an outlier on this graph. Really there is no direct correlation between Homicide Rates and Small Arms ownership even in countries that have very strict gun laws.

 

Thank god a lot of people actually are responsible gun owners :) (that's not me being sarcastic, I mean that). The article and your post are very interesting, and it basically proves that there's more than one way to look at statistics. What for me is interesting is that 1. USA is the country with the most guns per 100 people, and 2. USA is the country with the most gun deaths compared to other 'western' countries (also by average per x people). Both 1. and 2. are facts. The question is, are they related. Maybe they are not 'as much' related as I and some other people think and believe (as @iacas stated: I'm not an expert, nor are the most here), and as I said before there're tons of factors in play and gun possesion is 'just' one of them. But do people really believe they are completely unrelated what so ever? That USA is the highest on fact 1. has absolutely nothing to do with the fact they are highest on fact 2. as well? 

 

The funny thing about the fact that most deaths are criminals shooting each other (like in every country I guess) is actually 'helping' the USA if you look at the statistic homocide rate per 100 guns. You also have a lot of responsible gun owners and people who will never own a gun. So the rating drops. It's interesting, but in my opinion not a correlation.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Silent

[iacas]

Where did you get this fact from? It's entirely false.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Perhaps so. The Michael Moore documentary made the point about Canada (confusingly so, because it ran contrary to his editorial view that "guns = bad"). I wasn't talking about per capita, either, but rather how many homes or how many people own guns. It's not uncommon for a single gun owner in the U.S. to own many guns. Clearly, since the number is at 112 per 100… Something like 33% of U.S. Citizens own a gun, currently.

So, we could probably play statistics games all day. In the interest of saying "that doesn't matter" I'll give you the point and move on.

To be honest, that is not completely true. I did read quite some articles as well as other people's opinions on here about it. And not just European articles and opinions. Not that European thoughts should be of less value (maybe an outside-in view is in some cases more objective), but I think it's a good thing I don't base my opinion solely on what people around me say.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said it seems like you're arguing for what you believe while there's a whole bunch of actual information out there.

European countries aren't the best studies, either. They tend to be more homogenous, and they tend to have very different economic situations than, say, New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles…

What I did say was that I strongly believe that trying to get the gun away from the one who wants to commit that crime would probably save even more lives, and that in my opinion that's better than the solution to arm more people.

That's been shown repeatedly to be inaccurate. Guns are used to prevent crime far more often than you seem to think, and you're not going to be able to get guns away from criminals. It's just not going to happen. The article cited before references Australia and the UK, where guns were banned, and yet they've seen an increase in violent crimes. The same thinking applies, and it's pretty basic: if you're a bad guy, you're gonna pick on the people who aren't armed because you're not a moron: you don't want to get shot at and possibly killed.

I've also never argued for arming more people, though I think you could make a case for letting those who want to be armed (CCW types) do so in more places.

About your economical argument; I will give you that, it might be a big factor. The situation like it is, is a combination of all kinds of things. But that still doesn't explain the school shootings happening. Also, is the economic situation that much different from (almost all) other western countries? I think there are tons of factors in play, but do you honestly believe that your gun laws is not one of them? That is has absolutely nothing to do and is completely unrelated to the current situation of a lot of gun deaths? Not a little bit more than other Western countries, but a lot more.

Lots of things here, and this isn't golf, so I'll again be brief:

• Mass shootings are pretty damn rare. Consider the number of deaths by accidental drownings in pools or something. Something like ten people per day in the U.S. alone accidentally drown (that sounds weird, but I guess you could murder someone by intentionally drowning them).
• Mass shootings are less fatal if citizens are armed. They tend to occur in "gun free zones" where it's illegal to have a gun. Criminals, by definition, disregard the law. Those are all kind of the main points of the article cited.
• The economic situation is very different, yes. Canada for example doesn't have the inner city issues found in the U.S. Again, if you remove suicides from the U.S. gun fatality rates, and you remove minority-on-minority inner-city deaths, U.S. gun violence statistics look like - or are even lower than - a lot of other "similar" countries.
• "Do you honestly believe your gun laws is not one of them?" is too broad a question to answer. U.S. gun laws are all over the map. Some are far too restrictive. Some are utterly pointless. Some are not strong enough. But you seem to keep ignoring the central point: criminals do not care about the laws. Do you think that when the Brady Act was active that criminals listened to the "max 10 round magazine" provision? They didn't. Gun laws have very little effect. In fact, if you want to (legally) sell more guns, enact more gun laws. Criminals will just obtain guns regardless of the gun laws.
• The U.S. has a lot more, yep, but as I said, remove suicides (around 65%) and remove minority-on-minority inner-city stuff, and we're left with the fact that being murdered by someone with a gun is quite unlikely to happen.

Like I said before: changing the gun laws won't change anything tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. And maybe never, it might be 'too late'. Point is that if you bring a lot of legal guns into society, the amount of illegal guns will also increase.

Here's the thing. That seems like it might be the case. But is it? Can you prove it?

And even if it is the case, let's imagine a situation where every non-criminal person gives up their gun. How many guns is it okay, in your opinion, for the criminals to have? Ten per criminal? One?

Remember, every law-abiding citizen has given up their gun. Guns that are used some 80,000 to 2.5 million times per year to stop violent crimes from occurring or escalating.

So now what? Now we have a nation where law-abiding citizens have given up their guns, and there's some quantity of guns, but they're all possessed by two groups:

• Law enforcement.
• Criminals.

That's not a place I want to be. You know what they say about police officers and their response time(s).

If I decide to become a criminal tomorrow in Holland, I absolutely have no idea at all how to get my hands on a gun. Living in USA I probably know how to, and I problably know people who already have them.

C'mon man… I don't know how to get drugs, but that's mainly because I'm not a drug addict. Criminals know how to get ahold of guns. Or drugs. Or whatever.

Seriously weak stuff there, and it demonstrates a pretty bizarre view you must have of this country. I haven't got a clue how I'd go about obtaining an illegal firearm. Or illegal drugs.

And if I want to commit a robbery on a gas station in USA, I probably will make sure to bring a gun to the party because chances are you as employee have a gun too.

No, those aren't the chances. You're provably incorrect on that. And seriously, what is it that you picture when you think of the U.S.? Do you picture a bunch of people with shoulder holsters, hip holsters, and whatnot walking around ready at the first provocation to shoot people?

My goodness, I would not want to live in the country you seem to have conjured up in your head right now either. But fortunately for me, it's pure fantasy.

You're constantly overlooking one very simple thing, too: it can be demonstrated that, in the U.S., more guns does mean "safer." You've said that you "believe" that's not the case, but it turns out that for lots of ways to measure "safer" it is. Read the estimates on the article previously cited. Even using the Brady Campaign's numbers, guns are used to prevent or minimize crime something like 10x more often than they're used to commit crimes.

Guns save lives. I'm not talking about it like we need to arm everyone. I'm talking about it purely in the context of what can be demonstrated.

And, again, those statistics don't count the number of crimes prevented which go unreported. I've never had to pull my gun on anyone and hope never to have to, but given the anti-gun culture in this country, I can see why a lot of people might not ever report having even just brandished a gun to stop or prevent a crime.

So than the question is: did that gun really made it saver for you, or did it make it less save because I will bring a gun also.

Here's the thing… these things have answers. They've been discussed, and answered, and the answers that I've seen - tens and tens of them - all come out on the end of "armed victims are less likely to be killed or seriously injured." They all come out in favor of "armed = safer."

I know it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't, to a lot of smart people. But this is where your seemingly minimal research into this topic has you at a disadvantage. While you're picturing a guy walking into a gas station and the clerk and the criminal engaging in a movie-style gun battle where four innocent children are caught in the crossfire, that doesn't happen.

Not that a gun can never save your live, but that when a society is flooded with guns, it's also easier for criminals to get one (there are simply more guns out there to get), and the chances on escalation are higher.

It's incredibly easy for criminals to get guns already!

Guns can and do save lives, every day. Again, according to the Brady Campaign (which does not lobby on behalf of deflating footballs), guns are used all the time to save lives or prevent/minimize crimes. Far, far, far more often than they're used to kill people.

We'll probably never agree, but I do try to have a constructive discussion and I do 'like' the subject. Not too much emotion here, just a bit surprised that our society's, culture and mentalityare alike on a lot of things,  yet also so different.

By "emotion" I simply mean things that are based on your own thoughts and ideas and not so much on facts. Your case, your opinion, seems to rest heavily on what you think is the case, when there are numbers and information in direct contrast to that.

Yes, a lot of what you say makes a lot of sense… until you start to look at the actual numbers and whatnot behind things.

Again:

• Guns are used fairly often - more often than they're used to kill someone, by an order of magnitude or more - to stop or minimize violent crimes.
• Criminals by definition do not care about the law.
• Gun violence is, I've come to agree from having read quite a bit on this, an economic issue. People in the suburbs are not worried about being murdered by a person with a gun. They should worry much more about their kid accidentally drowning, though.

You get to have your opinion, but on the issue of "guns = safer" (it's not "saver" please) you don't seem to have a lot of information. Just your ideas. Just your concepts of what life is like here in the U.S.

What for me is interesting is that 1. USA is the country with the most guns per 100 people, and 2. USA is the country with the most gun deaths compared to other 'western' countries (also by average per x people). Both 1. and 2. are facts. The question is, are they related. Maybe they are not 'as much' related as I and some other people think and believe (as @iacas stated: I'm not an expert, nor are the most here), and as I said before there're tons of factors in play and gun possesion is 'just' one of them. But do people really believe they are completely unrelated what so ever? That USA is the highest on fact 1. has absolutely nothing to do with the fact they are highest on fact 2. as well? 

Again, that particular stat is skewed by the people who own 10 guns, or 20, or 50.

Nobody's saying they're completely unrelated, but you seem to be completely ignoring some other things.

Again, what about the point I've made several times that if you remove suicides and minority-on-minority gun deaths, the U.S. is on par with or below other countries? (That stat's from Armed by Gary Kleck, and as I've exhausted my interest in this, I'm not going to dig up the book if I still have it - I loan it out from time to time.)

You're looking at this very simplistically. You're seemingly ignoring the fact that gun ownership saves a lot of people from being harmed or killed on a daily basis. You're probably not able to conceive of a country that is 300 million people strong when Holland has fewer than 20 million people.

I'm probably looking at it more simplistically than it deserves, too, but I'm not a criminologist. So I boil it down, but seemingly, not nearly as far as you. You cannot just state "more guns = more crime" and leave it at that. Look again at Australia and the UK. I haven't in a decade, but people are still citing the rises in violent crime after those countries banned guns. Fewer guns = less safe? Seems to have some merit there, too.

I've exhausted my interest in this. Probably 15 minutes ago, but it would have felt weird to just stop typing mid-sentence.