|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
The Armed Populace and American Gun Ownership
Gun Control
This is not an article about Gun Control. I open saying this because when you talk about gun ownership, Gun Control laws get brought up all the time. I have some issues with Gun Control laws, but suffice it to say for now that this argument is independent of ideas about curtailing or expanding the restrictions on owning firearms. I'm mostly going to be talking about the United States, but readers from other countries are welcome to chime in.
The United States has a lot of guns. Many of them are legally owned and will never be used in a crime. Most gun owners do not, in fact, go out and commit massacres. There are also a large number of illegally owned guns: holdovers from previous poor gun registration laws, illegally sold guns, stolen guns that are then resold, or guns smuggled in from other countries. The vast majority of crime guns are illegal guns, though some of the well-publicized incidents involve legally owned guns. A lot of the reason restrictions on gun ownership in America are unpopular is the large number of illegal guns in the country. The typical perception is that criminals will retain their guns in violation of new laws as easily as they do in violation of old ones-- despite the best efforts of our police, we have not curtailed the number of guns on the street.
Controversy
Naturally, when some sort of incident involving guns takes place, two big things happen. 1: liberals call for increased gun control, stating that if the killer didn't have a gun he'd not have been able to kill. 2: conservatives call for increased gun ownership, stating that if the victims had been armed they'd have shot the killer, or he'd have not attacked in the first place. I think there's some merit to both arguments, but also some severe flaws. The obvious flaw with increasing gun control is that most crime guns are illegal guns, and making them slightly more illegal won't really stop anything. The flaw with increasing gun ownership, though, is a bit more nuanced, and I think liberals typically don't realize it.
See, the normal critique of the call for increased gun ownership is that guns in the crowd would create a firefight, people wouldn't be well-trained, and instead of deterring the attacker, it would just make things worse. The only thing worse than one firearm going off in a crowd is 2+ firearms going off in a crowd. And to an extent, this is a legitimate criticism. However, I'm pretty sure that a firefight would not in fact erupt between a killer and a crowd. I'm pretty sure the killer would attack unarmed people or just stay home if, say, the 33% of Americans who lived in households that owned guns also had concealed-carry permits, bought a pistol, and carried it with them regularly.
Even believing all that, the idea that we should arm the American populace to reduce the body count due to incidents like this is utter garbage.
Clubbing
A couple years back, I was at a club in France, and had had a couple drinks. The place had two floors, an upper floor with a bar, a dance area, tables and chairs, and a lower floor that was mostly for dancing. Now, I'm not a huge clubber but one of my friends brought me along, and to be honest I was having a great time. I headed down the stairs, and it was crowded enough the going was slow. People packed together on a staircase (even a wide one) kinda sucks.
So, here I am going down the stairs when to the right of me I hear a shriek. My friend Calvin has stumbled and spilled his drink on the feet of the woman in front of him. At this point, things proceed to go very poorly. The bald man next to the woman turns around, and evidently he is her boyfriend. He begins shouting at Calvin in French, but of course Calvin barely speaks a lick of it. I edge in front of Calvin a bit and try to explain that it was an accident. Somehow, I only enrage the guy further. It doesn't help that we've both had a couple of drinks, either. I turn to Calvin to try to interpret a statement, and Baldie shoves me, hard. I fall onto Calvin who in turn falls onto the girl behind him, but luckily we don't all topple over like dominos. I turn around and Baldie is gone, leading his girlfriend through the crowd.
I don't think this situation would have been made better at all if everyone had guns.
The Price
How many Americans have concealed carry permits? I mean, lots of Americans own guns, but that's not what we're talking about when we talk about averting massacres. A gun you store in a safebox, disassembled, and only put together at the firing range, or a rifle you use for hunting, is not part of this equation. We're talking about Concealed Carry. Let's be generous. Let's say 3 million Americans, or 1 in every 100, has and uses a Concealed Carry permit. The real number is much lower, but I'm erring on the side of caution here.
About 700 people per year in America die from accidental gun discharges, and another 10,000 are injured (as of the most recent year I could find data for, 2007). To put that in perspective, of the three big tragedies that happened recently that we have all the numbers for (Virginia Tech, Arizona, and Aurora), we're talking about 15 deaths, 30 injuries per massacre on average.
So, lets do what the conservatives say we should do. Let's make it so one in every 5 Americans is armed. We'll go from 3 million Americans with concealed carry permits to 60 million. But you know what? Let's say we also introduce MASSIVE gun safety programs, and every new gun-owner has accidents at half the rate of current gun owners. Let's say that and be generous.
Well, if we did that, your number of accidental gun deaths rises from 700 per year to 7,000. Gun injuries would rise from 10,000 to 100,000 per year.
There would be no more massacres. We'd have the "armed populace" the conservatives want. We'd avert those 15 deaths, 30 injuries per massacre, I'm completely sure of that. The headlines, if not our homes, would be safer.
But it wouldn't be worth it.
 
|
I actually agree a lot with this.
But the problem I see is that when you limit gun ownership, only those who don't care about limits on gun ownership will have guns--e.g. the outlaws anyhow. Also, is it wise to give the government a monopoly on force?
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 25 2012 04:06 Shady Sands wrote:
I actually agree a lot with this.
But the problem I see is that when you limit gun ownership, only those who don't care about limits on gun ownership will have guns--e.g. the outlaws anyhow. Also, is it wise to give the government a monopoly on force?
That's an interesting problem you see. In terms of what we can do about these sorts of things, though, I don't have a particular solution. I make it pretty clear that aggressive gun control isn't the answer, if you read my first section up there. Making guns illegal won't necessarily reduce the incidence of gun crime.
So yeah, I don't know who you're arguing with, but it sure aint me.
|
On August 25 2012 04:07 Blazinghand wrote:
That's an interesting problem you see. In terms of what we can do about these sorts of things, though, I don't have a particular solution. I make it pretty clear that aggressive gun control isn't the answer, if you read my first section up there. Making guns illegal won't necessarily reduce the incidence of gun crime.
So yeah, I don't know who you're arguing with, but it sure aint me.
Ah, okay. I think I misread your point.
Yeah, encouraging gun ownership is probably not the best way to go about it either. The solution really is to have the government deregulate transactions while regulating ownership. Basically make it so that to own a gun requires the proper safety forms and psychiatric evals, while to buy and sell a gun, not so much. Everyone, in theory, should be allowed to buy a gun, but only people who are healthy/sane/not criminals should be allowed own/operate them. Just like cars.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 25 2012 04:11 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 04:07 Blazinghand wrote:
That's an interesting problem you see. In terms of what we can do about these sorts of things, though, I don't have a particular solution. I make it pretty clear that aggressive gun control isn't the answer, if you read my first section up there. Making guns illegal won't necessarily reduce the incidence of gun crime.
So yeah, I don't know who you're arguing with, but it sure aint me. Ah, okay. I think I misread your point. Yeah, encouraging gun ownership is probably not the best way to go about it either. The solution really is to have the government deregulate transactions while regulating ownership. Basically make it so that to own a gun requires the proper safety forms and psychiatric evals, while to buy and sell a gun, not so much. Everyone, in theory, should be allowed to buy a gun, but only people who are healthy/sane/not criminals should be allowed own/operate them. Just like cars.
I mean, that sounds nice, but any gun control law the laws I've seen proposed in the US typically are bad because it needs to deal with guns that people have illegally. Like, just because it's illegal to operate the gun doesn't mean dudes won't go and rob stores or shoot people. They're already gonna rob stores and shoot people, and there's tons of cheap, illegal guns. Legalizing them but adding restrictions on their usage and licensing would definitely make it easier for good people to legally acquire their weapons, but I don't think it'd really get at the real problem, which is crime guns.
|
I guess the idea is that it's not considered tragic and doesn't get media coverage when someone shoots themselves or someone else accidentally. So even though more people would be dying, most people wouldn't know about it and everything would feel okay and fuzzy.
|
|
|
If the US ever did move to make all publicly carried guns illegal, (which I'm not suggesting right now), I feel it would have to be a VERY strong movement, i.e give police the option to shoot to incapacitate and/or kill people with guns on sight, rather than just in retaliation.
This is obviously a bad state to be in, with mis-interpretations, toy guns and the like.
|
Whenever I think about practically banning guns in the US, I can't help but feel really sorry for the government employees that will have to go door to door to collect them.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
When we think about gun control laws, really we want to think about what the objective of gun control is. I believe it is twofold: first, to minimize the number of gun-related accidents, both fatal and not fatal; and second, to limit the number of gun-facilitated crimes and intentional gun deaths.
Part of existing gun control targets the first area. People are required to register if they want to own a gun. You need to take gun safety classes. There are laws about how you can transport and load guns. If you want a concealed carry permit, you typically need to either live in a state with lax laws, or be a judge or someone else who might be at risk.
Part of existing gun control law targets the second area. Background checks are done when you want to own a firearm. The police seize and impound illegal guns whenever they can. Gun manufacturers are required to print serial numbers onto their guns. Really, though, we can't (or don't) do much to go after illegal guns.
The typical gun control reform, from either party, does little to reduce either problem. If the US were more like, say, England, we'd easily be able to control the flow of guns just by making the sale of firearms illegal. However, we have large, porous borders as well as a pre-existing population of illegal guns. There are millions of illegal, undocumented firearms in the US. If we wanted to deal with crime guns, it would mean a big investment into hunting down and stopping fences, smugglers, and gun runners, and a massive effort to track down and seize millions of undocumented firearms.
It would be a herculean effort, insanely expensive, and practically impossible.If it WERE possible, it would awesome. Get rid of illegal guns, and our aggressive existing gun control and tracking laws will make gun crime very difficult. Simply making legal guns more difficult to purchase and own will not do this-- nor will encouraging tons of people to own guns.
I've yet to see strong policy recommendations from either major political party on this issue. The Democrats largely don't talk about gun control in the legislature any more, and their solutions were largely impractical or unhelpful. They've realized it's a losing political issue for them, so they don't bother with it. The Republicans are happy with the current state of things, so we have silence on it. Sure, the media gets into a huff occasionally whenever a shooting happens, but ultimately, it seems that illegal guns and our current gun control laws are here to stay.
|
On August 25 2012 03:58 Blazinghand wrote:
There would be no more massacres. We'd have the "armed populace" the conservatives want. We'd avert those 15 deaths, 30 injuries per massacre, I'm completely sure of that. The headlines, if not our homes, would be safer.
That's the opposite of true in the first place, though.
A gunman pulls a gun and shoots someone. The person is still dead. Now all the bystanders who have weapons draw them to neutralize the threat. These people are not trained for combat. They are confused, shocked, not thinking clearly - wondering who could have shot, if they even heard a shot. They are looking for a threat. They see many, many people around them with weapons drawn.
That's not ending without accidental shootings. And once that starts, it's a goddamn battle royale of scared, untrained people firing in panic.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:49 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 03:58 Blazinghand wrote:
There would be no more massacres. We'd have the "armed populace" the conservatives want. We'd avert those 15 deaths, 30 injuries per massacre, I'm completely sure of that. The headlines, if not our homes, would be safer.
That's the opposite of true in the first place, though. A gunman pulls a gun and shoots someone. The person is still dead. Now all the bystanders who have weapons draw them to neutralize the threat. These people are not trained for combat. They are confused, shocked, not thinking clearly - wondering who could have shot, if they even heard a shot. They are looking for a threat. They see many, many people around them with weapons drawn. That's not ending without accidental shootings. And once that starts, it's a goddamn battle royale of scared, untrained people firing in panic.
You are aware this article is about how even in the best case scenario it isn't worth it? Read the sentence immediately after the quote you just cherry picked.
Edit: or the paragraphs before
|
On August 25 2012 05:53 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:49 Dfgj wrote:On August 25 2012 03:58 Blazinghand wrote:
There would be no more massacres. We'd have the "armed populace" the conservatives want. We'd avert those 15 deaths, 30 injuries per massacre, I'm completely sure of that. The headlines, if not our homes, would be safer.
That's the opposite of true in the first place, though. A gunman pulls a gun and shoots someone. The person is still dead. Now all the bystanders who have weapons draw them to neutralize the threat. These people are not trained for combat. They are confused, shocked, not thinking clearly - wondering who could have shot, if they even heard a shot. They are looking for a threat. They see many, many people around them with weapons drawn. That's not ending without accidental shootings. And once that starts, it's a goddamn battle royale of scared, untrained people firing in panic. You are aware this article is about how even in the best case scenario it isn't worth it? Read the sentence immediately after the quote you just cherry picked. Edit: or the paragraphs before
What
I'm adding onto the point that, yes, you're showing a best case scenario and things can and will be worse. I am not contradicting you.
I do this because people actually believe 'there would be no more massacres', as seen in the thread in General.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:02 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 05:53 Blazinghand wrote:On August 25 2012 05:49 Dfgj wrote:On August 25 2012 03:58 Blazinghand wrote:
There would be no more massacres. We'd have the "armed populace" the conservatives want. We'd avert those 15 deaths, 30 injuries per massacre, I'm completely sure of that. The headlines, if not our homes, would be safer.
That's the opposite of true in the first place, though. A gunman pulls a gun and shoots someone. The person is still dead. Now all the bystanders who have weapons draw them to neutralize the threat. These people are not trained for combat. They are confused, shocked, not thinking clearly - wondering who could have shot, if they even heard a shot. They are looking for a threat. They see many, many people around them with weapons drawn. That's not ending without accidental shootings. And once that starts, it's a goddamn battle royale of scared, untrained people firing in panic. You are aware this article is about how even in the best case scenario it isn't worth it? Read the sentence immediately after the quote you just cherry picked. Edit: or the paragraphs before What I'm adding onto the point that, yes, you're showing a best case scenario and things can and will be worse. I am not contradicting you. I do this because people actually believe 'there would be no more massacres', as seen in the thread in General.
Ah. Okay, it seems redundant, but I do agree with you that there are cases worse than the best-case-scenario.
I doubt it would really make a difference relative to the thousands of accidental gun deaths though-- massacres are rare and kill few people. That's the main point here.
|
It's more that the 'best case scenario' doesn't actually exist - I'm not suggesting you say it does, but it's worth reinforcing. As you brought up with the clubbing example, arming more people is only more likely to cause more trouble, especially when you add in the factors I brought up (confusion, etc).
I don't dispute the accidental deaths part. I didn't know stats for that, so it's interesting to compare.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
I guess the big thing I'm trying to get at is that we consider things like the VA Tech Massacre (32 dead) to be huge things worth talking about, when in that same year 700 people died of accidental gun discharges and nobody cares about it. The goal of gun policy should be to minimize deaths, not to minimize deaths on TV, or deaths news programs talk about. I probably should have posted something specific like this at the start or the end of the piece-- though you understand it pretty well.
I basically don't care about how many people died at these massacres, because these are drops in the bucket of gun-related deaths and injuries in this country. I mean, I do care-- death is bad-- but I don't care so much that I think killing even more people by making sure everyone has concealed carry permits is a good idea.
|
Probably the best way to look at gun control tbh.
Do i wish i had a firearm and CC permit? Yes, because i have training and experience in safely owning and operating firearms. Should this country legalize similar weapons to the US and introduce CC permits? Hell no, because just because people dont have mental problems/criminal records doesnt mean they are people id want to have a firearm anywhere near me.
We have pretty strict gun control laws here and ive already been looking down the business end of a shotgun a few times, luckily its only been on hunts with rich city guys who ive shouted at to sort it out. Its fine in a controlled environment, but these fools carrying handguns everywhere?
Such a bad idea
|
Disclaimer: I am NOT a neo-conservative, which you attribute conservatism to in this write-up improperly.
I am however a libertarian, a true conservative. With that, I would like you to simple spend 30 seconds of your life and read up on the Kennesaw Gun Law of 1982.
The law made it where every person in that city has to be armed. There has to be a weapon in every single household, and the ammunition that goes with that weapon. Since 1982, crime has gone down drastically. This is not inclusive of the quadrupling of their population. That means their population has grown 400% while their crimes have dropped to less than half of what they were in total in 1982.
As an American, you might think: Well, what about felons? Felons one, have guns illegally. Secondly, they have to go before the town commission and get permission to live in the city of Kennesaw, in which they are told by an official that the city is not liable for their death if they happen to put themselves in a situation that they would then be in an unarmed versus armed situation.
With that said, it's easy to think that if guns were limited, or eliminated as common holdings that less deaths, accidents, and injuries would occur. Unfortunately, John Lennon's "Imagine" only really goes so far. Illegitimate guns will always be in the hands of wrongdoers, and thus, our problem is too big to simplify with minimalistic points of views. It's been proven that by city, the more legitimate (registered - legally owned guns) that exist per registered criminal residing in said city, the lower the crime.
If that is not convincing enough for you, google which city in America has the strictest gun laws and restrictions. You'll find it's Chicago. You know what Chicago also has? The most shootings, death by shooting, and pistol abundance in the country. I might not be a scientist, but your theory is fucked, radical, and in defiance of the most physical proprietary amendment of our nation.
Edit: In the state of Florida, which I live and happen to be certified for multiple gun licenses (along with investigative licenses), we enacted gun licensing paired with our "Stand Your Ground" act of 2005. Since 2005, 33 states have adopted our gun licensing programs, and the act itself. As somehow trained in dispersing of concealed, armed carry, and various other licenses regarding firearms, I must say that your post is entirely insulting. Yes, there are people who will write you off for a license and not give you proper training. I'd say a good 5% of people licensed in my state have gone that route. With that, the other 95% had to sit in 4 to 72 hours of courses, pass tests on what they've learned, and go to the shooting range to prove competency with the weapon they are attempting certification in. Your approach on limiting accidental shootings, or purposeful ones for that matter, do not stem for the majority around the issue you're trying to propose as the problem. It's the inexperienced, incompetent, unlicensed, and typically mentally handicapped (by way of partial insanity or other mental illness) whom go out to ranges and accidentally shoot the person next to them, or their co-worker in the foot, or leg, or who knows what. There are ample cameras or recording devices in every range for that purpose. With that, I end with this: To assume that guns hurt people, and not that unqualified hurt people in these cases is as insane as the asshole who "misfired" at any range on any given day.
Edit 2: Research how many government programs, or crime prevention/educational programs state departments and the government have tried to introduce that have failed miserably. No one wants to pay the tax dollars for failure programs. You cannot rely on people to not be idiotic, and thus, the intelligent people primarily paying the cost of all errors inclusive of said programs would rather just let human nature take its course and have those people eliminate themselves. I'm pretty sure every American remembers D.A.R.E, or G.R.E.A.T and still went out and became delinquent and or used drugs. That's a very primed, yet primitive example of what you're suggesting regarding gun safety.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 25 2012 08:40 Game wrote:
Disclaimer: I am NOT a neo-conservative, which you attribute conservatism to in this write-up improperly.
I am however a libertarian, a true conservative. With that, I would like you to simple spend 30 seconds of your life and read up on the Kennesaw Gun Law of 1982.
The law made it where every person in that city has to be armed. There has to be a weapon in every single household, and the ammunition that goes with that weapon. Since 1982, crime has gone down drastically. This is not inclusive of the quadrupling of their population. That means their population has grown 400% while their crimes have dropped to less than half of what they were in total in 1982.
As an American, you might think: Well, what about felons? Felons one, have guns illegally. Secondly, they have to go before the town commission and get permission to live in the city of Kennesaw, in which they are told by an official that the city is not liable for their death if they happen to put themselves in a situation that they would then be in an unarmed versus armed situation.
With that said, it's easy to think that if guns were limited, or eliminated as common holdings that less deaths, accidents, and injuries would occur. Unfortunately, John Lennon's "Imagine" only really goes so far. Illegitimate guns will always be in the hands of wrongdoers, and thus, our problem is too big to simplify with minimalistic points of views. It's been proven that by city, the more legitimate (registered - legally owned guns) that exist per registered criminal residing in said city, the lower the crime.
If that is not convincing enough for you, google which city in America has the strictest gun laws and restrictions. You'll find it's Chicago. You know what Chicago also has? The most shootings, death by shooting, and pistol abundance in the country. I might not be a scientist, but your theory is fucked, radical, and in defiance of the most physical proprietary amendment of our nation.
Good day.
I have no doubt that, if every member of the populace were armed, crime would go down. I even presuppose that in the arguments I make.
I think the number of deaths overall would drastically increase, though.
If you read my article carefully, which I... I think you did... you'll note I am not in favor of gun control, but rather against mass voluntary gun ownership, EVEN IF IT STOPS CRIME, because it increases accidental deaths at a far greater rate. Introducing laws to restrict gun ownership is a bad tactic and I specifically shoot it down. I suspect you assumed I take a traditionally Democratic position on this and did not fully understand the nuance to my arguments.
My goal is to reduce deaths, not to reduce headlines. I may not be a scientist, but it seems you haven't carefully considered my position on gun control.
Good day.
|
I edited my post. I initially stopped reading your post because it was idiotic, but now I addressed it with a real response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
