ITW, unfortunately there are actually civilians out there with guns, and who use them to attack other civilians. Forget "should be left to the armed forces." They got guns. They're shooting people with them. Some aren't properly trained in how to use them, either, nor do they follow any rules of engagement.
How do you deal with a man with a gun, who will use this gun instead of persuasion to make you do what he wants? I'd much prefer having a gun myself than putting myself at his mercy.
See, these arguments of "there are more guns in x, and it is less safe in x" are neglecting a critical fact: many, many, many (I hesitate to say "most") of these guns are owned and carried by people who intend to use them to attack other people. In such locations, if the number of guns was increased by giving everyone a gun, I really wonder at how much unsafer these places would become. I think they would become safer than they currently are. Naive, perhaps, but such is my thinking.
On November 26 2008 13:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Fontong, we're talking more about the theoretical aspects. I'm not sure how relevant statistics are, unless you can show that they have a very direct relevance. For example, many more people (in terms of % of population) died in war BEFORE the gun was invented...
Ok, theoretically speaking then, if I had a choice to be attacked with either a gun or a chainsaw/katana/baseball bat. Which would a choose?
Definitely not the one which will kill me even if I sprint away as fast as possible. I would much rather be unarmed and attacked by someone with a melee weapon than be armed and attacked by a likewise armed person. Why? They are attacking me, they have the advantage because they are shooting first. If someone wants to mug me and just sticks a gun in my face, it doesn't matter if I'm armed or not, he will still shoot me if I try to pull my gun on him.
ish0wstopper said "it makes sense until you think about the fact that guns arent merely deterrents. they are weapons of aggression"
Well, from my point of view you are only thinking of them as weapons of aggression, and neglecting their use as deterrents. Very understandable, considering that their current use in civilian contexts are almost always as weapons of aggression.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
the man who trades freedom for the illusion of security gets neither, as somebody once said (Ben Franklin?)
I don't feel like I'm trading freedom for an illusion.
That's like saying that you're trading your right to rape any girl you want for the illusion that big men named bubba won't also be allowed to rape you. We have police for a reason. Laws are enforced by professionals, not fucking vigilantes who each have their own interpretation of justice.
On November 26 2008 13:51 BottleAbuser wrote: ish0wstopper said "it makes sense until you think about the fact that guns arent merely deterrents. they are weapons of aggression"
Well, from my point of view you are only thinking of them as weapons of aggression, and neglecting their use as deterrents. Very understandable, considering that their current use in civilian contexts are almost always as weapons of aggression.
How can you deter someone who needs to steal from you to live? Like ITW said, it just encourages preemptive striking (such that we see in global politics now... If everyone had nukes, would you feel safe? America doesn't, and America's willing to invade countries to make sure it doesn't happen). What happens is that you aren't evening the playing field, you're giving the advantage to the person who pulls their gun out first. Unless you're planning on a world of everyone walking around with their guns drawn, you're still going to get people using their gun to take advantage of people who's guns are still holstered.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
the man who trades freedom for the illusion of security gets neither, as somebody once said (Ben Franklin?)
I bet he is turning in his grave right now...I doubt he intended that quote to be used for that purpose.
I wrote an essay/ thesis on carrying guns and the second amendment. I started out unsure. I wrapped up very much for the civilian carry.
Can you blame a pen for what is written? Outside of Harry Potter, not really. A gun is a tool. When used by a responsible citizen it saves lives. When carried by a bad guy, the bad guy is now dangerous.
I accept bad people kill good people with guns. I also accept that, when necessary, good people kill bad people with guns. You have to realize that the bad people are going to be bad whether they have access to guns or not; and if they want access to guns they will find a way.
Banning our rights to own and carry weapons is not only breaking the second amendment to the constitution but also disarms the people.
Step, for a moment, in the bad-guy's shoes. You are mad and you want to shoot people. To you go to Washington DC where nobody is aloud to carry weapons, or somewhere else? Hell, I'd go lol washington dc ez-mode gogo.
Hah! I found my 10th Grade final essay =) Note, that I haven't even touched this since I last read it so it might sound I dunno... 10th grade-ish.
Imagine all of the violent crimes that are on the news and even those that aren’t. Now picture the outcome if the victim or an observer had a concealed gun. Lives would be saved. It is evident through research and studies that if more citizens carried guns that crime rates would decrease dramatically. There are many people who wish and fight for a gun-free society. But they are neglecting the number of lives that have been saved, and crimes stopped and deterred. Countries and cities have put regulated gun control on an extreme level and we see the same results: armed civilians create a safer community.
The right to possess and carry handguns is at risk. Groups such as the Million Mom March and Stop the NRA are trying to raise gun control to a ridiculous level; in all essentiality, they want a gun-free society. It is true that guns kill. They even kill innocent people. But saying that guns mean innocent death is just like saying the pencils cause spelling errors.
Do they forget that the King of England took away the weapon of the people and what effect it had on England? By disarming the people not only he had total control, but the military also. The military exploited this as an opportunity to, simply put, pillage the people. In the Declaration of Independence it clearly states that disarming the people is wrong and that the people should be given the right to protect themselves and their rights. Ireland has followed this trend and banned guns on their island. The results? A spike in crime (Moore).
Many arguments are based around the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It seems pretty clear that the general public should have the right to own a gun for self protection. The other groups only see the word “militia”. They believe that this amendment is outdated and has become a problem.
These people that fight for strict gun control don’t accept, or see, the whole picture. They see what the news and media tells them. Research performed by James Gazori in 1985 concludes that %.0142 of the US population get killed due to firearm-related deaths each year. That is a total of about 2,367,247 deaths due to firearms (not including war and military casualties) from 1791-1985; a 200 year span. This includes homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths. From surveys and averages the low estimate of 37,659,948 people have had their lives saved by a gun. This, however, does not even include how many crimes have been prevent by the mere presence of a gun. The sum number of lives directly saved and lives saved due to the presence brings us up to 62,541,548 people.
More modern research performed by Gary Kleck, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, has researched violent crimes’ association with gun ownership. He has said that “robbery or assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection of those who did not resist at all” (Boatman 4). Other research performed by Kleck has shown that every year citizens who own a gun protect themselves or prevent crime 2.5 million times.
Gazori’s study gives us estimates that probably become pretty rough. But side-by-side we see that about 50 million more lives have been protected than taken. Kleck’s more recent study (taken about 2004) are more reliable and recent, and still show that more lives a year are protected than lives that have been taken within the past 200 years.
Out of the two studies it is factually proved that having responsible guns owners. There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible gun owners. The people who abuse the power and right to defend themselves are irresponsible gun owners. The current gun license ship procedure is made to weed out the irresponsible gun owners. It is not the guns fault if it is used wrongly. It is a rightful tool made to protect. Often times the people who abuse guns have obtained them illegally and should not be carrying them. Removing the citizen’s right to protect themselves makes them vulnerable. The shooter in the Trolley Square massacre was carrying a weapon illegal to be concealed—shotgun with 80 shells—and on top of everything, he was only 18 years old. He had a shotgun with 80 rounds and two handguns also with many rounds.
An off-duty police officer was nearby when the shooting started and was able to chase off the shooter before he could kill more people, which he easily could have done with how much ammo he was packing. He is a hero, and doing his job. But many people were injured and killed before he could arrive. If just someone closer had a gun who knows how many lives could’ve been saved. Similar situation at Virginia Tech: if a responsible student carrying a gun had been there, more than likely many lives would’ve been saved.
Many cities and areas have experimented with the idea of requiring the citizens carry guns. Less than surprising, crime rates went down. A city that enforces this is Kennesaw, George. Even though the population went from 5,000 to 30,000 crime rates has stayed at a minimum after dropping 89% (Wikipedia). A few quotes from worldnetdaily.com say:
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or
defender.
The article continues with some statistics:
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
They finish by telling us that Kennesaw, Georgia has been murder free for 25 years; pretty impressive considering the not-so-small population. Some places such as Washington D.C. does not allow weapons in their area. It is now known as the Murder Capitol of the nation. Not a very proud name to live up to. It’s kind of like those no-gun-safe-zones. It’s inviting criminals with the bonus of no resistance or risk. Safe…right.
Logically and statistically, and armed civilian is a safe civilian and is contributing to a safer society in which we all live in. Also, the second amendment is very much alive and with it’s time. It’s simple. More guns, more crime deterrent.
Absolutes are very sticky things... non-professional law enforcement is actually quite lawful, desired, and encouraged (in the correct situation, of course...): example.
I'd like to stay away from these overly extrapolated arguments, by the way... it would be quite unreasonable to say that every criminal has a gun and we should therefore automatically give up our possessions to anyone who asks, lest we enrage the potential criminal and provoke him to crime.
Chef, I'm not afraid of dying to a nuclear weapon. Really, I'm not.
Personally, I doubt very many people in the world are afraid of the possibility, remote as it is. I mean, it would be undesirable should it happen, but so would being hit by a meteor or lightning.
Maybe it's because I know that nuclear weapons are not a sustainable method of warfare. And I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, etc. Okay, so one of us might be unreasonable and illogical, and use one anyways. So the other one will die. It is then useless to have a deterrent in the first place, which kept the reasonable and logical ones from using weapons until the illogical one came along?
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
the man who trades freedom for the illusion of security gets neither, as somebody once said (Ben Franklin?)
I bet he is turning in his grave right now...I doubt he intended that quote to be used for that purpose.
ok then mr wise guy what did he intend for that quote to mean, seeing as how you know he'll be turning in his grave
perhaps i dunno the patriot act? which, among other things...
On November 26 2008 13:49 ish0wstopper wrote:the police have numbers and guns but that doesnt stop drug dealers or murderers from shooting at them
This pretty much concludes the article. If I have a gun that doesn't mean someone else can't shoot me. If all innocent civilians were armed, I'd still bet that the "evil guy" would shoot first and it'd be gg.
If anything, having force would make rational communication less effective. You know those movies where the cop walks in without a gun to talk? That isn't entirely fiction. In a lot of cases it's useful to talk to someone without the presence of force. It helps create a rational decision rather than a spontaneously fatal one.
1.) Guns are only weapons, nothing else. they will never be anything else. They are not tools, deterrents or empowering devices. They are meant to kill. 2.) Life lesson: you cannot take the edge off of a knife. A weapon will always be dangerous no matter who holds it. 3.) The means doesn't matter, only the method. A criminal will still kill you with a knife if he wants to. Taking guns away from him does nothing. 4.) The point I cannot stress enough is every single person that thinks that banning, destroying or simply making it too bothersome to own a gun is going to do ANYTHING to reduce criminal action, fatalities, w/e is wrong. The source from the OP makes the true point that (hand)guns are equalizers. When you take away law-abiding citizens weapons (regardless of what they are), you only victimize them. You make them sheep. Theres two parts to this. A) criminals are not law-abiding citizens. They will procure their weapons regardless of how difficult the law makes it to get one. The law then in effect only takes them away the law-abiding citizen who, in the course of following the written doctrine like they must, gives up his right to defend himself. B) Hypothectically, lets say all guns, period, are destroyed. Not banned, not given exclusively to law enforcement and military forces, but destroyed. Completely eliminated. They don't exist anymore. No matter what you think has been achieved here, there will still be violent crime, killings, robberies, hold ups, what-have-you. Again, the means doesn't matter...only the method. Criminals are just that, criminals.
Disagree if you like, its just my POV. The one political issue I've *ever* personally felt compelled to follow is gun control, and personally I think the concept it fucking stupid. Its just a watered down version of martial law, and the constitution of this country bans infringement on the right to have them anyway. I won't get into that though, that's a whole 'nother whopper of an argument just over what the constitution really means.
I'd like anybody who's interested to look at the weapons policies in Israel, Australia, Switzerland, etc. just so you can see for yourself how non-existent the correlation between gun control and crime rates is.
On November 26 2008 13:49 ish0wstopper wrote: guns are what makes neighborhoods dangerous and make even the police scared to roll through high crime areas
that article was total bullshit
it makes sense until you think about the fact that guns arent merely deterrents. they are weapons of aggression
the police have numbers and guns but that doesnt stop drug dealers or murderers from shooting at them
This post illustrates how this particular person has missed the point entirely. Even in this example, the guns aren't the problem...the fuckers USING them are. There is no such thing as a weapon of agression either. All *weapons* are meant to KILL PEOPLE. You aren't treating a gun like what it really is if you add human traits to it.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Would you feel safer in Detroit even if there weren't guns? And if you had to walk around a Detroit ghetto, would you want to bring a gun or stay unarmed?
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Would you feel safer in Detroit even if there weren't guns? And if you had to walk around a Detroit ghetto, would you want to bring a gun or stay unarmed?
Of course I would. Want to know why? Because now it gives me the option of running my ass off. What a silly question lol. And no, I wouldn't bring a gun, because I don't want to be charged with murder.
no, I mean would you feel safter in Detroit than in Canada, even if Detroit didn't have any guns? Guns aren't the only thing that makes a rough neighborhood dangerous. You're more likely to be mugged by someone without a gun than someone with a gun. Thus, if you carried a gun, you'd more likely have an advantage over the person that is mugging you.
edit: and also, shooting someone that is mugging you isn't murder. It's self defense.
gun control doesn't stop shit. If a criminal is out to kill, he find any means necessary, and most criminals get their guns illegally. P&T on Gun controlllll
I would feel safer in Detroit without guns, than in Detroit with guns.
Shooting someone that is mugging you isn't self-defence. Self-defence is shooting someone who is trying to kill you. If they just want your money, you're not actually allowed to kill them, you're only allowed to run.
All discussion is on the case of all civilians carrying a lethal sidearm. Analysis of such an extreme end of the spectrum holds little relevance to analysis of the spectrum of legal firearm restrictions seen in countries across the world.
This goes along with Chef's point on page 2 about pre-emptive striking, but I believe from a mugger's perspective if all possible targets can be assumed to be armed and able to retaliate with lethal force, that promotes the option of killing a target to preclude retaliation in lieu of merely threatening the target with lethal force. Thus my best options would all include murder, whether it is murder in a place where no one sees or a place where the only people who see are members of my gang. Merely having a gang also obviates the deterrence the single target may have of carrying a firearm, because he will assuredly be destroyed by my allies should he open fire on any of us.
BottleAbuser, you may not be afraid of dying to a nuclear weapon, but if you lived in America 30 years ago that would not be true. You fear for your life when a party believes it can only stand to benefit from your utter destruction and it has the means or potential means to execute this destruction. MAD can provide a deterrence but it clearly did not prevent an arms race during the Cold War.
If a civilian's deterrence from personal firearms is negated in cases of gang assault, further deterrence can come from augmenting firepower (packing an assault rifle for example), augmenting numbers (joining or starting one's own gang), or relying on law enforcement. We don't live in a Big Brother state with indomitable and omnipresent law enforcement, so relying on it cannot always ensure safety, meaning lingering or constant fear will remain.
Escalation in the other options would be akin to an arms race and ultimately if violence does break out between augmented parties, more deaths will occur.
Reason why violence could be prevented even after escalation: change in cost/benefit analysis. If the criminals (or vigilantes) conclude that potential deaths outweigh predicted benefit. This won't occur via escalation of potential deaths alone since the aggressive party can always pick their battles to minimize casualties. Likely the change will come from outside, for instance the cost of law enforcement punishment or the net benefit of gang banging instead of advancing one's career decreasing due to a better economy.
Note that in this analysis, if they are acting rationally, they will consider the sunk costs of having actually organized/armed, in other words escalated to whatever level. People may overemphasize the cost, but the reason of "not wasting what is invested" is a persuasive one, especially if it's only abstracted, not demarcated.
Note again that when parties are moved by irrational thought, the consequences will be amplified by however much escalation occurred.
On school shootings: These are such isolated incidents that they're barely worthy of discussion. The results of these events historically have been to make a statement and to generate notoriety. The criminals here are so irrational that it's a moot exercise to rigorously confirm their goals. But a criminal planning to commit a shooting like this will know that he will be gunned down by his classmates if it is common practice for heat to be packed in his school. He will end up killing less people and thus generating less notoriety. Supposing he actually wants to kill many people and generate much notoriety, he'll look for options that kill more people before he's caught and/or dies. One such option is bombing. Even bombing 1 room or 1 school bus could reach a similar scale in deaths as a vicious shooting.
Ultimately we really don't have much to go on in considering a society with all members holding lethal retaliation capacity. Even if international politics is a helpful analogue, it's still a stretch. I just hope people will think thrice about the implications of the instinctually appealing notion of lethal retaliation as a deterrent.
EPT
I agree more with what i read... simpsons is on... who shot mr. burns =o
