|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 02 2013 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Sigh... of course they're used in less--they're harder to get.
Oh right! The harder it is to get a weapon--be it cost/regulation/availability the less likely it is to be used for whatever it is used for. More people die from heart disease than from murders--which has more restrictions, fast food restaurants or guns sales?
So many things wrong here that it is hard to address... There really is no argument here. Handguns are BY FAR the most difficult firearm to obtain legally. These things you like to label with buzz-words such as "assault weapons" are as easy to get as a hunting rifle (and they are really no different than one, other than the fact that hunting rifles are way more powerful). There is also no cost difference between a decent handgun and an "assault weapon." This alone completely invalidates what you are saying.
On February 02 2013 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Heck--there's a reason Mexico had a sudden surge of killings when the US tried selling "traceable" assault rifles to drug cartels a few years ago and then proceed to lose track of who had all those assault rifles and lo and behold killings in Mexico skyrocketed. So yes, what your saying not only doesn't say anything but is also an argument that is attempting to distract from the actual policies present in reality.
And then you have the guts to say the government who, in a criminal manner, basically threw guns at drug cartels is the reason citizens should not be allowed to have them? There is no such thing as a "traceable" firearm. Do they have some sort of James Bond GPS or something?? To me this says our government is the irresponsible entity.
|
On February 02 2013 03:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 02:58 farvacola wrote:On February 02 2013 02:53 meadbert wrote:
As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment.
I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are.
Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves.
Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by.
Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
Who is suggesting we do that in this thread? If you'd like to reply to a specific poster's view on gun control, that would probably be more productive than calling out an illusory straw man in order to spout some nonsense about amendment repeal. Almost no one that is pro-gun control is arguing for the total removal of weapons. Fine: As long as we trust the government enough to give up most of our weapons, why stop there? Giving up most warrant requirements would make it easier to find the bad guys. Allowing people to testify against themselves would speed up convictions. Allowing more cruel and unusual punishments would make sure these "clearly" guilty people suffer enough.
What do you mean by most of our weapons? Those in favor of gun control but not silly laws like an assault weapons ban hardly want anyone to give up "most" of their weapons. In fact, my entire perspective on the issue revolves around the fact that I strongly distrust state and local governments when it comes to maintaining a proper background check and criminal record sharing system, and while the feds certainly fuck shit up a lot, they are in the best position to apply a proper system. So again, if someone specifically mentions "hey let's take most of everyone's guns", I guess what you said applies. However, this hardly defines the pro-gun control perspective.
|
On February 02 2013 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 02:51 JingleHell wrote:On February 02 2013 02:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2013 02:40 heliusx wrote:On February 02 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 02 2013 01:52 heliusx wrote:
@theivingmagpie
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument. I'm simply pointing out that there are many more american regulations that attack liberties that don't get attacked--but when the Obama administration tries to pass laws against Assault Rifles while at the same time VP Biden tells people that they should get a shotgun instead if they wanted to protect themselves shows that there is no argument. The Vice President of the United States while trying to add regulations against assault rifles flat out tells people to buy a shotgun since its better for people who don't have the training to aim a full auto. And yet people still freak out that their guns are being pried from their cold dead hands? Its obvious that people against the restrictions are not arguing against the restrictions for any other reason than to troll american policy. The policy does not get rid of guns, the policy simply regulates guns much like american policies regulate everything else in the US. The 2nd amendment isn't being attacked in any way or shape by it--you know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL GET GUNS. THE VP OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS SPEARHEADING THIS IS TELLING YOU TO BUY GUNS. Do you want to know why I put on A-Bombs? Because the entire defense for reduced regulations have looked like a strawman since page one of this thread. Regulations get made to protect citizens, suddenly all these arguments about self defense, defense against tyranny, weapon statistics, crime statistics, etc... gets brought up despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the policies being passed. All defense arguments are pretty much shit when the leaders of the US tells you to buy guns to protect yourself. All crime arguments are pretty much shit when the reason for the regulation is to increase safety and not to reduce crime--crime reduction is a local government task that is usually a task force based policy between community engagement and police presence. ie-the president of the united states of america has bigger fish to fry that to regulate gangbangers. People going against gun regulation has no argument and have spent the entirety of the thread throwing strawmen. Yet again, a post laden with blanket statements. You have no place in this debate. You cannot just paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush just because it's easier for you to argue against, what a pathetic tactic. The policy restricts some guns but not all in an attempt to increase civilian safety. What defense can you possibly make against that? The answer is that there isn't really a defense against that because thats what people want. So what do people who are against the regulation do? Bring up everything except the actual reason and effects of the regulation being passed. ie--strawmen arguments. Are they taking your guns? They're telling you to buy guns. Are they saying no to all weapons? No, they're regulating full auto weapons and clip sizes. What argument is there against them? That's right--none. Let's step away from blanket statements then. The American Government wants to add regulations to guns but tells you to buy shotguns to better protect yourselves. What is your arguments against that--the empirical literal thing that is actually happening right now in our lifetime in recent history this year 2013. The American Government tells its people to buy guns to protect themselves while adding some regulations against assault weapons. Please, try to argue against that. Already did. Rifles, which includes "assault weapons" as well as "hunting rifles", get used in less murders than shotguns or handguns. Slightly less than shotguns, a metric fuckton less than handguns. Sigh... of course they're used in less--they're harder to get. There's more christians in China than in the US--could it be because China is more christian than the US or could it be because china has more than a billion people and the US only has 300million skewing the statistic? Oh right! The harder it is to get a weapon--be it cost/regulation/availability the less likely it is to be used for whatever it is used for. More people die from heart disease than from murders--which has more restrictions, fast food restaurants or guns sales? Availability is also something that skews statistics. More people die from automobile accidents--because there are more people that drive cars around than there people that carry guns around. And another problem with your strawman--the government is adding regulations to increase safety but telling people to buy shotguns. You counter by saying assault rifles are used in less murders than shotguns or hand guns--which is you saying that yes it is used in murders. You're attempting to create this idea that since handguns are in more murders that Assault Rifles should be given a free pass. But lets go back to what's actually happening in reality. The US wants to regulate big guns--like Assault Rifles--while telling people to stock up on smaller guns--like shotguns and hand guns. The end result? Less people are killed by big guns than small guns. Your straw man is trying to create the false comparison that since hand guns murder more people that the murders of assault rifles shouldn't count. But the reality is that the government wants there to be less deaths by assault rifles. The existence of other weapons that are either more dangerous or have killed more people is irrelevant to the discussion. But if we are to pretend that they are somehow in someway relevant (at all) to the discussion, the only thing it shows is that the more regulated the gun the less its able to kill people as opposed to less regulated guns. Heck--there's a reason Mexico had a sudden surge of killings when the US tried selling "traceable" assault rifles to drug cartels a few years ago and then proceed to lose track of who had all those assault rifles and lo and behold killings in Mexico skyrocketed. So yes, what your saying not only doesn't say anything but is also an argument that is attempting to distract from the actual policies present in reality.
Rifles aren't harder to get. They're easier actually. Most states have no regulation of rifles at all.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
110 million rifles in the US, 114 million handguns. Rifles, including "Assault Weapons" are ALMOST as common as handguns, yet they account for hardly any crimes.
On February 02 2013 03:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 03:05 Millitron wrote:On February 02 2013 02:58 farvacola wrote:On February 02 2013 02:53 meadbert wrote:
As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment.
I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are.
Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves.
Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by.
Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
Who is suggesting we do that in this thread? If you'd like to reply to a specific poster's view on gun control, that would probably be more productive than calling out an illusory straw man in order to spout some nonsense about amendment repeal. Almost no one that is pro-gun control is arguing for the total removal of weapons. Fine: As long as we trust the government enough to give up most of our weapons, why stop there? Giving up most warrant requirements would make it easier to find the bad guys. Allowing people to testify against themselves would speed up convictions. Allowing more cruel and unusual punishments would make sure these "clearly" guilty people suffer enough. What do you mean by most of our weapons? Those in favor of gun control but not silly laws like an assault weapons ban hardly want anyone to give up "most" of their weapons. In fact, my entire perspective on the issue revolves around the fact that I strongly distrust state and local governments when it comes to maintaining a proper background check and criminal record sharing system, and while the feds certainly fuck shit up a lot, they are in the best position to apply a proper system. So again, if someone specifically mentions "hey let's take most of everyone's guns", I guess what you said applies. However, this hardly defines the pro-gun control perspective.
Perhaps I've misunderstood you all along.
My position is that anyone should be able to own any weapon, assuming they passed the background check. More dangerous weapons could require stricter background checks, but there should be nothing outright banned. This also means you can't make the fee for the background check be significant compared to the cost of the weapon. A $5k check is fine if you're buying a tank, since $5k is a drop in the bucket, but its effectively a ban if its applied to rifles since now it will cost around twice as much as it should.
What exactly is your position on guns?
|
Well, if the gun show loopholes on firearms sales and transfers are removed, the feds implement an exhaustive, national database-centric background check system that forces states and municipalities to keep their records current, and a national standard for arms training and safety becomes the norm, I don't particularly care where the line gets drawn. If some dude really wants to shell out a bunch of money, wait a few months and have his identity checked, and then pass a rigorous use exam, I don't see the harm in allowing him pretty much anything that fires or goes boom.
|
On February 02 2013 03:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 02:58 farvacola wrote:On February 02 2013 02:53 meadbert wrote:
As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment.
I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are.
Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves.
Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by.
Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
Who is suggesting we do that in this thread? If you'd like to reply to a specific poster's view on gun control, that would probably be more productive than calling out an illusory straw man in order to spout some nonsense about amendment repeal. Almost no one that is pro-gun control is arguing for the total removal of weapons. Fine: As long as we trust the government enough to give up most of our weapons, why stop there? Giving up most warrant requirements would make it easier to find the bad guys. Allowing people to testify against themselves would speed up convictions. Allowing more cruel and unusual punishments would make sure these "clearly" guilty people suffer enough.
The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms for defense against other armies, whether it be from your country or another. Those protected arms would especially include the typical arms that armies around the world including our own issue to their soldiers. Anyone who believes fully automatic assault rifles should be banned is against the second amendment as it was written and intended. The threat it opens us up to, (a future nefarious military coup) is very real and the threat it prevents (murders) is extremely rare given that the vast majority of murders are not comited with automatic assault rifles.
|
On February 02 2013 02:59 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 01:44 TheFrankOne wrote:
There are nonlethal self defense weapons and if your assailant doesn't have a gun they are very effective. This "criminals will always have guns" arguments is just not supported by any sort of good research. Most people don't make rifles in their garage, there is significant evidence pointing to an overall reduction in gun prevalence causing a reduction in gun use during the process of committing other crimes, and that more guns cause more homicides with little effect on most criminal behavior.
Some people are more open to facts than others, I really didn't support gun control the way I do now even a few months ago but all the progun people seem to have is accusing others of strawmen, ad hominem and putting an unreasonable burden of proof on their opponents. Then they do some yelling about tyranny and city wide gun control bans. There is zero substance to the arguments, and the more facts I see the less sense America's gun laws make.
Edit: Yup, there's you with the ad hominem accusations a few posts up. Don't do anything to refute the rest of his point, just say he loses cause he called you a name. (Side note: 'm not sure what sort of response his points deserve, tbh)
I have underlined some key points. Here is something I don't understand about people who want heavy regulation of guns: Why do they always say things like " Gun regulation prevents gun deaths" or " Gun regulation prevents gun crime." Why would one not simply say "Gun regulation prevents murder," or "Gun regulation prevents violent crime"? I can answer that question for you. It is because the latter is not true and does not help their argument. Gun regulation does not prevent murder or violent crime. Violent crime rates are actually much greater in the UK than in the US. The highest violent crime rates in the US are in the most gun-unfriendly cities. Additionally, in the US, burglary (break-ins while homeowners are not home) is more common than robbery (break-ins while homeowners are home)--it is the other way around in the UK. Why? If someone in the US invades the space where you have a right to feel safe and secure, they are taking a pretty big risk.
No one with a brain thinks city-wide gun bans are effective. It take almost no effort and entails virtually no risk to smuggle guns into cities.
The UK has had a shockingly high violent crime rate for a long time due to a variety of factors that no one has proved more guns influence. I posted a couple of studies that had different focuses but both agreed as one of their conclusions that firearm prevalence doesn't seem to effect general crime rates; just the murder rate. You just have speculation and no real support for your conclusions. The UK has the highest violent crime rate in the industrialized world. You have not shown their problem is related to gun control, they are an outlier amongst industrialized countries, most of which do have strict gun control. In the same way the US is an outlier for homicides.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#axzz2Jfufjw3X
That list has the US ranked at 11, which isn't bad but I am not sure if that's an appropriate comparison, if they used FBI numbers (it is the daily mail after all) then they are not including regular assaults, only aggravated assaults which are much less common and would skew our stats down. I know that most countries do track non-felony assaults, I just don't know what all is reported in those numbers, finding good violent crime figures for comparison is kind of a pain.
The murder rate in the UK is 1.4 . Ours is sitting at 4.8 that's almost 3 1/2 times higher. So yes, gun regulation does prevent murder but has little impact on violent crime.
|
|
|
On February 02 2013 04:02 TheFrankOne wrote:
The UK has had a shockingly high violent crime rate for a long time due to a variety of factors that no one has proved more guns influence.
...
The murder rate in the UK is 1.4 . Ours is sitting at 4.8 that's almost 3 1/2 times higher. So yes, gun regulation does prevent murder but has little impact on violent crime.
So you are saying there is correlation but not causation in the UK, but it is both correlation and causation in the US? This sounds a bit hypocritical.
When you use a firearm for self defense in the US, it is put on the books--and added into statistics--as a homicide. Later, the court declares it "justifiable" and you are not charged with a crime. So, if you use it for self defense, it contributes to the homicide statistic and "justifiable" is not included. The more you use them properly, the more it looks like they were used improperly. Of course, nobody considers this.
Have you ever heard "you are (x) times more likely to kill a friend or family member than a stranger with a gun"? While true, they omit the fact that you are more likely to be targeted by a "friend" or neighbor or coworker (which they include in the "friend" category for the statistic). Family is, of course, lumped in for effect.
|
I am saying that there is a huge amount of evidence in other industrialized nations crime stats that point to the UK being an outlier, for reasons apart from gun control and not pointing to causal relationship with guns. Other countries with similiar gun restrictions don't have the crime rate of the UK, it's something else about the UK
The US has a much higher rate of civilian firearm ownership and a higher murder rate than the rest of the industrialized world, research has supported a casual relationship in the US. Not sure what's confusing about that.
You have thrown out lots of statements with no supporting research or facts and you hack the part where I substantiate the difference in my claims out of my post while accusing me of hypocrisy. Nice job!
Edit: I would bet that the relationship is much stronger with handguns but have no real support for that statement.
On your comment about likelihood of accidental shooting. It's not "stranger" it's "assailant"
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
4 to 1 ration, unintentional vs self-defense.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
More gun prevalence = death data!
1. Across states, more guns = more unintentional firearm deaths
We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups. For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/
|
On February 02 2013 05:02 TheFrankOne wrote:
The US has a much higher rate of civilian firearm ownership and a higher murder rate than the rest of the industrialized world, research has supported a casual relationship in the US.
And I just told you how the statistics are mishandled. "Homicide" encompasses "justifiable homicide" and therefor is completely inaccurate.
Edit: While the UK may be an outlier, you forgot to mention that the US doesn't even make the top 10 list for violent crime.
|
On February 02 2013 02:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 02:53 meadbert wrote:
As long as we trust the government enough to give up our weapons, why stop at just the second amendment.
I can think of a lot of amendments that get in the way of preventing crime.
Repealing the 4th amendment means police would not need warrants and it would be easier to find out who the bad guys are.
Repealing the 5th amendment means criminals would be forced to lie under oath or testify against themselves.
Repealing the 6th and 7th amendments would eliminate juries. Combined with the 5th amendment these would make convictions easier to come by.
Repealing the 8th amendment would allow the government to impose "cruel and unusual" punishments on those convicted.
Who is suggesting we do that in this thread? If you'd like to reply to a specific poster's view on gun control, that would probably be more productive than calling out an illusory straw man in order to spout some nonsense about amendment repeal. Almost no one that is pro-gun control is arguing for the total removal of weapons.
This person quoted below is suggesting we do that, though he has been flame-baiting and throwing out ad-homs and strawmans around like its cool. Not sure if he was addressing this guy, or just all people who hold that belief, but I'm done arguing with people who think a gradual removal of all firearms from the U.S. is the solution or even possible.
On February 01 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 12:33 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 12:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:11 kmillz wrote:
I'm only summarizing this because you asked, but I have been responding to things that stuck out to me in the ongoing discussion and I don't generally leave my entire position completely outlined in every post. Personally, I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the right for someone to own one for many reasons. First of all, the Constitution is not the reason I believe in everyones right to have one, I believe in your right to protect yourself. A knife does not stop a gun. Guns won't disappear in the U.S., that is the real fantasy if anyone were using one. You keep arguing that tyranny is a fantasy and unrealistic despite it happening in several times in history. You have a scary amount of confidence in the government to never succumb to corruption, even though you already disagree with the constitution. Ok, thanks. Sorry if that was a little bit of a hassle, but I think you'll agree it was more productive than our previous tangent-pursuing. So: A) You firmly believe in the right to protect yourself. Currently, the US has many guns in circulation. Therefore, cutting them off suddenly to the public would not address the fact that there are already guns out there. Response: A gradual implementation of gun control would be a good idea. Challenging, but surely better than doing nothing at all. B) You believe that without guns, a US tyranny is very plausible. Response: This is not a good debate point for us to pursue. This is just a matter of differing opinions. You think it's plausible while I don't. When you appeal to past instances of tyranny, it does not serve as evidence for current or future possibilities. That tyranny was likely X years ago does not mean it's still likely, or less likely. What I am saying here is that neither one of us can really prove or disprove anything here -- it's just a matter of opinion. Just stop, this is deteriorating so quickly, stick to the issue. What I'm trying to do is to cut the bullshit, kill of the meaningless tangents, and move on to what matters: responding to coherent viewpoints in favor of no gun control. First, I need to see some coherent arguments to respond to. Thanks again for yours. Jingle can provide his when he's ready, or not. Do you think women should be allowed to shoot a rapist if that is her only way of stopping him? Do you think you should be allowed to shoot someone dead if they are trying to murder your family? Do you think having no guns will stop those things from happening? A) I believe that a woman with a pistol should go ahead and use it if she's being raped/killed/etc. B) I believe that a person with a pistol should go ahead and shoot someone dead if that person is trying to rape/kill/etc a family. C) I believe that gradual implementation of gun control will eventually lead to lower gun violence statistics in the US, even if the process is not something that can be implemented and succeed in one day, month, year, or even decade.
For better clarification on his stance:
On February 01 2013 12:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 12:39 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:33 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 12:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 12:11 kmillz wrote:
I'm only summarizing this because you asked, but I have been responding to things that stuck out to me in the ongoing discussion and I don't generally leave my entire position completely outlined in every post. Personally, I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the right for someone to own one for many reasons. First of all, the Constitution is not the reason I believe in everyones right to have one, I believe in your right to protect yourself. A knife does not stop a gun. Guns won't disappear in the U.S., that is the real fantasy if anyone were using one. You keep arguing that tyranny is a fantasy and unrealistic despite it happening in several times in history. You have a scary amount of confidence in the government to never succumb to corruption, even though you already disagree with the constitution. Ok, thanks. Sorry if that was a little bit of a hassle, but I think you'll agree it was more productive than our previous tangent-pursuing. So: A) You firmly believe in the right to protect yourself. Currently, the US has many guns in circulation. Therefore, cutting them off suddenly to the public would not address the fact that there are already guns out there. Response: A gradual implementation of gun control would be a good idea. Challenging, but surely better than doing nothing at all. B) You believe that without guns, a US tyranny is very plausible. Response: This is not a good debate point for us to pursue. This is just a matter of differing opinions. You think it's plausible while I don't. When you appeal to past instances of tyranny, it does not serve as evidence for current or future possibilities. That tyranny was likely X years ago does not mean it's still likely, or less likely. What I am saying here is that neither one of us can really prove or disprove anything here -- it's just a matter of opinion. Just stop, this is deteriorating so quickly, stick to the issue. What I'm trying to do is to cut the bullshit, kill of the meaningless tangents, and move on to what matters: responding to coherent viewpoints in favor of no gun control. First, I need to see some coherent arguments to respond to. Thanks again for yours. Jingle can provide his when he's ready, or not. Do you think women should be allowed to shoot a rapist if that is her only way of stopping him? Do you think you should be allowed to shoot someone dead if they are trying to murder your family? Do you think having no guns will stop those things from happening? A) I believe that a woman with a pistol should go ahead and use it if she's being raped/killed/etc. B) I believe that a person with a pistol should go ahead and shoot someone dead if that person is trying to rape/kill/etc a family. C) I believe that gradual implementation of gun control will eventually lead to lower gun violence statistics in the US, even if the process is not something that can be implemented and succeed in one day, month, year, or even decade. Do you have any supporting evidence of statistics, instances where it was tried and worked, etc.? Taking away weapons specifically, that is. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are asking: "Do you know of any cases where gun control is associated with lower rates of gun violence?" Response: I believe that many countries in Europe serve as good, although imperfect examples. The chief distinction is that in the US guns have already been around for a while, hence the necessity for and my agreement with the idea to implement gun control in a very gradual and controlled fashion. No taking guns away from anyone right away -- that would be the opposite of a gradual implementation of gun control.
|
On February 02 2013 05:11 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 05:02 TheFrankOne wrote:
The US has a much higher rate of civilian firearm ownership and a higher murder rate than the rest of the industrialized world, research has supported a casual relationship in the US. And I just told you how the statistics are mishandled. "Homicide" encompasses "justifiable homicide" and therefor is completely inaccurate.
Except your completely wrong about how much that influences any statistics and haven't bothered to look up any numbers.
"Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 and 15.)"
Let's assume those are counted as murders, which I'm not sure your even right about.
That puts us at 12,996 - 665 = 12301 A whopping 5% reduction. I am talking about a difference that is 350%
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
Nope, those aren't even included.
"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain
|
On February 02 2013 05:24 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 05:11 -VapidSlug- wrote:On February 02 2013 05:02 TheFrankOne wrote:
The US has a much higher rate of civilian firearm ownership and a higher murder rate than the rest of the industrialized world, research has supported a casual relationship in the US. And I just told you how the statistics are mishandled. "Homicide" encompasses "justifiable homicide" and therefor is completely inaccurate. Except your completely wrong about how much that influences any statistics and haven't bothered to look up any numbers. "Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 and 15.)" Let's assume those are counted as murders, which I'm not sure your even right about. That puts us at 12,996 - 665 = 12301 A whopping 5% reduction. I am talking about a difference that is 350% http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemainNope, those aren't even included. "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults." http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain
edit: nevermind re-read it and saw my answer was in your post
Is there any statistics on how many attempted murders/robberies/sexual assaults that failed as a result of self-defense using a gun (including more than just the ones where the attacker was shot and killed)?
|
|
|
On February 02 2013 06:01 TheFrankOne wrote:
I don't know, I would like to know, but finding data on this subject is a pain in the ass.
Yeah, the only collation of it I know is the NRA's Armed Citizen stuff, where they at least mention the source they obtain it from, which is better than I can hope for with those clowns. Not all of those involve shots actually being fired.
Unfortunately, it's not a spectacular story with a big attention grabbing headline, so it never gets much publicity. But there is a fair amount of it.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
Here's something.
Including a paper, and peer review of the same.
|
On February 02 2013 06:01 TheFrankOne wrote:
I don't know, I would like to know, but finding data on this subject is a pain in the ass.
The best thing I could find is this.
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
---
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
Basically the NCVS uses faulty methods in their surveys to come to their estimate of about 108,000 annual defensive gun uses (which is still quite high) and that many other surveys have found that the number of annual DGUs is more likely to range anywhere from 800,000 to 2.5 million. Taking this into consideration, wouldn't that mean that 278 people killed in the name of self defense by private citizens (2010) is actually a very good thing, and that a majority of the DGUs result in nobody dying at all?
|
Hmm.... that is interesting.... it's definitely a good thing that DGUs have prevented so many crimes without injury to anyone and I won't be shedding a tear over people killed in the act of committing a felony.
Plus I found a meta-study!
" the composite annual estimate based on one-year recall would be 1.81- 2.01 million, the annual estimate based on five-year recall period would be about 1.34-1.38, using the K-G multiple occurrence adjustment, and around 0.9- 1.0 without that revision (Table 1)."
" The latest figures from the NCVS indicate 108,000 DGUs per annum. [40] If this is adjusted for a 50% under-reporting due to not directly asking for DGUs, this increases the estimate to 216,000. Next, research by Cook and Ludwig suggests that perhaps 16-42% of DGUs involve crimes not covered by the NCVS. [41] Adding in these would raise DGUs to 256,500-373,000."
Their conclusion that I wholeheartedly agree with:
"What is needed is less argumentation and speculation and more and better data. First, some additional information can be gained by refined analysis of the existing surveys (K-G 1993, NSPOF, NCVS, etc.). Each [Page 1469] of the surveys should be fully documented and archived at the Roper Center, University of Connecticut, and the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of Michigan, for any researcher to use. [45]
Second, more studies are needed."
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm
|
On February 02 2013 06:16 kmillz wrote:
278 people killed in the name of self defense by private citizens (2010) is actually a very good thing, and that a majority of the DGUs result in nobody dying at all?
The best thing a gun can do is prevent a crime simply by being there--no use, no threat of use, only by being there. I have a personal experience with this. And personal experiences are not very common if you try to keep out of harm's way (as I do).
I called the police to report vandalism to a nearby car (a couple drunks running by with a bat were striking it). I walked outside to explain to the police what I saw. My neighbor and his friend were high on... I have no clue, something hardcore, and once the police left they came out of the house and began threatening me thinking I called the police on THEM. They were very paranoid. Long story short, things were going downhill and I removed my jacket, which "unconcealed" my concealed firearm that I always carry. Keep in mind, I did nothing threatening, I didn't even make it a point to show them I was armed other than removing my jacket, I kept completely casual, and they quickly backed down, went back into their house and the situation returned to normal.
There's a prevented crime that involved no violence and no arrest which will never show up in any statistic or survey. How many more like this could there possibly be? It is completely inconceivable to even estimate.
|
On February 02 2013 06:33 TheFrankOne wrote:Hmm.... that is interesting.... it's definitely a good thing that DGUs have prevented so many crimes without injury to anyone and I won't be shedding a tear over people killed in the act of committing a felony. Plus I found a meta-study! " the composite annual estimate based on one-year recall would be 1.81- 2.01 million, the annual estimate based on five-year recall period would be about 1.34-1.38, using the K-G multiple occurrence adjustment, and around 0.9- 1.0 without that revision (Table 1)." " The latest figures from the NCVS indicate 108,000 DGUs per annum. [40] If this is adjusted for a 50% under-reporting due to not directly asking for DGUs, this increases the estimate to 216,000. Next, research by Cook and Ludwig suggests that perhaps 16-42% of DGUs involve crimes not covered by the NCVS. [41] Adding in these would raise DGUs to 256,500-373,000." Their conclusion that I wholeheartedly agree with: "What is needed is less argumentation and speculation and more and better data. First, some additional information can be gained by refined analysis of the existing surveys (K-G 1993, NSPOF, NCVS, etc.). Each [Page 1469] of the surveys should be fully documented and archived at the Roper Center, University of Connecticut, and the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of Michigan, for any researcher to use. [45] Second, more studies are needed." http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm
I agree with their conclusion as well. It is a complex issue and is not easily solved by examining every hypothetical, but I think through effective statistics, and not arguing to appeal to emotions, we can optimize our laws to give us the most safety. It is not as black and white as "1 saved life" = "evidence" for either side of the argument for gun control, you have to look at the big picture and every facet of what guns do. I think some degree of regulation is needed, but I don't think law abiding citizens should have to go through red tape to protect themselves.
On February 02 2013 06:47 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 06:16 kmillz wrote:
278 people killed in the name of self defense by private citizens (2010) is actually a very good thing, and that a majority of the DGUs result in nobody dying at all? The best thing a gun can do is prevent a crime simply by being there--no use, no threat of use, only by being there. I have a personal experience with this. And personal experiences are not very common if you try to keep out of harm's way (as I do). I called the police to report vandalism to a nearby car (a couple drunks running by with a bat were striking it). I walked outside to explain to the police what I saw. My neighbor and his friend were high on... I have no clue, something hardcore, and once the police left they came out of the house and began threatening me thinking I called the police on THEM. They were very paranoid. Long story short, things were going downhill and I removed my jacket, which "unconcealed" my concealed firearm that I always carry. Keep in mind, I did nothing threatening, I didn't even make it a point to show them I was armed other than removing my jacket, I kept completely casual, and they quickly backed down, went back into their house and the situation returned to normal. There's a prevented crime that involved no violence and no arrest which will never show up in any statistic or survey. How many more like this could there possibly be? It is completely inconceivable to even estimate.
Anecdotal, but a good point nonetheless, an actual gun use that resulted in nobody being hurt.
|
United States24578 Posts
On February 02 2013 06:47 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 06:16 kmillz wrote:
278 people killed in the name of self defense by private citizens (2010) is actually a very good thing, and that a majority of the DGUs result in nobody dying at all? The best thing a gun can do is prevent a crime simply by being there--no use, no threat of use, only by being there. I have a personal experience with this. And personal experiences are not very common if you try to keep out of harm's way (as I do). I called the police to report vandalism to a nearby car (a couple drunks running by with a bat were striking it). I walked outside to explain to the police what I saw. My neighbor and his friend were high on... I have no clue, something hardcore, and once the police left they came out of the house and began threatening me thinking I called the police on THEM. They were very paranoid. Long story short, things were going downhill and I removed my jacket, which "unconcealed" my concealed firearm that I always carry. Keep in mind, I did nothing threatening, I didn't even make it a point to show them I was armed other than removing my jacket, I kept completely casual, and they quickly backed down, went back into their house and the situation returned to normal. There's a prevented crime that involved no violence and no arrest which will never show up in any statistic or survey. How many more like this could there possibly be? It is completely inconceivable to even estimate.
Not to argue with any points you are making, but if high dudes are threatening you, instead of staying in your house and calling the police back, you step outside and remove your jacket? Sorry but that's a bit strange to me XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
