Gun Control - A Superficial Solution ?

[PAB]

Following one of Americas worst massacres where twenty young children and six adults were killed gun control and reforms are center stage.
The killer used an assault rifle, similar to what is used by US military, plus a handgun which he used on himself as police approached. Regarding ammunition it was reported the gunman had enough in theory to kill everyone at the school.

The White house has proposed a series of measures. Some suggest dealing with the issue by carrying permits for concealed weapons. Some suggest making it more difficult and exclusive for certain types of people to obtain firearms. Others suggest preventing any citizen being able to buy any high powered guns like assault rifles, i have no problem with any of these. And after all the Bushmaster .233 caliber semi-automatic rifle is hardly the weapon of choice for self defense.

It appears some positive change may come of this, Fox news has been crying about Obama's intentions for gun reforms and the coming desecration of Americas second amendment for a while and this incident will give him an opportunity to hopefully put things in motion.

But, as much as i despise the NRA i have to agree that there truism, which features as a bumper sticker , being " Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is worthy of focus. I also found this worthy of reflection http://www.rightwingnews.com/guns/which-gun-control-law-would-have-prevented-the-sandy-hook-tragedy/ The gunman acquired the gun from his mother who was stockpiling for the end of the world.....(All eyes turn down to look questionably at Glenn Beck). But if this wasn't the case and guns were illegal or heavily regulated he may well have been able to acquired one illegally. Just like people in the UK do and already in the US.

Could this tragic event have been prevented simply by gun control and regulation? I don't think so, not exactly. The outlaw of assault rifles or an outlaw on firearms would mean less deaths, it would have been more difficult for the man to have killed as many children and adults as he did. But he could have found many other ways to take lives: knifes, machetes, crossbows, bombs, ninja stars, etc. etc.

Surely the issue isn't restricted to methods of reducing the number of deaths from attacks like this, but ultimately to prevent massacres and mass assault from occurring at all.

Ultimately there is an underlying cause which led to an individual acting out against society. Whether it was a result of mental illness or an act in response to the stress in his life - a flight or fight reaction.
These reoccurring events of mass assault and murder are not specific to the USA. But it would be mistaken to compose a theory that they are a result of ingrained humanity (we end up with a regurgitation of the fall from the garden of Eden or Satan). The mass murder, the massacres arise from human society, they are not anomalies of individual action- i.e. that some people grow up to be normal functioning adults and some are rotten eggs that grow up to shot children in the face.

It has been reported that the gunman may have had some form of mental illness, a personality disorder, or asperger syndrome. But this in itself is not the cause. It could be argued - to use the cliche- that that the gunman Adam Lanza slipped through the cracks. However in american society these cracks would be better described as gorges.

Therefore, nothing can guarantee an end to this violence; no immediate half-measures, no easy expedients, no laws or policies alone, will be sufficient. Nothing short of changing everything , the capitalist system, the imperialist agenda, the poor to (for many) non-existent health care system, the greater incidences of mental illness and their aggravation in an agonistic social order, the ideological basis of capitalist triumphalism , will suffice.

To be pessimistic- lets say that Obama only manages to renew the ban on assault weapons and makes it a permanent measure for gun control laws, would be good, it would be something. But what may be more helpful would be in addition a properly funded universal socialized health care system in the US.

A case for comparison : Going Postal which is an example of rage against the workplace due to pressures placed upon workers resulting in multiple murder and suicide.

In a capitalist society, which is inherent with antagonism, conflict and contradiction. Throwing guns into the equation can produce nothing but death. However by removing guns from the equation we are still left with misery, anger and people driven by despair and depression. Humanity can surely solve the problem better than to simply take out of the hands of the attacker the gun and replace it with a machette.

 

[PAB]

Thomas Sowell implies gun control is a waste of time and removes rights

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

No! Mass shootings are not absolutly exclusive to the US, but we would be lying to ourselves to think that it is not almost exclusive to the US.
What is a giant falacy is to think that if you just had more guns you could protect yourself better, that "guns don't kill people", that you could have a mass shooting armed with a knife.
The same laws that allows you to have guns are the same laws that makes you need to have guns, I just wonder how many people will have to die in order for Americans to realise that.

 

[Frenger]

I'm currently reading the third chimpanzee by Jared Diamond in which he describes why he thinks technology (in this case guns) manage to bypass biology. By that I mean, there is something very different about pulling a trigger then there is slitting someones throat. To murder someone with a knife you have to use your hands, you're close to the victim and you have to make powerful, positive moves. Pulling a trigger is quick and involves no effort, our inbuilt morality doesn't have time to stop it or alert us to the severity of it. We simply aren't evolved enough to handle this kind of technology.

Gun control is important, they are powerful, deadly weapons and human beings on the whole, are idiots. While your point of proper health care is important, that doesn't mean this isn't equally important, it doesn't need to be one or the other.

The causes of violence need to be addressed, but before that removing the tools in which violence becomes mass shootings is even more important. I can only think of arguments against disarmament (which Bluejatheist covered in another thread) but gun control? There isn't one good reason to restrict people's access to weapons like this.

 

[Frenger]

The same laws that allows you to have guns are the same laws that makes you need to have guns, I just wonder how many people will have to die in order for Americans to realise that.

There was a quote I saw saying "If a preschooler hits another preschooler with a rock. The solution is not to give every kid a rock".

 

[PAB]

Gun control is important, they are powerful, deadly weapons and human beings on the whole, are idiots. While your point of proper health care is important, that doesn't mean this isn't equally important, it doesn't need to be one or the other.

I agree

 

[PAB]

Some right wingers are going mental over this issue.

The Oath keepers have stated

all of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by the Federal Government, by force of law and threat of prison, to ensure that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care.

That makes the Federal Government complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder, by forcibly disarming (with the very real threat of prison) all the teachers, all the staff, and any parent who may have been on school property. That stupid law guaranteed the shooters would meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such an attack.

Randy Thomasson of Save California has said that the shooting was a consequence of " promoting murderous abortions", "godless evolution" and his solution is " to begin "teaching the fear of God" and arming "every school official". Unfortunately hes not alone on this idea "people should not be surprised the shooting took place if they support other forms of "rebellion against God" like gay marriage."

According to one Tea Partymember the unions are partly to blame with their radicalisation and liberalisation of schools. And additionally sex had its part to play in this crime. There is apparently to much sex in our society which is causing people to be "eternally" inflamed wandering the earth trying to find an outlet for their "over stimulated glands". And of course "Go back to church. .... It's time people learned the examples of the heroes of our Judeo-Christian heritage - heroes like Moses"

And my favourite from a comments section but can also be found here http://www.kc3.com/editorial/gun_control_works.htm

"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.

"Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were rounded up and exterminated. (see Footnote)

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people were rounded up and exterminated."

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

 

[wswolf]

The killer used an assault rifle, similar to what is used by US military,

Despite having a superficial resemblance to a military rifle it was not an assault rifle.

Some suggest making it more difficult and exclusive for certain types of people to obtain firearms. Others suggest preventing any citizen being able to buy any high powered guns like assault rifles

Assault rifles are defined as "intermediate powered" and have been severely restricted since 1934. Few seem aware that the term "assault rifle" has a strict technical definition. An "assault weapon" is, essentially, anything that looks scary to the legislature and is defined, mainly, by a list of cosmetic features. You also may not be aware that Connecticut has an assault weapon ban in place that is nearly identical to the expired Federal ban of 1994.

And after all the Bushmaster .233 caliber semi-automatic rifle is hardly the weapon of choice for self defense.

A .223 semi-auto is quite viable for self defense, though a number of states have made use of the cartridge illegal for deer hunting do to its lack of power. People of small stature find it user-friendly because of light weight and light recoil. It fires a very small bullet that is unlikely to over-penetrate to endanger bystanders, while being powerful enough to have a reasonable chance of stopping a determined attacker. It is easier than a handgun to shoot accurately and its longer practical range makes it desirable for farm and ranch use against vermin.

But, as much as i despise the NRA

Why, specifically, do you despise the NRA?

The gunman acquired the gun from his mother who was stockpiling for the end of the world

Acquired? He murdered his mother and stole her legally owned guns. Since she did not harm anyone why is her motive for owning them relevant? And stockpiling for the end of the world is ridiculous hyperbole. Why stockpile anything if you won't be alive to use it?

Could this tragic event have been prevented simply by gun control and regulation? I don't think so, not exactly. The outlaw of assault rifles [sic] or an outlaw on firearms would mean less deaths,

Perhaps it would mean more deaths by preventing self defense. Crimes that were prevented are not deemed newsworthy but numerous criminological studies estimate that firearms are used for self defence about 1.5 million times per year in the U.S. (,±500,000). In about 98% of instances the attacker is scared off without a shot fired.

Surely the issue isn't restricted to methods of reducing the number of deaths from attacks like this, but ultimately to prevent massacres and mass assault from occurring at all.

With one exception, every mass public shooting since at least 1950 has taken place in a gun-free zone where firearm possession was illegal and those who might be in a position to stop the attacks were helpless to act. According to More Guns, Less Crime by Dr John Lott, the most comprehensive study of crime ever undertaken, the two most important factors in crime reduction are the per-capita number of police on patrol and the change by many states to "shall issue" concealed carry laws, where anyone meeting objective criteria will be issued a permit to carry a handgun. (Criteria vary by state but usually include but are not limited to training and background check.) If you don't like Dr Lott's conclusions you can crunch the numbers yourself. His entire dataset is available on his website.

It could be argued - to use the cliche- that that the gunman slipped through the cracks. However in american society these cracks would be better described as gorges.

Any reputable mental-health expert will tell you their profession is notoriously poor at predicting human behaviour.

Therefore, nothing can guarantee an end to this violence; no immediate half-measures, no easy expedients, no laws or policies alone, will be sufficient. Nothing short of changing everything , the capitalist system, the imperialist agenda, the poor to (for many) non-existent health care system, the greater incidences of mental illness and their aggravation in an agonistic social order, the ideological basis of capitalist triumphalism , will suffice.

Change the most successful and productive economic system yet devised to what? ""¦imperial agendas""¦who has them other than Islam and a few crackpot dictators? "Agnostic social order"?? ""¦the ideological basis of capitalist triumphalism"¦"??? What are you on about and what does it have to do with mental health or crime? Please, please don't answer. My appetite for breathtaking inanity is limited.

To be pessimistic- lets say that Obama only manages to renew the ban on assault weapons and makes it a permanent measure for gun control laws, would be good, it would be something.

The original ban did nothing to reduce crime and the crime rate, despite dire predictions to the contrary, went down in the years following its expiry.

A case for comparison : Going Postal which is an example of rage against the workplace due to pressures placed upon workers resulting in multiple murder and suicide.

Billions of us who actually work for a living, including about 80 million U.S. gun-owners, are subject to pressures in the workplace and somehow manage to avoid "going postal". According to studies by Dr. Gary Kleck and others; the typical murderer is and extreme abberant with a long history of drug and/or alcohol abuse, reckless behaviour and violent assaults before committing murder; hardly the average citizen under workplace pressure or not.

In a capitalist society, which is inherent with antagonism, conflict and contradiction. Throwing guns into the equation can produce nothing but death. However by removing guns from the equation we are still left with misery, anger and people driven by despair and depression. Humanity can surely solve the problem better than to simply take out of the hands of the attacker the gun and replace it with a machette

Assuming the goal is to reduce the rate of violent crime it would probably be best to forget about gun control altogether, direct police resources to more patrols and eliminate "gun-free zones".

Since I threw some numbers around I should clarify that I do not think this is "about the numbers", that guns should be banned or not depending on whether they are used more often in crime or defense. This is about the individual right to self-defense: whether a government can legitimately decree that individuals cannot decide for themselves the best sort of emergency survival equipment in their particular situation. That one sort of gun is suitable to protect the mayor but forbidden to the taxi driver, another sort of gun is fine to protect the President but forbidden to the farmer. That one person's life is worth protecting and another's is not.

 

[IBSpify]

Perhaps it would mean more deaths by preventing self defense. Crimes that were prevented are not deemed newsworthy but numerous criminological studies estimate that firearms are used for self defence about 1.5 million times per year in the U.S. (,±500,000). In about 98% of instances the attacker is scared off without a shot fired.

If your just going to offer blind speculation i can say that many of those crimes wouldn't need preventing if the person committing the crime didn't have access to a weapon himself.

However I will offer more then blind speculation by pointing to Australia, who after a mass shooting in '96 that left 35 dead they instituted their own gun control laws, which drastically lowered their amounts of gun related homicides, and in the 16 years since the law they have not had a single mass shooting incident.

(relevant study: http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf )

With one exception, every mass public shooting since at least 1950 has taken place in a gun-free zone where firearm possession was illegal and those who might be in a position to stop the attacks were helpless to act.

One could argue that the problem is that gun free zones are an island in a sea of guns, reduce the amount of guns and they don't need to be in a position to stop an attack.

According to More Guns, Less Crime by Dr John Lott, the most comprehensive study of crime ever undertaken, the two most important factors in crime reduction are the per-capita number of police on patrol and the change by many states to "shall issue" concealed carry laws, where anyone meeting objective criteria will be issued a permit to carry a handgun. (Criteria vary by state but usually include but are not limited to training and background check.) If you don't like Dr Lott's conclusions you can crunch the numbers yourself. His entire dataset is available on his website.

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2

Other reviews claimed that there were problems with Lott's model. In the New England Journal of Medicine, David Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199812313392719) however, Lott's book did account for other variables such as cocaine prices. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf) Others agreed, and some researchers, including Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, claimed that the model contained significant coding errors and systemic bias. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343781) Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry, and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida's counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample. (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/468019?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101463091053)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Could this tragic event have been prevented simply by gun control and regulation? I don't think so, not exactly. The outlaw of assault rifles [sic] or an outlaw on firearms would mean less deaths,

Perhaps it would mean more deaths by preventing self defense. Crimes that were prevented are not deemed newsworthy but numerous criminological studies estimate that firearms are used for self defence about 1.5 million times per year in the U.S. (,±500,000). In about 98% of instances the attacker is scared off without a shot fired.

Surely the issue isn't restricted to methods of reducing the number of deaths from attacks like this, but ultimately to prevent massacres and mass assault from occurring at all.

With one exception, every mass public shooting since at least 1950 has taken place in a gun-free zone where firearm possession was illegal and those who might be in a position to stop the attacks were helpless to act. According to More Guns, Less Crime by Dr John Lott, the most comprehensive study of crime ever undertaken, the two most important factors in crime reduction are the per-capita number of police on patrol and the change by many states to "shall issue" concealed carry laws, where anyone meeting objective criteria will be issued a permit to carry a handgun. (Criteria vary by state but usually include but are not limited to training and background check.) If you don't like Dr Lott's conclusions you can crunch the numbers yourself. His entire dataset is available on his website.

I'm puzzled by what is going on in this people's mind. How can more guns = less gun violence? How does that work?

 

[Frenger]

Perhaps it would mean more deaths by preventing self defense. Crimes that were prevented are not deemed newsworthy but numerous criminological studies estimate that firearms are used for self defence about 1.5 million times per year in the U.S. (,±500,000). In about 98% of instances the attacker is scared off without a shot fired.

Since I threw some numbers around I should clarify that I do not think this is "about the numbers", that guns should be banned or not depending on whether they are used more often in crime or defense. This is about the individual right to self-defense: whether a government can legitimately decree that individuals cannot decide for themselves the best sort of emergency survival equipment in their particular situation. That one sort of gun is suitable to protect the mayor but forbidden to the taxi driver, another sort of gun is fine to protect the President but forbidden to the farmer. That one person's life is worth protecting and another's is not.

I don't think I would be alone in saying that I don't want a gun, and even if I had one I certainly wouldn't have the desire to use it, or even the knowledge of how to use it. In giving people who don't necessarily want the right to own guns that right, you are also giving it to nutcases who will later break into schools. Not just that, but threaten people in the streets, people who don't want to live in a world goverened by the laws of mad max.

You argument also leads to the next question, would you really expect those teachers to open fire against that man? It's easy to say "well yes they should because they're protecting the children and themselves", but how are they supposed to live after that, emotionally?

People who like guns always fail to see that the majority of the people who live in this world, don't want to live in open warfare, they don't want to have to kill people to protect themselves. They want to live peacefully without always needing to look over their shoulders with a hand on the trigger.

People will protect themselves up to a point, but this "kill or be killed" mentality, is sheer lunacy.

edited to add the second quote

 

[PAB]

However I will offer more then blind speculation by pointing to Australia, who after a mass shooting in '96 that left 35 dead they instituted their own gun control laws, which drastically lowered their amounts of gun related homicides, and in the 16 years since the law they have not had a single mass shooting incident.

(relevant study: http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf )

Excellent report by TYT highlighting the case that IBSpify mentions.

Im intrigued to see exactly how WSWolf will turn this on its head, to argue that Australia has made a terrible error and is in fact really worse of with strict gun control and have lost there rights to certain arms for nothing...right ?

 

[wswolf]

If your just going to offer blind speculation i can say that many of those crimes wouldn't need preventing if the person committing the crime didn't have access to a weapon himself.

I must disagree that criminological studies are blind speculation. This summary by Gary Kleck is a useful starting point should you wish to study them http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html.

Firearms are used in a small minority of violent crimes in the U.S. Weapons used are typically knives, blunt objects (clubs, bottles, etc.) or just hands and feet, any of which can be used with crippling or deadly effect; and rapists very rarely use firearms. Violent attacks are not limited to firearms and potential victims should not be denied the means to save their lives or prevent serious injury.

However I will offer more then blind speculation by pointing to Australia, who after a mass shooting in '96 that left 35 dead they instituted their own gun control laws, which drastically lowered their amounts of gun related homicides, and in the 16 years since the law they have not had a single mass shooting incident.

(relevant study: http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf )

Thank you for the link. I know little of crime in Australia but congratulate them on their low murder rate, which was low before the "buyback" in 1997 and remained low afterward. You might find this interesting: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

The quotes below are the article's summaries of the sections dealing with suicide, assault, robbery and homicide.

"It appears that the suicide rate and non-gun suicide rate started dropping dramatically in '98, but the gun suicide rate dropped no faster than pre-'96. Because the gun suicide rate did not improve, it could not be argued that the gun ban/buyback had anything to do with the suicide reduction that began in '98. However, some other policy change that was begun via the National Committee on Violence may have had something to do with the overall suicide reduction."
"The assault rate data is inconclusive. Two years ('98 & '99) of the assault rate not rising as fast as it had been does not make a definite trend, especially since the rate then jumped up dramatically for the next year (2000) and rose again rapidly in 2001. The ban/buyback had no perceptible impact on assault rates, neither increasing assault nor decreasing it."

"The rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before, then stayed higher for several years. The burglary rate appears to have been affected only in '96, although this could easily have been a chance effect. The fall-offs for all three after '01 were too late to be attributed to the '96 gun changes. The chart looks a bit like a short-term increase in robbery may have occurred after '96 until about '04. Maybe criminals were emboldened for a few years by the thought that potential victims would not be able to defend themselves."

"The homicide rates provide no support for a proposition that the ban/buyback has helped. However, they also do not indicate that the ban/buyback caused anything, good or bad."

From this is seems the effect of the "buyback" was not great. International comparisons so inconsistent that it would be very difficult to draw valid conclusions, with the possible exception that cultural and social factors might have a greater influence than the availability of any particular weapon. For instance, England has very restrictive gun laws coupleled with a very high rate of violent crime and a very low murder rate. Mexico has very restrictive gun laws, and a knife murder rate that exceeds the entire U.S. murder rate. There are also nations with high rates of legal gun ownership and very low rates of violent crime.

One could argue that the problem is that gun free zones are an island in a sea of guns, reduce the amount of guns and they don't need to be in a position to stop an attack.

.
Then why do the attacks occur almost exclusively within these gun-free islands and not out in the sea of guns where guns should, theoretically, be easier to obtain? Could it be that presence of civilians with concealed firearms is a deterrent to criminals? Israel suffered a number of terrorist attacks on schools. There has not been a successful school attack there since 1974 when armed parent and grandparent volunteers were allowed in the schools and teachers were armed.

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

And Lott answered: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/NASfirearmspanel.html
He has persuasive answers to his other critics on his web site and in his books.

...and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida's counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample.

Cherry-picking the data makes the conclusion less convincing.

Regards,
Wolf

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I must disagree that criminological studies are blind speculation. This summary by Gary Kleck is a useful starting point should you wish to study them http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html.
(...)
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
The quotes below are the article's summaries of the sections dealing with suicide, assault, robbery and homicide.
(...)
And Lott answered: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/NASfirearmspanel.html

Oh great, links to websites of gun advoacates, that either have no sources for their data, and whatever few sources they provide actually doesn't exist if you try and look into them.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I'd much rather lose my wallet/(insert expensive item here) than lose my life or take that of another human being.

 

[wswolf]

Master_Ghost_Knight,
I admire your arguments against the ideas of creationists in these forums and am confident that you will apply your intellect equally well on this subject, though there seems to exist a considerable cultural gap between a Western Montana hick and the contributors here.

Surely the issue isn't restricted to methods of reducing the number of deaths from attacks like this, but ultimately to prevent massacres and mass assault from occurring at all.

Sadly, I don't think this is possible. There are (and will continue to be) violent, aberrant, or religion-crazed individuals among us and we must be able to protect ourselves from them. They cannot be identified beforehand, they cannot be disarmed so the best we can do is try to understand and modify the cultural and social factors that produce them and in the meantime take the advice of Thomas Paine.
"The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. "¦ Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; "¦ the weak will become prey to the strong". --Writings of Thomas Paine (1894)

I'm puzzled by what is going on in this people's mind. How can more guns = less gun violence? How does that work?

Actually the title of John Lott's book is More Guns-Less Crime. There is an ethical difference between offensive violence and defensive violence and the two should not be confused. Civilian firearm possession is a deterrent to criminals ("arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe") because even insane criminals can reason that the presence armed citizens makes it much less likely that they can achieve their goals. Criminals prefer helpless victims and are naturally attracted to "gun-free zones".

 

[wswolf]

I must disagree that criminological studies are blind speculation. This summary by Gary Kleck is a useful starting point should you wish to study them http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html.
(...)
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
The quotes below are the article's summaries of the sections dealing with suicide, assault, robbery and homicide.
(...)
And Lott answered: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/NASfirearmspanel.html

Oh great, links to websites of gun advoacates, that either have no sources for their data, and whatever few sources they provide actually doesn't exist if you try and look into them.

Dr. Gary Kleck is a Professor of Criminology at Florida State Uninversity, author of journal articles, at least one book (stuffed with data by the way), and is responsible for the National Self-Defense Survey (I believe that would be data). He has stated in print that he is in no way a gun advocate and has no affiliation with any pro or anti-gun organization. Yes, his work is controversial, as is every aspect of this subject . Are you dismissing his work, with a wave of the hand, because his article was posted on a website of which you disapprove?

I know nothing about the organization behind http://www.gunsandcrime.org but used the article to point out that there is no consensus in Australia either.

Dr. John Lott is an economist, researcher and author of over 90 journal articles and several books. If you think he has no source for his data take look in his book More Guns-Less Crime. As I wrote earlier his entire data set for that book is available on his web site.

I really did not want to get involved in an argument over whether guns in private hands are used more often in crime or for defense. My point is that self-defense (and possession of the instruments necessary to exercise that right) is an natural, individual right which no government can legitimately curtail.

Regards,
Wolf

 

[wswolf]

I don't think I would be alone in saying that I don't want a gun, and even if I had one I certainly wouldn't have the desire to use it, or even the knowledge of how to use it.

The cultural divide that I wrote of earlier is becoming ever more apparent. I appreciate guns for their potential as emergency-survival and food-gathering equipment but also for thier mechanical elegance, historical connectons and even artistry. I have absolutely no desire to use, or threaten to use, any form of potentially deadly force against any human being (or most animals fo that matter) but stand ready to do so in the gravest extreme, if there is no other way possible to prevent the death or serious injury of innocents. This ethic is common among gun-owners, propaganda notwithstanding.

In giving people who don't necessarily want the right to own guns that right, you are also giving it to nutcases who will later break into schools. Not just that, but threaten people in the streets, people who don't want to live in a world goverened by the laws of mad max.

The right to keep and bear arms was regarded by the founders of the U.S. as inalienable, existing prior to governments and beyond a government's legitmate power to infringe upon. The right is yours whether you choose to exercise it or not. It would be wonderful if nutcases could be identified before they commit any crimes but I don't think that is possible. We can only be prepared to deal with them. If your reference to Mad Max implies ungoverned chaos, this has simply not happened. At the latest extimate there are eight million licensed to carry concealed handguns in the U.S. As a group their (our) rate of violent crime is equal to or slightly lower than that of off-duty police officers.

You argument also leads to the next question, would you really expect those teachers to open fire against that man?

Armed teachers would be voulnteers, trained and presumably mentally prepared for this sort of emergency.

...but how are they supposed to live after that, emotionally?

To live after such a thing emotionally they first have to live. Imagine the emotional fallout from watching the slaughter of those you are obliged to protect and being forbidden by law to have means to stop the killing.

People who like guns always fail to see that the majority of the people who live in this world, don't want to live in open warfare, they don't want to have to kill people to protect themselves. They want to live peacefully without always needing to look over their shoulders with a hand on the trigger.

I agree completely. You might think of legal gun carriers as porcupines, inoffensively going about their business but able to defend themselves if the need arrises.

People will protect themselves up to a point, but this "kill or be killed" mentality, is sheer lunacy.

There is no "kill or be killed" mentality. The goal of self-defense is not to kill the attacker but to stop the attack. If the attacker is injured or dies it is the result of his own action. Even up to the last second he could choose not to attack and not force a responce from his intended victim. If there existed a Star Trek weapon permanantly set on "stun", that could stop an attacker without damaging him, I would be all for it. Until then the handgun is the only option that can be immediately at hand.

Regards,
Wolf

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

So let me understand this. You're saying that it's better to shoot someone that to give them your valuables? Because let's be clear, the majority of people who threaten you with violence are in it for monetary gain and not to kill you. Also, if the whole nation is a "gun free zone" then the idea that such areas attract criminals becomes redundant.

If, as you say, restricting firearms means that only criminals will own them, why do you think that it wouldn't stop these massacres from happening? Have you ever heard of a mass killing of this type being carried out by someone who was a member of a criminal organisation? Do you think that someone who wanted to commit such an act would join a criminal gang in order to gain access to firearms?

 

[Laurens]

I think this whole guns don't kill people argument is bollocks, I mean no one ever says 'stereos don't play music, people do' or 'bottles don't hold liquid, people do.' The fact of the matter is, guns are designed for killing and whilst tighter regulation may not prevent someone who is dead set (excuse the pun) on killing from doing so - it would certainly make it more difficult, especially on such a scale.

That is not to say that society shouldn't also try to protect its citizens by trying to spot unstable and potentially dangerous individuals and treat their mental illness before they become a danger, but to say that gun availability is not part of the problem would be utterly fallacious (note, I'm not saying you personally hold this view, but a lot of the opposition to gun control seem to).