Gun Control

[Furah]

That chart mentions violent crimes, but doesn't make it clear the amount that involved a gun. Besides, if you ban guns, people will just use the next best thing. Humans are rather crafty.

If you want a statistic on gun-related incidents, in Australia since the government's sweeping ban on private ownership of firearms; firearm homicide went up 19%, and armed robbery went up 69%. Sadly enough in the 15 years before it happened firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%, and firearm-related deaths dropped 50%. In 2001-2002 the total number of homicides rose 20%.

 

In a 2003 media release the government reported these changes:

 

- In 2001-2002, there were a total of 354 homicide incidents perpetrated by 375 alleged offenders, which resulted in the deaths of 381 victims.

- Compared to 2000-2001, Australia recorded a 20 per cent increase in homicide victimisation. In 2001-2002, there were 381 victims of homicide compared to 317 victims in 2000-2001.

- In 2001-2002 there has also been an increase in the number of multiple victim incidents. In 2000-2001 there were seven incidents involving multiple victims. During 2001-2002, there were 21 incidents involving multiple victims - 15 incidents with two victims, and six incidents with three victims.

- In 2001-2002, there were 15 children under the age of one killed, representing the highest single age group of homicide victims. The second highest single age group of homicide victims was 35 years, with 13 victims.

- Compared to previous years, a knife or some other sharp instrument was consistently the most common type of weapon used to commit homicide (36%). The next most common weapon/method was the use of assaultive force (25%).

 

Compared to last year, the proportion of family homicides (excluding intimates) has doubled (23% in 2001-2002 compared to 11% in 2000-2001). Two factors account for this change:

- An increase in the death of children under five (mostly infant deaths); and

- An increase in the incidence of triple homicides which mainly involved family members.

[obfuscator]

As others have said, there's a difference between violent crime and gun crime.

 

How is the particular implement used to commit a crime in any way relevant to a discussion of gun availability? It doesn't matter if you are shot or stabbed, you are still dead.

It's completely relevant - your graph shows violent crime rates making no mention of guns whatsoever.

 

Felix's graphs show quite clearly that gun related offenses are far higher in the US then they are anywhere else, which is data relevant to the current topic.

 

http://upload.wikime...desbyweapon.svg

http://www.cdc.gov/m...es/00001168.gif

 

Reposted his links.

 

 

 

Relevant to the current topic only if one somehow holds crimes where a gun was used to be worse then other identical crimes without such an object - which is irrational, since it implies fear of the object itself. What is relevant is overall crime statistics; which show that no connection between guns and crime likely exists since many of those countries without guns report high rates of similarly violent crime, in the form of stabbings and similar such things.

 

 

I never came close to stating that firearm related crime supersedes criminal offenses perpetrated with other weapons in severity. While it may be true that gun control doesn't much reduce crime, it certainly reduces gun crime, which to me is fulfillment of its reasonable goal in the first place.

[sees_all1]

I never came close to stating that firearm related crime supersedes criminal offenses perpetrated with other weapons in severity. While it may be true that gun control doesn't much reduce crime, it certainly reduces gun crime, which to me is fulfillment of its reasonable goal in the first place.

I disagree that trying to reduce a very specific category of crime while ignoring all others is a reasonable goal.

 

Say all hospitals in the world are tired of getting sued for malpractice during surgery. They all decide to stop having surgeries, and switch to herbal medicine. The number of wrongful deaths increases, so they are sued more. Hurray! The total amount of malpractice from botched surgeries is now zero, but the total amount the hospital faces is now higher than before, and the world is worse off for it.

[obfuscator]

I never came close to stating that firearm related crime supersedes criminal offenses perpetrated with other weapons in severity. While it may be true that gun control doesn't much reduce crime, it certainly reduces gun crime, which to me is fulfillment of its reasonable goal in the first place.

I disagree that trying to reduce a very specific category of crime while ignoring all others is a reasonable goal.

 

Say all hospitals in the world are tired of getting sued for malpractice during surgery. They all decide to stop having surgeries, and switch to herbal medicine. The number of wrongful deaths increases, so they are sued more. Hurray! The total amount of malpractice from botched surgeries is now zero, but the total amount the hospital faces is now higher than before, and the world is worse off for it.

The problem with this analogy is that I haven't seen any evidence that removing guns actually increases crime.

 

I don't expect gun control to do anything more than decrease gun crime. Criminals intent on committing crimes will use whatever weapon they can get their hands on, guns available or not. However, the more we restrict their weapon choices, the less effect their crimes can have.

 

By that I mean a person is more likely to die from being shot then being stabbed.

[magekillr]

As others have said, there's a difference between violent crime and gun crime.

 

How is the particular implement used to commit a crime in any way relevant to a discussion of gun availability? It doesn't matter if you are shot or stabbed, you are still dead.

 

This argument fails on its face. I have a far greater chance of surviving or even fighting off an assailant with a knife than I do if they had a gun. I can take multiple stab wounds; a shot to the chest or head and I'm probably going to die, and any quick movement of trying to disarm them and they'll shoot me.

 

The fact is that more people in the US die of gun related crime than any other developed nation per capita. And it's not even like we're competitive. We have 5x as many deaths by guns as the Canadians do, and 20x as many deaths by guns as the British do.

 

Again, not in favor of much gun control, but I'm evenhanded. This is a ridiculous argument. There are better ones. Use those.

[Alg]

This argument fails on its face. I have a far greater chance of surviving or even fighting off an assailant with a knife than I do if they had a gun. I can take multiple stab wounds; a shot to the chest or head and I'm probably going to die.

Likewise, if you aren't shot in those areas, you'll survive as well. You may be crippled, depending on where you're hit, but that goes for knives too.

...And the post got bigger while I was changing it. No comment on the new part, I don't have the numbers.

[magekillr]

This argument fails on its face. I have a far greater chance of surviving or even fighting off an assailant with a knife than I do if they had a gun. I can take multiple stab wounds; a shot to the chest or head and I'm probably going to die.

Likewise, if you aren't shot in those areas, you'll survive as well. You may be crippled, depending on where you're hit, but that goes for knives too.

 

Ok, two, three, four shots. How quick can you fire a gun? And how close do you need to be to stab someone versus shooting them? Just stop trying to play Devil's Advocate with an argument both you and I know is ridiculous. The only time a knife is as equally dangerous as a gun is if some ninja is wielding the knife, and we both know -- or should know -- that most criminals holding knives are small-time petty people looking for a quick and desperate buck.

[Alg]

I'm just trying to say that being stabbed is no picnic either... :-P

 

A while back there was a guy that went around stabbing people on a BART train. I don't know how many attacks there were offhand, though at least one survived. He wasn't doing it to "make a quick buck", and the close quarters actually worked in his favor. Those trains get very crowded, I'm sure you can figure out what would happen from there. If not, I could explain it, but it would make this post a lot longer than I'd like.

[obfuscator]

I don't think anyone thinks it is, but a knife is not a gun. A sword is not a gun. A club is not a gun. A gun is a gun - and there's a clear and distinct reason why they are by far the most dangerous weapon the general population can possess.

[Orpheus]

A chunk of metal flying at 1200FPS (feet per second) is dangerous, no debating this. It can easily penetrate skin, bone, maybe a few more things simply enough. I doubt most people can survive more than one or two bullets. Then there's extreme cases, like this girl, who took six bullets and survived. And is still fully functional.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4646774

[Zierro]

There's no doubt that guns are more lethal, but don't you think a criminal would try a little harder if they were forced to use a less effective weapon but still wanted to commit the crime? Also, saying that guns are more lethal than any other weapon is a good argument for self-defense.

[obfuscator]

Not in the slightest. Tasers, pepperspray, mace...those are good self defense weapons because they are defensive by nature. There is nothing defensive about a firearm.

[Guest Rob]

^ yes.

 

Weapons built for self defense are almost always designed as non-lethal. (For civilian use, I mean)

[Zierro]

Not in the slightest. Tasers, pepperspray, mace...those are good self defense weapons because they are defensive by nature. There is nothing defensive about a firearm.

 

"Guns are the most lethal weapons available, yet they aren't effective at dealing with dangerous criminals."

 

Let's be realistic here. Is pepperspray really that smart of a move against someone equipped with a lethal weapon? And how effective would your pepperspray be if there were multiple offenders involved? With a gun, just pointing it is usually enough to be an effective method of self-defense.

 

Why are cops equipped with guns?

[Alg]

Not in the slightest. Tasers, pepperspray, mace...those are good self defense weapons because they are defensive by nature. There is nothing defensive about a firearm.

 

Let's be realistic here. Is pepperspray really that smart of a move against someone equipped with a lethal weapon? With a gun, just pointing it is usually enough to be an effective method of self-defense.

 

Why are cops equipped with guns?

They're also equipped with tasers.

[meb]

Not in the slightest. Tasers, pepperspray, mace...those are good self defense weapons because they are defensive by nature. There is nothing defensive about a firearm.

Let's be realistic here. Is pepperspray really that smart of a move against someone equipped with a lethal weapon? And how effective would your pepperspray be if there were multiple offenders involved? With a gun, just pointing it is usually enough to be an effective method of self-defense.

If somebody points a gun at you you are not going to use your pepperspray/taser/... . Do you think you have the time (and the balls) to pull out a gun of your own?

[Zierro]

They're also equipped with tasers.

 

Yes, but they're still equipped with guns.

 

Some cases don't require the brute lethality of a gun. A street brawl or riot, for example, could easily be stopped with a taser. Now how about the situation where you see several armed burglars walk up to your front door? Or you see criminals shooting at your family?

 

So... why are cops equipped with guns? And better yet, why are they a criminal's weapon of preference?

 

If somebody points a gun at you you are not going to use your pepperspray/taser/... . Do you think you have the time (and the balls) to pull out a gun of your own?

 

If somebody is pointing a gun at you already, it's probably game over. The best thing would be to abide by their commands and, if you are ballsy enough, you could stealthily pull out a weapon if you get an opportunity. It's happened before - and I bet they'd rather have a gun with them than pepperspray. Maybe we should ask a cop.

 

Your scenario is only based on the fact that the criminal already has a gun aimed at your head. What about the scenario where you see the criminals coming before they know where you're at? Or the scenario where the criminals only have knives? Pepperspray < knife < gun.

 

I don't understand why you guys think it's a good idea for the innocent to be equipped with a less effective weapon than the criminal.

[obfuscator]

They're also equipped with tasers.

 

Yes, but they're still equipped with guns.

 

Some cases don't require the brute lethality of a gun. A street brawl or riot, for example, could easily be stopped with a taser. Now how about the situation where you see several armed burglars walk up to your front door? Or you see criminals shooting at your family?

 

So... why are cops equipped with guns? And better yet, why are they a criminal's weapon of preference?

 

If somebody points a gun at you you are not going to use your pepperspray/taser/... . Do you think you have the time (and the balls) to pull out a gun of your own?

 

If somebody is pointing a gun at you already, it's probably game over. The best thing would be to abide by their commands and, if you are ballsy enough, you could stealthily pull out a weapon if you get an opportunity. It's happened before - and I bet they'd rather have a gun with them than pepperspray. Maybe we should ask a cop.

 

Your scenario is only based on the fact that the criminal already has a gun aimed at your head. What about the scenario where you see the criminals coming before they know where you're at? Or the scenario where the criminals only have knives? Pepperspray < knife < gun.

 

I don't understand why you guys think it's a good idea for the innocent to be equipped with a less effective weapon than the criminal.

 

Because equipping the innocent stoops them to the level of the criminal.

 

As I've said before, let the people trained to do so exercise lethal force.

[Zierro]

Because equipping the innocent stoops them to the level of the criminal.

 

What? Having power of the situation? Great, the innocent deserve that.

 

As I've said before, let the people trained to do so exercise lethal force.

 

In that case, why not have a mandatory self-defense training program for any civilian wanting to purchase a gun? Then their abilities to use a gun responsibly and professionally would be on par with policemen.

 

There are many situations where a cop can't be contacted, can't make it in time, etc.

[Giordano]

The same level as the criminal? Why must we worry so much about Disney morality when our live is in danger?

[obfuscator]

I don't know a single person who's had a gun pulled on them, or who's been in a situation where a gun would have saved their life. I don't see why these lethal weapons need to be readily available when the fact is the opportunities they would be used are one in a million.

[Kriegsmier]

I'm in the military, i've been trained in lethal force. What about me, are you going to exclude me? Please. There are a lot more people out there trained enough, and just as much as police officers in firearms and deadly force. You and your select base of contacts are a VERY small portion of the population. So you not knowing someone in a situation like that is not surprising, and should not be your basis for arguments.

 

But thats fine, you can have your opinion. My opinion is my house, my family, and myself are safe.

[Giordano]

I don't know a single person who's had a gun pulled on them, or who's been in a situation where a gun would have saved their life. I don't see why these lethal weapons need to be readily available when the fact is the opportunities they would be used are one in a million.

A gun pointed at them is a one in a million chance, but what about facing a knife? Or another weapon? Or just a plain old mugger? It also depends where you live, a middle class suburb or South L.A, your chances will vary.

 

Besides, we already have laws and morals that protect us for events that will happen once in a lifetime, why are guns so different?

 

 

 

But a simple question: why don't you trust yourself?

[obfuscator]

Because I accept the fact that I'm not trained to use a firearm. I've never fired a gun before and don't relish the prospect of pulling one, having it taken from me because I'm incompetent with it, and having it used against me.

 

@kreig - you're qualified. Most of the population isn't.

 

Here's a scenario for you. Man breaks into your house to steal something, sees your guns. You come downstairs, he grabs one, points it at you. Now what?

[Kriegsmier]

Again. I go back to the Stupid decisions. Who in their right mind leaves their guns out? Not everyone even has one of those wood and glass display boxes. At the most its unlocked in a closet but not sitting out where you could see it and grab it. But in your highly unlikely scenario, I grab my other and put an Armor Piercing .30-06 round through is head.