POLL: Gun Ownership

Remove all ads!

I also believe that most people who DO own weapons, should not.

Hmmm... how despotic of you.

The only people guns protect are those willing to use them without hesitation.

Truth.

I am going to bow out... I know my limitations, and for my part this will become less of a discussion and more of a shouting match if I proceed much further.

It's not been a good week - best of regards.

[ March 08, 2006, 00:11: Message edited by: halfogremagi ]

 

Aye. What you were trying to say finally clicked about halfway through writing my own post, so most of it was tongue-in-cheek. Mostly I was reacting to the implication that we're so overloaded with guns that you'd expect to see roving gangs on every street.

The fact that we have more guns than people is somewhat overstated when you consider that there are quite a few people who collect guns; just about every place I've ever been that sells guns also sells rather large gun-safes. Not to mention that the way they sell guns is entirely different. "This rifle is for hunting deer, this rifle is for hunting ducks, this handgun is for home protection, this handgun goes in my truck, this one is for practicing at the firing range, the shotgun is for my hunts in Africa, and these fifteen are replicas I hang on my wall." Ugh. It's a freaking gun, you morons, not a Philips screwdriver; they all do the same thing!

 

@ Montresor,

And that would be good - as long as criminal thinking was linear and non-adaptive. Which it isn't. Sure, target selection will be based on a variety of factors, including target hardening. I know why the place I got robbed at got robbed - it was a combination of a lot of things, including an absolute lack of defensible space (through access control) and sight-lines. If I had had those two things, there isn't a chance in hell the place would have been robbed had the person on duty been paying attention (conveniently, they were added after it got hit three times in two months).

If every target gets hardened with a handgun, do you honestly think that robbery will suddenly disappear? Hell no. What will happen is that the more desperate and reckless will still go in, armed with firearms, and will probably blast the cashier if he or she so much as twitches. Better outcome? Well, I'll leave that determination to you, because I certainly know which I would prefer. Call that cowardice if you will - I see no reason to get killed for someone else's $400 that will be refunded on insurance.

Besides, I defy anyone with a shred of rationality to say they'd reach for a gun and open fire if someone had the drop on them with a handgun. That's not "gutsy" or courageous - it's suicide.

@ martaug,

True - and I should know (between experience and several years of study). Of course they'll hit a softer target, if they can spot one. The problem with target hardening is displacement - or, if everything's been hardened, innovation or escalated response.

In fact, one of the biggest flaws in target hardening is what's referred to as the "antibiotic effect". You've weeded out the less committed, weaker problems, and now you're left with resistant, much more aggressive and considerably more dangerous ones.

@ halfogremagi,

Heh, 98% of people know that you can find statistics to support any point of view...

You're wise to take your security seriously - but there are far more, and far better ways (IMO) to ensure one's safety than keeping firearms in the house. I would rather avoid such a situation entirely than be able to fight my way out of it - and thankfully, I have been able to do that thus far. The lack of guns in Melbourne is probably a very strong influence on that record.

I know Bruno can fight his own battles, and I don't presume to do so for him. However, I think what he was getting at was the fundamental problem of people wanting to have that kind of power to enforce their will on others.

Essentially, anyone who wants that power should be prevented from ever possessing it.

@ T2Bruno,

Couldn't have expressed it better myself. And if you're going to use one without hesitation, someone's going to get hurt. Badly.

----------------------------------------

I've said my piece on this enough, and it's clear that some folks just aren't going to give my opinion even a cursory consideration. That's fine - my opinion is only that.

 

NS you're basically right. We have people take tests and register to drive a car -- I believe we should do the same for guns. Guns should be licensed and owners should have a minimum competency before being able to purchase a gun (and be free of 'mental defect' AND not be a convicted felon). Unfortunately, the majority of gun owners I know would fall under one of those three categories (mental case, criminal, or unfamiliar with basic safety requirements).

 

@ t2bruno figures for 97 18208 murders
# for children 14 and under by firearms : 220
compare to the number killed in car wrecks :3100

if you had ever tried to buy a gun you would have filled out a form 4473 , 2 of the questions you have to answer are 1)have you ever been in amental hospital or under medical care for a mental condition and 2) have you ever been convicted of a felony. the also have to call in a NICS check(national instant criminal background check system) you either get an ok to sale ,no sale or a delay(the delay takes three days to be resolved) so if you are a felon no gun

as to the safety thing yes you should take a course to learn the safe handling of firearms
and yes the stats that list all murders under 19 include known gang shootings and felons'

as to your personal story , i don't know what state you live in but at every gunshow i have went to ALL firearms are plastic ziptied thru the action so the cannot be loaded or fired.

@ tal just how are the owners of the store utter morons? what have they done other than provide a safe working enviroment for their employees? who, by the way, average 10+ years at this job.(anyone familiar with the convienence store business will tell you this is almost unheard of most employees last 2 years at most)

as to people not needing guns for self protection, the fbi and dept of justice estimate that 83% of the population will be victims of violent crimes at some point in their lives and in any given year crime touches 25% of all housholds. on average there is 1 police officer for every 3300 citizens & the courts have ruled that government has no duty to protect individual citizens from crime.

as to the myth of most murders being by someone you know it is actually only 20% the other 80% is by strangers.

the best studies to date indicate that firearms are used to prevent murder,rape,forcible assaults,etc. 2.5 Million times per year. also armed citizens kill 2-3 thousand criminals and wound an additional 9-17 thousand per year. mishaps are rare , with private citizens killing innocent people only 30 times a year , compared with 330 mistaken killings by the police.

@halfogremagi : never give up the fight
dont take whatever they say personal as they can never see your point of view
you know .. .. on a lighter note how come it always seems to be the liberals picking fights when we're the ones with all the guns?

sorry for the length of the post but had to respond

 

Wow, I believe that's the first time I've ever been called a liberal on these boards. My dad has called me a liberal, but then again he voted for Barry Goldwater....

martaug: I stand by my statements. There are thousands of references on gun safety and injuries. You should not presume the many I've read are the same as those you have read. I tend to read academic papers (granted they are more liberal) and not rely on those written by organizations with an agenda. As far as home defense, my favorite passage is this:

Most of the data I've seen lists for children 14 and under, which is unfortunate as there are many innocent victims that are 15-18 that should be included. So the victims of Columbine are not listed because it is a common ploy of the gun lobby to assume ALL victims 15 and over are gang bangers.

[ March 08, 2006, 15:38: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

martaug,

I don't take it personally... I'm Sicilian... it's just something in the blood.

Give up...???

He he he... I drilled out and bent a receiver for my Romanian kit last night, spot welded the lower rails, riveted the front trunion in place and pressed the barrel back in......

 

That's not the ONLY reason they do it though. Another significant event occurs at 15 - it is the first age in which you can receive a hunting license in most states. Some states it's 14. Granted, while I think it is ridiculous that most states feel someone who is not old enough or mature enough to operate a car IS old enough and mature enough to handle a deadly weapon, with parental permission and supervision you can obtain a hunting permit as young as 14.

And there aren't that many caveats on how you hunt at that age either. Basically, if you're in a hunting party with someone who is your parent or legal guardian, you're good to go. I know several people from high school who began hunting when they were freshmen. I suppose the reasoning is if you're under 14, there's no way you can be in legal possession of a firearm, whereas at 15 and over, you can legally hunt, so you COULD be legally using a firearm.

 

...and vise versa.

 

...and vice versa.

 

There's a reason why the received wisdom in policing is that if you've got a dead body and you think his wife, brother or sister did it, you're going to find out you're right.

But you could just go straight to the source and check this, or the data on motives for homicide. I had a bit of trouble finding information for US homicides, but came up with a Bureau of Justice Statistics report. This part, in particular, was interesting, and which I have provided in its entirety:

Oh, and this snippet, too.

I suppose you could argue that this doesn't support my arguments - until you read a little deeper into it. The (near-) current homicide rate is about 5.2 in 100,000. Bear in mind, too, that the major victim and offender categories are identical for homicides.

I'm not saying it can't possibly happen. What I am saying is that the argument that most homicide victims are killed by strangers is not supported by the facts - and the two pro-gun sites I checked were far more interested in debunking than providing evidence. Indeed, one can only conclude that the level of homicides involving firearms (especially handguns) is more a symptom of a lack of controls on gun availability than its absence.

 

@ nonsequitur - uh... did you look at the bjs page you linked to? it states halfway done the page
"Between 1976 and 2002, about 11% of murder victims were determined to have been killed by an intimate "
seems if you're not an intimate you're a stranger.
kinda funny i got some of my stats from bjs also just from different pages it seems. the rest come straight from the fbi and dept of justice sites

sorry tal i thought you meant the other store

 

Intimate usually means spouse or significant other (i.e., consensual sex is involved). I know a lot of people that I am not intimate with. Not intimate does not mean you do not know the person.

 

No, I saw that. Bruno's already pointed out the flaw in the assumption that "not intimate = stranger" - after all, I know everyone I work with, play cards with and share a house with, but I'm not intimate with any of them (sweet Lord, I'd be damn busy if I was!). Of course, I also saw this part, which you've so conveniently decided to ignore.

Even if I was to assume that the "other" 43% were entirely composed of strangers (a truly massive leap of faith), that's still more than enough to put paid to your 20/80 assertions. Plus, given that the majority of US homicides are by handgun, shouldn't that at least be grounds to pause for thought as to their necessity? After all, your homicide rate is higher than ours, and guns are involved in a considerably higher proportion of homicides in the US.

I'm not saying you should be stripped of any entitlement to own guns (although I certainly think licensing is a good idea and that controls should be much more stringent). What I'm suggesting is that you ask yourselves this: why, when the evidence is there to the contrary, do so many people cling to the myth that an armed public is a safer and more secure one simply by virtue of the fact that they have guns?

 

Shhh! We know that, Tal - I wanted to see what the pro-gun folks answered with!

 

Non Sequitur,

I have not been following up this discussion, so I don't know if this has been brought up or discussed, but those statistics are pretty flawed, as their own nature play against pro-defense point of view.
Think about it, do you suppose someone who has successfully warded off a thief in the street with his own gun, will be bothering going to the police department to make a charge? Countless cases are left outside official statistics because of that. Thus, reported successful self defense cases might come as if unusual.

 

Svy,

A fair point - after all, you only get the answers to the questions you ask. However, the BJS information (from the US) is derived from a national victimisation survey, rather than just from recorded crime statistics. I was of the understanding that collecting and collating that data in the US was somewhat more complex than in Australia, due in no small part to the level of decentralisation in policing.

But even if we assume that, what about the other side of the coin? How many other crimes involving guns go unreported? All crimes have a figure for under-reporting, and typically, violent crimes have a higher one than property crimes, because insurance won't pay for a criminal loss unless the crime is reported.

While your point is valid, Svy, it swings both ways, particularly for violent crimes. However, by its own nature as unreported matters, no-one could claim to know the full extent, nature and percentage breakdowns.