General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Okay, my bullshitometer just went off the scale.
Asleep?
Do you think Americans don't have alarm systems, dogs, or locked doors?
Trust me, just the "Cha-Chinck!" sound of a 12 gauge shotgun slide is enough to deter most intruders.
And when that doesn't work, "boom!"

Your average invader would be scared shitless even if he encountered the awake owner of a home. And most of these home invader types aren't very smart either, they don't plan out their invasions, they just pick a house, break a window, and see if they can find a TV. The really skilled criminals don't go in for home invasions, as it's a very crude (and ultimately risky) way to make money. I've seen trials of home invaders, on the whole they're usually very stupid, and I doubt they'd have the intelligence to find a gun if gun control was in effect.

Now of course, in the US, you have a fair number of home invasions by more intelligent gangsters purely to try to get their hands on a gun (which can get far higher returns robbing cash registers at your local general store). In this case, your ownership of a gun is actually motivating them to rob you.

To be fair, the reason that some people are made victims with their own weapons is due to the fact that they live in a state/city/area where they can be charged with a crime if they defend themselves with a gun.
In states with Castle Doctrines that are honored this is rare (still happens occationally) but rare.

Or they're asleep and the intruder gets their hands on the weapon first. Don't forget, when you're just woken up by an alarm, you're going to be groggy for a minute or so, while the intruder is at the height of alertness.

Dude you need to lay off the manga/anime. I don't know of any muggers who can flashstep like Ichigo, or pull a "I Lelouch vi Britannia command you..." before you plug the SOB.
Unless you make a habit of traveling down deserted roads, tight alleys, or walking home in the wee hours of the morning in bad neighborhoods, the scenario you put forward is highly unlikely.

I've only heard of muggings occur in the wee hours of the morning, on deserted roads and tight alleys! Muggings don't happen out in the open (Unless the mugger is incredibly stupid)! As you so rightly observed, you don't need superhuman reflexes to get the hop on someone in those conditions.

Likewise, you can also wait in ambush behind bushes, old garbage cans etc. Muggings are carried out in such a way that you can take the person by surprise, and with greater numbers. Muggers will never declare their presence before they have already immobilized you. They'll hide and take you from all sides, closing the distance far too quickly to give you any chance to draw a weapon (consider how long it would take you to take a gun out of your pocket, and take off the safety, I would guess that's more time then it takes for a guy to jump out of cover). If you think you can take on 3 guys who have surrounded you, you're the one whose watched too much anime.

And if those muggers have a gun, they can have that gun pointed at you before you have even a remote chance to pull yours, because they enter the encounter prepared, while you don't. While you're fumbling in your coat pocket, they've got it pointed at you from point blank range.

Abusive parents beat children with impunity, and wives just stand by and do nothing. "It's just the way he/she is," is a common excuse. Until we as a society put a STOP to this, and family members start actually turning in the abusers, this type of violence will not cease with or without firearms.

Indeed, by my point from this is that criminal situations where a gun will be of any use are even rarer. If only ~150 violent crimes per 100,000 occur a year that are preventable with a gun, then that means you have only a 1 in 10 chance to ever see such a crime in your entire lifetime. And that quantity gets cut down even more if you take simple precautions like don't walk around dark alleys alone at night.

[quote]
And your average hoplophobic gun-control freak will dream of firearm-free streets with smiling muggers helping little old ladies across the street, gangbangers trading in gum-drops and skittles, while hosing each down with water balloons and games of tag for turf wars. There's a word for those kinds of people....LOONIES!
[quote] Obviously not, but I don't think it's ridiculous to imagine that gun control will mean that next time I get mugged it will be with a knife rather then a gun. I can run away from a guy armed with a knife a lot easier then a guy with a gun.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

526 instances? I'd like to see that link (will look for it when I have the time), but all right. How does that compare to the number of instances where firearms were not used in self-defense (crimes, murders, etc.)?

If we are reasonable and consider that 1000 such instances will occur in a year (IE roughly double 526, given we're halfway through the year). Then that means that only 0.33 or so such instances occur per 100,000 people per year. Considering that the violent crime rate is ~400 per 100,000 per year(and the overall crime rate is 3,300 per 100,000 per year), that shows that guns prevent a pitifully low number of crimes in the United States, about 0.08% of them.

I actually wouldn't be surprised that GundamFan0083's number was unrealistically low.


[QUOTE=GundamFan0083;4282177]
Are you kidding, the Black Market would balloon out to the point of guns becoming completely untracable. You'd have millions of guns with their serial numbers burned or machined off, you'd have underground gun factories, ammo factories, and who knows what else.

You can't make a gun (at any reasonable cost and any reasonable quality) without modern industrial equipment. You should know this, a good gun requires precision machining, and requires industrial equipment like foundries, milling machines etc.

The best kind of gun you could hope to make without such equipment would be as good as an Arquebus, which as a gun is so inaccurate as to be entirely useless outside of a situation where you're firing in massed formation. A home made crossbow would be more useful.

Not only that, but it's not like making crystal meth in your basement, an illegal gun factory would be painfully obvious, as it would need to be literally factory sized. And the cost to buy the equipment necessary would run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions.

Even your local blacksmith, skilled at repairing old broken water tanks and chairs, would not have anything close to what is necessary for making a gun.

I agree, but you must admit that the way to stop this kind of thing is to require all manufactured/imported guns to be registered, and make resale illegal unless the required paperwork is completed. This is not asking much.

In a state with functional gun control, the average thug is too stupid to figure out how to get a gun. Don't overestimate the intelligence of these guys. The smart ones are all in drug trafficking, not mugging and home invasions. As for the gang planning their bank robbery, I have no problems allowing bank security guards to keep guns, the sort of people that hold up banks tend to be more organized.

Common Sense Point #2: Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens. Amazing bit of deductive reasoning isn’t it? Anti-gunners hope you never discover that truth on your own. Think about it though from the shoes of Mugsy and Bugsy. Who would you rather confront, an armed citizen or an unarmed one? Where would you rather focus your life of crime? In areas where guns are outlawed or where guns are prevalent? Who would you rather prey on, the defenseless or the armed? And where is violent crime more prevalent? Washington D.C. where gun laws are strictest or Florida where gun laws are more relaxed? I’ll give you one guess but let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy again.

The average thug never things that far ahead. Do not overestimate their intelligence. Why is it that these crimes keep happening despite the high gun ownership rate? Do you think these potential thugs switch notes with other thugs? Guns don't deter crimes, as in the case where the citizens easily get a gun, the thug also easily gets them, and he feels a false sense of security from his new purchase. In a state with functioning gun control (like Britain or Ireland), the average thug or gangbanger is too stupid to figure out how to get his hands on a gun, due to how complicated and labyrinthine it is.

Common Sense Point #3: Crime is deviant behavior. A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool. You can’t prevent deviant behavior by regulating tools because tools are incapable of behavior and the number of tools available to the world’s deviants is endless.

If I wanted to ban cake, I could ban ovens. Some guys would make illegal ovens, but the quantity of cake out there would certainly take a dive, as it's very difficult to illegally manufacture an oven. It's even more difficult to illegally manufacture a gun.

Even if you could legislate guns out of existence, deviants could, would and have used other things that gave them a power advantage over their victims—knives, clubs, rocks or even sharp sticks—all of which are very legal and very accessible.

All of which are a lot less lethal then a gun.

Commons Sense Point #4: The Trump Card. The strongest point of all consists of a mere 27 words and is absolute in its nature. It trumps all statistics ever concocted by man and all arguments ever made—and not one of the 27 words is a number… “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” #4, my friends, is absolute, unambiguous and supersedes all arguments and all statistics.

It's not in my constitution. Ireland is plenty secure without a militia of any kind. As is almost every other state in the world.

Originally Posted by Vexx

As for #2 on your list... having *some* of the population with concealed carry raises the risk for *any* one planning a mugging/robbery. The result is actually usually an increase in petty theft or other crimes that don't require confrontation.

I would contend that the average criminal is not smart enough to think that far ahead. And generally speaking, most of these petty criminals by far prefer to take a non-confrontational approach. Sit in on a few trials of home invaders, (I've attended one or two), and you'll realise these guys aren't very smart.

As for #1 .... well, that's a problem with any sort of tool that can kill, hammers, bats, gasoline, etc. But we could DEFINITELY use better integration of mental health data with the NCIS checking system. That would have flagged Holmes, for example.

Too true, but it's a lot harder to kill with those then with a gun. Hell, if you really want to, you can even kill with your hands, or even a pillow.

Originally Posted by kyp275

I can actually offer some perspective on this part. Taiwan pretty much bans civilians from owning any firearms and ammunition, but that hasn't really stopped organized crimes and some gangs from smuggling or building their own, even back in the days when the island was still under marshal law. You'd see them announcing drug and gun busts on a constant basis on the news all the time. Over there, only the government and the gangsters have guns.

I can only say that the UK and Ireland do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of the country. Are policemen by default only carry batons. It is possible to keep guns at very low levels through gun control laws.

If a person is committed to cause mayhem, they'll find a way to do it. If they were unable to obtain access to firearms, then they'll simply go to other methods such as explosives or arson.

Absolutely true. Bombs, however, are a lot more likely to be messed up (they're tricky to build), and I'm not sure how good the average loon will be at building one. Prior experience shows that most of these crazies don't manage to build them, but a few do, but they don't have the timing mechanisms and whatnot to get them to go off in a precise enough way to cause large numbers of casualties.

Actually, guns are great for defending yourself against both armed and unarmed assailants. Remember, guns are not only a force multiplier, they're also a force equalizer.

What if it's dark, and they ambush you?

Guns are good at what they do, which is why it's the default go-to choice for both the good guys and the bad guys. The sticking point is that some people believe that getting rid of guns equals less crime, while others don't, and would rather have the choice to defend themselves with one should they chose to do so. This more than anything else IMO is something that resonates especially strong in the US, people don't like it when you try to take their choices away.

No one here thinks it means less crime. It does mean less gun crime though, and a corresponding rise in the use of other, far less effective weapons.

I can run away from a guy with a knife, I can't run away from a gun.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

...you showed that average criminals don't use high cap mags.

EXACTLY! They don't use hi-cap magazines, and therefore it is wrong to ban them.
I don't care about the random nut that goes on a rampage, he can't be stopped by banning anything.
That's an issue which requires preparedness and immediate response by the people involved in the situation.

Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold used 12 guage shotguns in Columbine, Seung-Hui Cho used a pistol, Anders Breivik used a rifle, Tomohiro Kato used a knife, and Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. The point is, the weapon is irrelevent to the crime.
If actual crime prevention is the goal, then you have to address the criminal not the tools he/she uses.
That is of course if your goal is to stop crime.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Your average invader would be scared shitless...I doubt they'd have the intelligence to find a gun if gun control was in effect.

Trimmed that a bit for ease of reading.

If these criminals are so stupid then why do you have a growing homicide by gun problem in Ireland?

Oh that's right, it's because gun-control doesn't work to solve the problem as all it does it treat a symptom.

Now of course, in the US, ....blank range.

Too much assumption, fantasizing, and make-believe on your part in those "scenarios" for me to take it seriously.

Indeed, by my point from this is that criminal situations where a gun will be of any use are even rarer. If only ~150 violent crimes per 100,000 occur a year that are preventable with a gun, then that means you have only a 1 in 10 chance to ever see such a crime in your entire lifetime. And that quantity gets cut down even more if you take simple precautions like don't walk around dark alleys alone at night.

Again, with the "gun crime" crap.
People, understand this right now, I don't give a flying FUCK whether a homicide is done with a gun, a knife, or a stick of dynamite.
I'm not interested in reducing "gun crime" because that term is a propaganda tool for disarmament and has been since the 1920s.

I'm concerned about the causes of homicide in general, and those are many.
Instead of focusing on how the criminal is going about his/her crime, it is more important as to WHY they are doing it.
My own opinion is that poverty and a lack of direction in the lives of many males is a primary cause. For some men, failure is worse than death and so crime becomes a means of gaining both wealth and respect.
This is why countries with strict gun control are seeing people break the laws.
The underground gun culture in China was getting so bad that the "Communist" Chinese government has now greenlighted gun clubs for leisure sports.

To their credit the Chinese have figured out that just because guns are illegal it doesn't stop the crimes from still happening by other means.

Mexico is suffering from immense poverty, is it any wonder why their country is a war zone?

Obviously not, but I don't think it's ridiculous to imagine that gun control will mean that next time I get mugged it will be with a knife rather then a gun. I can run away from a guy armed with a knife a lot easier then a guy with a gun.

How do you know this?
You yourself said there's no way to know the situation, so if you're Ambushed you aren't running away. You're getting cut...unless of course you're armed, preferably with a gun.

If we are reasonable and consider that 1000 such instances will occur in a year (IE roughly double 526, given we're halfway through the year). Then that means that only 0.33 or so such instances occur per 100,000 people per year. Considering that the violent crime rate is ~400 per 100,000 per year(and the overall crime rate is 3,300 per 100,000 per year), that shows that guns prevent a pitifully low number of crimes in the United States, about 0.08% of them.

The violent crime rate includes states and cities that are without a castle doctrine law (meaning you can't legally defend yourself), and that have strict gun control.
Chicago being a prime example of a city that causes the figures to skew towards the high-end due to their horrible gang problem.
The situation is far more complex then the gun-control-wackos make it out to be.

The average thug never things that far ahead. Do not overestimate their intelligence. Why is it that these crimes keep happening despite the high gun ownership rate? Do you think these potential thugs switch notes with other thugs? Guns don't deter crimes, as in the case where the citizens easily get a gun, the thug also easily gets them, and he feels a false sense of security from his new purchase. In a state with functioning gun control (like Britain or Ireland), the average thug or gangbanger is too stupid to figure out how to get his hands on a gun, due to how complicated and labyrinthine it is.

The average thug isn't going to be making/smuggling in the guns, or ammo, or magazines and I never even implied that.
There are many...how should I say this...entrepeneurs who already have disdain for the gun laws and are supplying our streets.
Here's what I'm talking about, and that's just one guy who got caught.

If I wanted to ban cake, I could ban ovens. Some guys would make illegal ovens, but the quantity of cake out there would certainly take a dive, as it's very difficult to illegally manufacture an oven. It's even more difficult to illegally manufacture a gun.

No...just no, as a gunsmith I can tell you that it is much harder to build a modern oven than it is to build a modern firearm.
You can buy one tool that will allow you to build any gun on the market pistol, rifle or shotgun.
Building a barrel is a lot easier than you think also (and it's the hardest part of a gun).

It's not in my constitution.

Sucks to be you.
We do have it in ours and thank the founders for it.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Trimmed that a bit for ease of reading.

If these criminals are so stupid then why do you have a growing homicide by gun problem in Ireland?

Oh that's right, it's because gun-control doesn't work to solve the problem as all it does it treat a symptom.

That's because it's grown from roughly nothing, to very small. You can see the stats here. Gun Homicide varied from as low as 0.03 per 100,000 to 0.54 per 100,000 in 2009. Generally it floats around 0.3 per 100,000, which is a rate I find pretty acceptable. In the US for 2009 it was 3 per 100,000, which is over 10 times higher. The US has total homicide rates of around 5 per 100,000

Might I add, Ireland's overall homicide rate is around 1.1 per 100,000, which is a ~1/3 of America's gun homicide rate alone. Now, of course, there are many other factors that lead to homicide, but I think it shows that we don't need guns to deter would be murderers. Switzerland, which has near ubiquitous gun ownership, has a total homicide rate of 0.7-1.0 per 100,000.

While I don't think you can prove Guns cause more total homicides, you can't prove that guns deter homicides either.

Too much assumption, fantasizing, and make-believe on your part in those "scenarios" for me to take it seriously.

Give me any scenario where a gun will help you against a properly planned mugging. Mugging is built on the element of surprise, without surprise the victim can run away, which is, of course, something the mugger doesn't want.

I'm concerned about the causes of homicide in general, and those are many.
Instead of focusing on how the criminal is going about his/her crime, it is more important as to WHY they are doing it.
My own opinion is that poverty and a lack of direction in the lives of many males is a primary cause. For some men, failure is worse than death and so crime becomes a means of gaining both wealth and respect.

True, you have to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".

How do you know this?
You yourself said there's no way to know the situation, so if you're Ambushed you aren't running away. You're getting cut...unless of course you're armed, preferably with a gun.

Guns aren't some kind of shield. If you have enough time to draw your gun without getting cut, yo have more then enough time to turn tail and run.

The violent crime rate includes states and cities that are without a castle doctrine law (meaning you can't legally defend yourself), and that have strict gun control.
Chicago being a prime example of a city that causes the figures to skew towards the high-end due to their horrible gang problem.
The situation is far more complex then the gun-control-wackos make it out to be.

I believe if you looked at states by the legality of being able to defend yourself with a gun, you would find little correlation between gun defense laws and homicide rate. Georgia, which grants people full rights to defend yourself with deadly force has a total murder rate of 5.8 in 2010, while New York state, which lacks any kind of Castle Law, had a murder rate of 4.8 in 2010. I've looked at a dozen's US state's crime statistics, and most of them floated around 5, the national average. The big outlier was Vermont, which had a murder rate of only ~1. I got all my stats here.

So I think it's reasonable to assume that guns, and your ability to use them to defend yourself, do little to protect against murder.

The average thug isn't going to be making/smuggling in the guns, or ammo, or magazines and I never even implied that.
There are many...how should I say this...entrepeneurs who already have disdain for the gun laws and are supplying our streets.
Here's what I'm talking about, and that's just one guy who got caught.

Absolutely true. Stamping out corruption (a difficult task), is by far more important then gun control (as you can't enforce gun control with a corrupt police force).

No...just no, as a gunsmith I can tell you that it is much harder to build a modern oven than it is to build a modern firearm.
You can buy one tool that will allow you to build any gun on the market pistol, rifle or shotgun.
Building a barrel is a lot easier than you think also (and it's the hardest part of a gun).

Modern ovens are quite easy, though it's difficult to put in the modcons. All you need is a steel box, and some high resistance wires on the top and bottom to serve as heating elements, that are wired to a plug. I can't guarantee it would be a particularly safe oven though.

As for guns, I would not want to experience a gun exploding in my hands, due to poorly machined/casted parts...

[Lost Cause]

"Might I add, Ireland's overall homicide rate is around 1.1 per 100,000, which is a ~1/3 of America's gun homicide rate alone. Now, of course, there are many other factors that lead to homicide, but I think it shows that we don't need guns to deter would be murderers. Switzerland, which has near ubiquitous gun ownership, has a total homicide rate of 0.7-1.0 per 100,000."
Perhaps it is now, but I do remember the 1980s and what the IRA was doing! It got so bad that the UK had to send in troops and even the SAS!
As for repelling a "planned mugging" a small pistol or revolver can be deployed and fired at contact distance. Also a few kicks to the shins or elbows to the ribs can get your mugger of balance enough to allow you to fight or flee.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

"Might I add, Ireland's overall homicide rate is around 1.1 per 100,000, which is a ~1/3 of America's gun homicide rate alone. Now, of course, there are many other factors that lead to homicide, but I think it shows that we don't need guns to deter would be murderers. Switzerland, which has near ubiquitous gun ownership, has a total homicide rate of 0.7-1.0 per 100,000."
Perhaps it is now, but I do remember the 1980s and what the IRA was doing! It got so bad that the UK had to send in troops and even the SAS!

Well, Northern Ireland is a ... interesting place. That's a very complicated manner, but suffice to say, gun control isn't going to do much good when you have a political organization(Sinn Feinn/IRA) drawing in millions in donations drawn from an affluent overseas community, and a large group of Paramilitaries(UDA, UVF etc.) whom the Police Force actively ignored, and often complicit with.

The reason the army had to be called in was because the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was corrupt to the core and ignored unionist paramilitary attacks on Catholics protesting and marching for civil rights. With the RUC complicit with the unionist paramilitary thugs, there was only one group they could turn to for defense, the (at that point near-defunct) IRA, of which a splinter group (the Provisional IRA) were happy to oblige. Mainline IRA wanted to pursue a more marxist path, and faded into obscurity.

Initially Nationalists were quite positive towards the Army, but instances of brutality on the army's part created mistrust and fear that spiralled into bloody conflict as two armed groups faced off against one another.

In truth, the Troubles was basically guerrilla warfare. There were pitched gun battles in the streets between the Army, Unionist Paramilitaries and IRA. The IRA had access to resources and military grade equipment way beyond your average criminal organization, largely due to the wealthy donors I mentioned in Ireland's overseas communities (Biggest being Irish Americans). They also got funding and weapons from all kinds of sources, including Colonel Gaddafi.

The IRA are probably one of the most successful insurgent organisations of the twentieth century. They were never wiped out, and the UK government was ultimately forced to negotiate with them, though they never achieved their initial goal of a united Ireland.

It's not really in the same league as your average gun incident in the US. As far as I'm aware, there are no insurgencies in the USA.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Well, Northern Ireland is a ... interesting place. That's a very complicated manner, but suffice to say, gun control isn't going to do much good when you have a political organization(Sinn Feinn/IRA) drawing in millions in donations drawn from an affluent overseas community, and a large group of Paramilitaries(UDA, UVF etc.) whom the Police Force actively ignored, and often complicit with.

The reason the army had to be called in was because the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was corrupt to the core and ignored unionist paramilitary attacks on Catholics protesting and marching for civil rights. With the RUC complicit with the unionist paramilitary thugs, there was only one group they could turn to for defense, the (at that point near-defunct) IRA, of which a splinter group (the Provisional IRA) were happy to oblige. Mainline IRA wanted to pursue a more marxist path, and faded into obscurity.

Initially Nationalists were quite positive towards the Army, but instances of brutality on the army's part created mistrust and fear that spiralled into bloody conflict as two armed groups faced off against one another.

In truth, the Troubles was basically guerrilla warfare. There were pitched gun battles in the streets between the Army, Unionist Paramilitaries and IRA. The IRA had access to resources and military grade equipment way beyond your average criminal organization, largely due to the wealthy donors I mentioned in Ireland's overseas communities (Biggest being Irish Americans). They also got funding and weapons from all kinds of sources, including Colonel Gaddafi.

The IRA are probably one of the most successful insurgent organisations of the twentieth century. They were never wiped out, and the UK government was ultimately forced to negotiate with them, though they never achieved their initial goal of a united Ireland.

It's not really in the same league as your average gun incident in the US. As far as I'm aware, there are no insurgencies in the USA.

Then you've never heard of the North Hollywood Shootout!
Suffice it to say then that both if our countries have seen strife and violence, but removing guns is not the solution!
Making the bastards that use guns to commit crimes pay is!!
And I too am half Irish.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

EXACTLY! They don't use hi-cap magazines, and therefore it is wrong to ban them.
I don't care about the random nut that goes on a rampage, he can't be stopped by banning anything.
That's an issue which requires preparedness and immediate response by the people involved in the situation.

Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold used 12 guage shotguns in Columbine, Seung-Hui Cho used a pistol, Anders Breivik used a rifle, Tomohiro Kato used a knife, and Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. The point is, the weapon is irrelevent to the crime.
If actual crime prevention is the goal, then you have to address the criminal not the tools he/she uses.
That is of course if your goal is to stop crime.

You're not going to stop all shooters, which is why the amount of damage they can do matters. It's not an issue that should be brushed aside.

In Tuscon, the shooter had time to fire one clip. I'd say the odds are pretty good the 33 round mag allowed him to do more damage than a ten round would have.

In Aurora, you had a 90 second police response and the shooter went shotgun, rifle, pistol and walked. Odds are pretty good that had the rifle mag not jammed, it would have been a lot more effective than the Glock.

Even when the shooter has more time, the extra weight and bulk will impact his movement speed and carrying capacity - it's not lost on me that Breivik had 300 rounds ready to go.

Those facts mean a lot more to me than irrelevant statistics do.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Perhaps it is now, but I do remember the 1980s and what the IRA was doing! It got so bad that the UK had to send in troops and even the SAS!

Yeah, violent nationalist movements tend to have an impact on murders rates. I'm glad Canada's Anglophone v. Francophone disputes tended to be less militarized than Northern Ireland's conflict.

Actually, I think in Canada's case, despite the October Crisis being "the big one" in the history books (probably more so for the national state of emergency than the killing of the British diplomat), it was actually a rogue Canadian army officer (re: not a Quebec separatist) who got the biggest body count: he showed up at the Quebec National Assembly in 1984 with two C-1s (the Canadian varient of the old Sterling SMG), shot three government employees, and probably would have shot up a whole lot of Quebec nationalist politicians if he hadn't mistimed his entry and ended up arriving before the assembly was scheduled to begin for the day. I don't think my country is hot on the idea of empowering anyone who might want to try and imitate him.

[Ithekro]

Taking political insurgency out of ones statistics on gun violence does not make for an accurate report.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Taking political insurgency out of ones statistics on gun violence does not make for an accurate report.

There hasn't been significant violence for over 20 years!

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Actually, I think in Canada's case, despite the October Crisis being "the big one" in the history books (probably more so for the national state of emergency than the killing of the British diplomat), it was actually a rogue Canadian army officer (re: not a Quebec separatist) who got the biggest body count: he showed up at the Quebec National Assembly in 1984 with two C-1s (the Canadian varient of the old Sterling SMG), shot three government employees, and probably would have shot up a whole lot of Quebec nationalist politicians if he hadn't mistimed his entry and ended up arriving before the assembly was scheduled to begin for the day. I don't think my country is hot on the idea of empowering anyone who might want to try and imitate him.

You forgot the "École Polytechnique massacre'' : 14 victims, all womans killed by Marc Pépine.

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Give me any scenario where a gun will help you against a properly planned mugging. Mugging is built on the element of surprise, without surprise the victim can run away, which is, of course, something the mugger doesn't want.

John McClane shot through the bullet hole already in his chest, does that count?

Muggings aren't really planned as much as it's wait till they're alone and somewhere dark.

Aren't typical muggers the ones that just want what's on you and don't care if you get away?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

John McClane shot through the bullet hole already in his chest, does that count?

Muggings aren't really planned as much as it's wait till they're alone and somewhere dark.

Aren't typical muggers the ones that just want what's on you and don't care if you get away?

They're planned in the sense that they wait in a particular area for passersby.

It's true they (generally) don't care what happens to you when they have your wallet, but generally, they have to make sure you don't run away before you part with your valuables. Hence the element of surprise is the greatest weapon in the arsenal.

Generally, there's a variety of ways to immobilize a person before stealing your possesions, which can range from approaching from behind and locking you, to knocking you out with a blow to the back of the head, to shooting you in the leg (or even in the back, if they don't fear prosecution). You might even end out losing the clothes on your back, if they're valuable too...

Either way, they'll try to take you out before you have the slightest chance to respond.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

You forgot the "École Polytechnique massacre'' : 14 victims, all womans killed by Marc Pépine.

I attended an engineering school so i'm quite familiar with Polytechnic (the engineering student community around her makes sure to commemorate it). But that wasn't a case of nationalist violence and not a case where i feel ammo capacity was a significant factor - as weak as i suspect security at the Quebec National Assembly was in 1984, it seems to me like deciding to try and off the governing party of a large province in one go requires a lot of trust in the firepower you're carrying.

I also find the way that the National Assembly shooting ending pretty amazing. For the non-Canadiens, the chamber's Sargeant at Arms told the shooter he used to be part of the same army unit and invited him to his office. After being shot at. Then proceeded to serve coffee and negotiate the gunman's surrender, quite possibly preventing a subsequent shootout with the police. That takes some guts.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

That's because it's grown from roughly nothing, to very small. You can see the stats here. Gun Homicide varied from as low as 0.03 per 100,000 to 0.54 per 100,000 in 2009. Generally it floats around 0.3 per 100,000, which is a rate I find pretty acceptable. In the US for 2009 it was 3 per 100,000, which is over 10 times higher. The US has total homicide rates of around 5 per 100,000

Might I add, Ireland's overall homicide rate is around 1.1 per 100,000, which is a ~1/3 of America's gun homicide rate alone. Now, of course, there are many other factors that lead to homicide, but I think it shows that we don't need guns to deter would be murderers. Switzerland, which has near ubiquitous gun ownership, has a total homicide rate of 0.7-1.0 per 100,000.

Yeah, we in the US also have far more gangs than you do DQ.
There are 29,000 gangs in the USA, and 756,000 gang members (estimated).
What do you think the UK would look like (not just Ireland) if you had that?

While I don't think you can prove Guns cause more total homicides, you can't prove that guns deter homicides either.

The studies from the NEJM, JAMA, the other studies (that are neutral) have all indicated gun control does not reduce crime.
Therefore it becomes not an issue of guns, but of cultural and society factors.
That's the problem in the US.
Violence is glorified as some kind of means of wealth and respect.
Why do you think gangs are so appealing to our youth?

Give me any scenario where a gun will help you against a properly planned mugging. Mugging is built on the element of surprise, without surprise the victim can run away, which is, of course, something the mugger doesn't want.

Two guys come up on each side of your pickup truck at a 7/11 gas station in Commerce City Colorado at dusk while you're filling up. They pull a knife, you pull a gun (.357 magnum), and they flee.

Oh, and a scenario before the gun, you live in Woonsocket RI, you piss of a guy at an Applebees on Diamond Hill, he follows you out to your car and takes a few shots at you (misses, thank God or I wouldn't be posting this) and fills your Ford Fairmont (I know, a grandma mobile) trunk with 9mm from what looked like a tech-9 (illegal in that state BTW).

That's why I moved to Colorado, so I could own a gun and not be a victim.

True, you have to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".

Agreed.

Guns aren't some kind of shield. If you have enough time to draw your gun without getting cut, yo have more then enough time to turn tail and run.

You are correct, they ARE NOT a shield and should not be thought of as such.
They are a tool that puts you on equal or greater footing with an assailant.
In CQB with a knife, you chances of getting cut somewhere on your body are very high. What we were taught is that if the person is less than 21 feet from you, you're going to get cut, the trick is to control where you get cut so that you can retaliate with force (preferably a gun).
However, if you can get away, you run...even if you have a gun on you.
If you can't the gun is better to have than not.

I believe if you looked at states by the legality of being able to defend yourself with a gun, you would find little correlation between gun defense laws and homicide rate. Georgia, which grants people full rights to defend yourself with deadly force has a total murder rate of 5.8 in 2010, while New York state, which lacks any kind of Castle Law, had a murder rate of 4.8 in 2010. I've looked at a dozen's US state's crime statistics, and most of them floated around 5, the national average. The big outlier was Vermont, which had a murder rate of only ~1. I got all my stats here.

Vermont has open carry and carry without permit laws. They also have a much more educated and affluent population than either Georgia (I assume you meant Atlanta), or New York.
That's part of the problem, there's too much damn poverty in the US and thus we're back to the gang problem again.

So I think it's reasonable to assume that guns, and your ability to use them to defend yourself, do little to protect against murder.

That's too broad of a statement.
You aren't factoring all the variables.
Guns for self-defense are excellent.
Guns for defense if you're in a gang, or if your spouse/relative wants you dead...not so much.

Absolutely true. Stamping out corruption (a difficult task), is by far more important then gun control (as you can't enforce gun control with a corrupt police force).

Glad we Agree.

Modern ovens are quite easy, though it's difficult to put in the modcons. All you need is a steel box, and some high resistance wires on the top and bottom to serve as heating elements, that are wired to a plug. I can't guarantee it would be a particularly safe oven though.

As for guns, I would not want to experience a gun exploding in my hands, due to poorly machined/casted parts...

Oh you mean what we gunsmiths call "spontaneous disassembly"

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

You're not going to stop all shooters, which is why the amount of damage they can do matters. It's not an issue that should be brushed aside.

You're not going to stop the damage they do by banning anything.
Andrew Kohoe proved that in 1927, and Tim McVeigh proved it again in 1995.
When a killer is intent on committing mass murder he will find any way to do so and banning weapons/magazine/flashhiders/folding stocks/etc. does nothing to stop him/her.

In Tuscon, the shooter had time to fire one clip. I'd say the odds are pretty good the 33 round mag allowed him to do more damage than a ten round would have.

Statements like that show an ignorance of firearms.
The Glock doesn't fire people seeking bullets, you still have to be a good shot.
Had Jared used a 12 guage shotgun, in 5 shots he could have let off 40 rounds of 9mm steel balls.
You're focusing too much on the tools used and not on WHY.
Laughner was determined to kill on that day, as was every other mass murder in history.
My question about the Tuscon shooting is where the hell was her security and why didn't they do their job?

In Aurora, you had a 90 second police response and the shooter went shotgun, rifle, pistol and walked. Odds are pretty good that had the rifle mag not jammed, it would have been a lot more effective than the Glock.

No, odds don't mean shit.
I keep hearing from gun-control nutjobs about how on the one hand James Holmes would have done all kinds of damage with the AR-15, but on the other hand a person with a CCW couldn't have taken him down because the theater was smoke filled and dark.
Which is it?
I ask because a rifle isn't easy to hit with at close range, that's why SWAT teams use 9mm MP5's and SHOTGUNS for CQB.

Even when the shooter has more time, the extra weight and bulk will impact his movement speed and carrying capacity - it's not lost on me that Breivik had 300 rounds ready to go.

Good, then you also know that Breivik had planned out his attack well, and used explosive during it.
Had he not had a rifle, it is clear he would have used other means because he was determined to kill those people.

Those facts mean a lot more to me than irrelevant statistics do.

You mean your ASSUMPTIONS mean more to you.
Just because you imagine more carnage from hi-cap mags does not make it so.
I realize you fantasize about Holmes killing off many more people because of the evil and scary looking Beta-C magazine, but the fact is there is no way to know.
To use the same line the hoplophobes keep yammering on about, the theater was dark, smoke filled, and not conducive to shooting a weapon that requires you to aim it to hit with any accuracy.

[DonQuigleone]

[QUOTE=GundamFan0083;4284958]Yeah, we in the US also have far more gangs than you do DQ.
There are 29,000 gangs in the USA, and 756,000 gang members (estimated).
What do you think the UK would look like (not just Ireland) if you had that?
[quote]
Eh, we have gangs too, the difference is that our gangs don't have guns. If Ireland had the same number of gang members per capita as the US it would be 11340 gang members. Unfortunately, I don't know of any statistics that have been put out on the matter.

The studies from the NEJM, JAMA, the other studies (that are neutral) have all indicated gun control does not reduce crime.
Therefore it becomes not an issue of guns, but of cultural and society factors.
That's the problem in the US.
Violence is glorified as some kind of means of wealth and respect.
Why do you think gangs are so appealing to our youth?

Obviously an issue, but I don't think there's any kind of consensus out there regarding the efficacy of gun control. Anyway, I know it's difficult to prove that gun control prevents crime-related deaths overall. I think I have presented good arguments for the idea that extensive unregulated gun ownership does not make a given society "safer", all else being equal.

Two guys come up on each side of your pickup truck at a 7/11 gas station in Commerce City Colorado at dusk while you're filling up. They pull a knife, you pull a gun (.357 magnum), and they flee.

Firstly, how often do muggings happen at gas stations? It's out in the open, the people working at the gas station will see it in progress, and they also have to face the possibility that other drivers will get involved.

Oh, and a scenario before the gun, you live in Woonsocket RI, you piss of a guy at an Applebees on Diamond Hill, he follows you out to your car and takes a few shots at you (misses, thank God or I wouldn't be posting this) and fills your Ford Fairmont (I know, a grandma mobile) trunk with 9mm from what looked like a tech-9 (illegal in that state BTW).

If these are personal experiences, you seem to attract a lot of trouble...

You are correct, they ARE NOT a shield and should not be thought of as such.
They are a tool that puts you on equal or greater footing with an assailant.
In CQB with a knife, you chances of getting cut somewhere on your body are very high. What we were taught is that if the person is less than 21 feet from you, you're going to get cut, the trick is to control where you get cut so that you can retaliate with force (preferably a gun).
However, if you can get away, you run...even if you have a gun on you.
If you can't the gun is better to have than not.

Maybe I'm a coward, but I'll take the loss of my wallet ahead of blood loss from a bullet/knife wound. If they're that close, I'd just give them what they wanted (most robbers are only in it for the money). If you showed your gun they might panic and seriously injure you (particularly if they have a gun).

Vermont has open carry and carry without permit laws. They also have a much more educated and affluent population than either Georgia (I assume you meant Atlanta), or New York.
That's part of the problem, there's too much damn poverty in the US and thus we're back to the gang problem again.

Those were all statewide statistics, I didn't get city statistics. Rural states all had lower crime rates, but then most Americans live in cities anyway... All the states I looked at with cities had murder rates above 4 per 100,000, irrespective of gun laws. The worst was Louisiana, with 11.

I see no positive relationship between crime statistics and the ability within a state to defend yourself with a gun, that said, this is just through quickly glancing at the numbers.

That's too broad of a statement.
You aren't factoring all the variables.
Guns for self-defense are excellent.
Guns for defense if you're in a gang, or if your spouse/relative wants you dead...not so much.

I don't see how guns for self defense are excellent. The assailant will always strike first. And if you have lax gun laws he will always have a gun. With gun control, he'll be stuck with a knife, while you may have a gun that you registered with the authorities (that I still don't think will help much but...). Either way, keeping guns out of the hands of common criminals is a good, and achievable goal.

In Britain and Ireland, the population is not completely disarmed. People can still own a rifle, and under certain circumstances even carry it around. You just have to go through a background checks, can't resell your weapon, and it prevents common criminals from getting weapons cheaply. The average teen shoplifter has no idea how to get a gun, and is subsequently a lot more easily subdued when the gardai roll around.

People can keep guns if they want, it's just not usually necessary. In the North it's still legal to carry guns openly for "self defense" (this is not a just reason in the south). I don't think it's led to lower crime levels in the North. Though the North is complicated.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think I have presented good arguments for the idea that extensive unregulated gun ownership does not make a given society "safer", all else being equal.

Neither does extensive gun ownership regulation, especially when you consider that there is no such thing as "all else being equal" in the real world. Once you start comparing different countries, you start running into completely different social-economic situations, culture, population density, laws, etc, making an already tenuous comparison even more so.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Firstly, how often do muggings happen at gas stations? It's out in the open, the people working at the gas station will see it in progress, and they also have to face the possibility that other drivers will get involved.

In the US? quite often actually, and you'd be surprised at the level of apathy that people shows towards other. We're living in a world where people would be more likely to take out their phones and record you slowly dying on the side of the road so they can post it on youtube or facebook, than actually helping you or call for help.

here is a local example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pped-help.html

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Maybe I'm a coward, but I'll take the loss of my wallet ahead of blood loss from a bullet/knife wound. If they're that close, I'd just give them what they wanted (most robbers are only in it for the money). If you showed your gun they might panic and seriously injure you (particularly if they have a gun).

Nobody said you should get all gung-ho and try to draw your own weapon when someone else already have theirs in your face, that's just pure stupidity. That being said, being armed means you have the option to resist, instead of depending on the mercy of the criminal in front of you whether you will live or die.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I see no positive relationship between crime statistics and the ability within a state to defend yourself with a gun, that said, this is just through quickly glancing at the numbers.

This is one of the issues with crime statistics, crimes actually stopped or deterred by civilian gun owners are not included. There is no such category as Deterred home invasion or Robbery-stopped-halfway-by-private-gun-owners.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I don't see how guns for self defense are excellent. The assailant will always strike first. And if you have lax gun laws he will always have a gun. With gun control, he'll be stuck with a knife, while you may have a gun that you registered with the authorities (that I still don't think will help much but...). Either way, keeping guns out of the hands of common criminals is a good, and achievable goal.

First... have you ever fired a gun? have you had trainings with a firearm? I suspect that has a large part to do with your perception that guns cannot be used effectively as a self-defense tool.

Second, those are false assumptions on your part. By your logic all robberies and other crimes etc. in the US would be committed by armed criminals, which is factually incorrect. Neither would restrictive gun control in the US magically wills away the quite literal hundreds of millions of firearms, which means those who wants to will still be armed, especially criminals.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

In the US? quite often actually, and you'd be surprised at the level of apathy that people shows towards other. We're living in a world where people would be more likely to take out their phones and record you slowly dying on the side of the road so they can post it on youtube or facebook, than actually helping you or call for help.

here is a local example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pped-help.html

It happens, it's just rare, that's why it's remarkable enough to be in the newspaper.

Nobody said you should get all gung-ho and try to draw your own weapon when someone else already have theirs in your face, that's just pure stupidity. That being said, being armed means you have the option to resist, instead of depending on the mercy of the criminal in front of you whether you will live or die.

I just can't foresee their being a high likelihood of me ever needing to use that option.

This is one of the issues with crime statistics, crimes actually stopped or deterred by civilian gun owners are not included. There is no such category as Deterred home invasion or Robbery-stopped-halfway-by-private-gun-owners.

If guns made you safer, you'd expect the murder rate to be lower in states with concealed carry laws etc. but, in fact, the murder rate is basically the exact same. As far as I can see, the only major predictive factor I can see on murder rates on the US is how urban/rural that state is. Otherwise, most states all have basically the same murder rates. The murder rates in states with concealed carry, and castle laws, are basically the same as those without. It makes no difference.

And if Guns don't make society as a whole safer, I don't see the point of all these self-defense arguments.

First... have you ever fired a gun? have you had trainings with a firearm? I suspect that has a large part to do with your perception that guns cannot be used effectively as a self-defense tool.

What would you expect of a man living in a country with 5 guns for every 100 people?

Second, those are false assumptions on your part. By your logic all robberies and other crimes etc. in the US would be committed by armed criminals, which is factually incorrect.

A lot of robberies etc. are commited by armed criminals, while the opposite is true here. I can only conclude that gun control laws reduces the number of armed criminals, and restricts criminals as a whole to less lethal weaponry.

Neither would restrictive gun control in the US magically wills away the quite literal hundreds of millions of firearms, which means those who wants to will still be armed, especially criminals.

Of course. In bringing in gun control, you wouldn't do it all at once. It would be implemented gradually, over a number of years. You would restrict new sales, while seeking to impound existing weapons, and grandfathering certain others.

Recreational use of guns forms an integral part of American culture, this is not something in itself that needs changed. It's not elimination of guns. It's restriction and control of guns. Guns are potent, and owning and using a gun requires a lot of responsibility. We should ensure that only people with clean backgrounds, who will use the gun with the utmost care and caution, should have access to them. If you are a responsible adult, and you wish to own a gun, there should be nothing stopping you.

Even Ireland, with perhaps the most stringent gun laws in the world, still allows responsible individuals to own rifles and a few other categories of guns.

By requiring all guns to be registered with the government, the avenues for sales to criminals is cut down, and your average criminal will find it a lot harder to get his hands on a gun.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It happens, it's just rare, that's why it's remarkable enough to be in the newspaper.

No, it happens a crap ton (gas station robberies etc.), that one made the news headline because of who the victim was and the egregiousness of the bystander's reactions, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I just can't foresee their being a high likelihood of me ever needing to use that option.

Good for you, but that's a personal decision that should be made by each individual.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If guns made you safer, you'd expect the murder rate to be lower in states with concealed carry laws etc. but, in fact, the murder rate is basically the exact same. As far as I can see, the only major predictive factor I can see on murder rates on the US is how urban/rural that state is. Otherwise, most states all have basically the same murder rates. The murder rates in states with concealed carry, and castle laws, are basically the same as those without. It makes no difference.

Not sure where you're getting your information from...

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

the murder rate among the 50 states goes anywhere from 0.9 to 12.3. If you add in Washington D.C., then it becomes 24.2. Ironically, D.C. had one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the entire US (and still do).

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

What would you expect of a man living in a country with 5 guns for every 100 people?

Then perhaps you may want to refrain from commenting on the effectiveness of a firearm as a defensive tool when you knows nothing about it.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Of course. In bringing in gun control, you wouldn't do it all at once. It would be implemented gradually, over a number of years. You would restrict new sales, while seeking to impound existing weapons, and grandfathering certain others.

Before or after the civil war?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Recreational use of guns forms an integral part of American culture, this is not something in itself that needs changed. It's not elimination of guns. It's restriction and control of guns. Guns are potent, and owning and using a gun requires a lot of responsibility. We should ensure that only people with clean backgrounds, who will use the gun with the utmost care and caution, should have access to them. If you are a responsible adult, and you wish to own a gun, there should be nothing stopping you.

Funny enough that's what we have in the US already, we just disagree on the degree of restriction and control.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Even Ireland, with perhaps the most stringent gun laws in the world, still allows responsible individuals to own rifles and a few other categories of guns.

Nope, not really, there are plenty of countries that outright bans any civilian gun ownership.

[Ithekro]

What is funny is that nearly all the weapons used for criminal activities are the same ones used for recreational use. The only difference is the user and the target.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What is funny is that nearly all the weapons used for criminal activities are the same ones used for recreational use. The only difference is the user and the target.

Kind of like gasoline, fertilizer, automobiles, axes, hatchets, bats, machetes, etc.

Someone with a machete could probably kill 20 people at a busy marketplace before anyone could react ... oh yeah, that's been done.

http://gothamist.com/2008/07/12/stabbings.php
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...achetes_of.php
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94206&page=1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12015165
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7442327.stm

Intent can create a lot of mayhem no matter what the tool...

I have two machetes I use for brush clearing... I would *not* want to be near someone waving one at me, the tools are extremely fast, light, and lethal .... :P