General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by kyp275

sigh, way to misconstrue what I was saying.

what I meant was exactly what I said: you post one where gun is misused, someone else will respond with one where gun was used for proper defense, and you'll end up going back and forth, in the end achieving exactly nothing.

edit: pff, you know the Patriots will win again

Agreed.
The incidents of firearms being used for self defense has been studied, and while hard data is somewhat difficult to acquire. Some does exist as Professor Gary Kleck pointed out years ago.

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)



In other words, the FBI crime statistics reports fail at showing how many violent crimes involving a weapon are criminal on criminal, or are gang members on other gang members. While the statistics can confirm the participants knew each other in the incident leading to a murder, it doesn't classify if the incidents were simply due to criminal activity in the first place.

Additionally, Dr. Kleck did an updated paper in 1997 (during the high point of violence in the US over the last 30 years) and came to the following conclusion:

A deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership and defensive use has not been conclusively established, any more than it has been for activities of the legal system. Given the nature of deterrent effects, it may never be convincingly established. Nevertheless, available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that civilian ownership and defensive use of guns deters violent crime and reduces burglar-linked injuries.

Economic injustice, a history of racism, and other factors have created dangerous conditions in many places in America. Police cannot realistically be expected to provide personal protection for every American, and indeed are not even legally obliged to do so. Although gun ownership is no more an all-situations, magical source of protection than the police, it can be a useful source of safety in addition to police protection, burglary alarms, guard dogs, and all the other resources people exploit to improve their security. These sources are not substitutes for one another. Rather, they are complements, each useful in different situations. Possession of a gun gives its owner an additional option for dealing with danger. If other sources of security are adequate, the gun does not have to be used; but where other sources fail, it can preserve bodily safety and property in at least some situations.

People sympathetic toward gun control yet skeptical about its likely impact sometimes note that although a world in which there were no guns would be desirable, it is also unachievable. The evidence raises a more radical possibility--that a world in which no one had guns would actually be less safe than a hypothetical one in which nonaggressors had guns and aggressors did not.

If gun possession among prospective victims tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not, in and of itself, a social good. To disarm noncriminals in the hope that this might indirectly help reduce access to guns among criminals is a very high-stakes gamble, and the risks will not be reduced by pretending that crime victims rarely use guns for self-defense.

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Guns, easy to obtain? Only in America, and by unfortunate proximity Mexico.

In the rest of the world, only organised crime use them. Guns are too valuable for normal criminals to use. They are status symbols for people who know people. America is not the universe.

I'll be frank here, who cares what is or isn't easy to obtain in the rest of the world? This whole Gun debate revolves around America and all that it entails. America may not be universe, but it is essentially this thread as of late.

So let me reiterate myself, Guns are easy to obtain for criminals, and they will continue to be, because there is no real means to remove the majority of them from circulation without paying each individual owner to scrap them. And do you really think that's something they should waste their money on, given their already trillions of dollar debt?

[hyl]

Originally Posted by kyp275

ah, I see (I KNEW this would happen!). Naw, I'm not actually advocating a ban on alcohol or smoking etc, I'm merely using them as examples to show the double standard that some have.

I think most people are using double standards because they don't see alcohol and smoking as a direct threat to harming or even killing people.

[maplehurry]

Those teachers are responsible for those children while they are in their care, and that means protecting them with a gun.

But that means (almost) every parents should also be armed. Well, i suppose that's not too big of a deal.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

As for the home, that's different, as the home is a person's castle, and they should be able to do whatever they like in it, so long as it doesn't endanger anyone.

My firearms also doesn't endanger anyone

As for Guns, they cause harm all on their own

I beg to differ, a gun certainly can't cause harm all on their own, there needs to be a human behind the trigger, just like there needs to be a human who make the conscious decision to drink and drive or smoke by others.

That said, I think an important consideration is talk to Law enforcement. I'm sure their job is made a lot harder by criminals having easy access to high powered rifles...Unfortunately, I don't hear the voice of the police much in these debates

For what it's worth, most of my buddies from my old unit who went LE after they got out are pretty much pro-gun, some were city cop, some went sheriff, others state troopers, and a few ended up on SWAT squads - and so have all of my professors during my criminal justice studies, whom were either active or retired police chiefs with 20-30+ years on the force.

That said, police are humans jut like everyone else, there are anti-gun police, just like there are anti-gun military etc., but as a whole I think you'll find that there are more that are pro-gun than anti-gun.

[Kaijo]

I should clarify, in case there is any confusion, that the FBI data I used was from the UCR program, which gathers it's information from law enforcement agencies around the country, and thus is fairly accurate for what it is.

Originally Posted by Demi.

So let me reiterate myself, Guns are easy to obtain for criminals, and they will continue to be, because there is no real means to remove the majority of them from circulation without paying each individual owner to scrap them. And do you really think that's something they should waste their money on, given their already trillions of dollar debt?

The thing is, many countries have actually managed to remove guns from the population (criminals included), so it is doable. It just requires the will. Although everytime this is pointed out, we usually get someone to say the US is a "special" child in the world, and does not conform to the silly notions of the rest of the world.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

My firearms also doesn't endanger anyone

It depends with how safely they are secured . My bad wiring doesn't harm anyone until my house catches fire and then burns the whole neighborhood down...



I beg to differ, a gun certainly can't cause harm all on their own, there needs to be a human behind the trigger, just like there needs to be a human who make the conscious decision to drink and drive or smoke by others.
[/QUOTE] Yes, I was just excluding the "common element", but whereas a person simply imbibing alcohol is relatively harmless, a person with a gun could be quite harmful, though primarily if they possess the following qualities:
1. Are minors, for obvious reasons.
2. Are inebriated, when you're drunk you mightn't think before pulling a gun on someone, just like you don't think before crashing into that other car, or think before punching that guy, or think before having sex with that ugly girl....
3. Are mentally ill.
4. Have a bad personality (being particularly panicky, aggressive or plain stupid).
5. Are involved in a criminal enterprise.

Now we can't really stop all of these types of people from having a gun (particularly 4 and maybe 2), but we can take steps to try to limit the rest.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I beg to differ, a gun certainly can't cause harm all on their own, there needs to be a human behind the trigger, just like there needs to be a human who make the conscious decision to drink and drive or smoke by others.

Fundamental difference remains that an individual who drinks and drives or smokes in the presence of others has no intention to do harm, it is a side effect of irresponsible behavior. Most people who are wounded or die from gun-violence were not the victims of accidents but of intentional action.

[hyl]

Kind of interesting how this debate is pretty much never ending because people of both sides will never be convinced no matter how good arguments are presented at each other.

As someone who doesn't live in the US and in a pretty "safe"country where firearms are restricted, i can understand why people want a fire arms ban because they hope to achieve more safety (atleast want to feel more safe and secure).

But on the other hand, i have seen the society where i live in get slowly more violent and anti-social every day and there are some times when the people in my town wanted something to feel safer by wanting to defend themselves with. (despite a heavy restriction of fire arms in my country, criminals (not petty ones, but those more heavier ones associated in crimes on a larger scale) can still obtain fire arms and random shootings still happen but luckily those are pretty rare)

This is why i am neutral about it, because both sides are both right as having weapons both make you feel safer and make the people around feel less secure (unless they also have some kind of weapon , but that would be like a vicious circle).

Also i am not taking account the cultural differences in the US, because i know that the people there can obtain weapons easier legally due to the (i think) 2nd amendment

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I liked those games, though I have yet to play 4 (still working on Alter Code F, to use the save data).

Oops, I mean, I am deathly afraid of those games and their guns becomes I am a Hoplo or something.

You haven't played Wild Arms 4?! Well, I guess that's not such a bad idea, saving the best for last. There's a lot of bakas out there who dislike Wild Arms 4 so it's become the black sheep of the series, but it's my own personal favorite. I could probably start a farm with all the black sheeps I've taken in over the years, actually...


So this doesn't get deleted for being off-topic, here are some deep words of wisdom concerning guns: guns are dangerous, but only because the bullets are projected at such a high speed. If you simply throw a bullet at someone, it's unlikely to cause much harm.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I should clarify, in case there is any confusion, that the FBI data I used was from the UCR program, which gathers it's information from law enforcement agencies around the country, and thus is fairly accurate for what it is.

Uh, you realize that the FBI report IS from the UCR right? FBI doesn't collect their own crime data.

And the UCR has a whole host of issues all its own, it's far from an end-all-be-all stat, as said so by the FBI themselves, but here's a link to pretty intro level CJ textbook that explains it in more detail:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cif...ed=0CEoQ6AEwBA

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I beg to differ, a gun certainly can't cause harm all on their own, there needs to be a human behind the trigger, just like there needs to be a human who make the conscious decision to drink and drive or smoke by others.

I agree absolutely. A gun does not have a mind, and people who personify them as such simply do not have an understanding of this concept.

(Also, the concept of an anti-gun LE is so foreign to me that it's hard for me to believe that people think most LE and military are anti-gun )

[GundamFan0083]

Here is a great article on this subject and the list of their data.

Five fallacies about guns and violence
http://www.justfactsdaily.com/five-f...s-and-violence

The data for the article and link:

Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

* Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."


Here is the "Click Here" information as to why the last statistic was eliminated:

* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]


* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])



Clearly gun control does not work in the United States as demonstrated by the areas of the country having the highest murder rates (Chicago, DC, Detroit, etc) also have the strictest gun control laws.

Comparisons to other countries fail due to differnces in population density, organized crime groups, poverty levels, and variances in the gathering of crime data.
Violent crime is the key concern here since mass shootings are a rare event no matter how much the media chooses to hype it.

[Lightning_Wing]

Clearly gun control does not work in the United States as demonstrated by the areas of the country having the highest murder rates (Chicago, DC, Detroit, etc) also have the strictest gun control laws.

Remember the argument against that, however, that the gun laws in the cities are not in place just outside the limits and that causes the high murder rates.

Not that I don't agree with you, however.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

I agree absolutely. A gun does not have a mind, and people who personify them as such simply do not have an understanding of this concept.

(Also, the concept of an anti-gun LE is so foreign to me that it's hard for me to believe that people think most LE and military are anti-gun )

The police in my country are pretty keen on keeping guns out, mostly because they don't want to be heroes who died in the line of duty.

Can't speak for other countries.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The police in my country are pretty keen on keeping guns out, mostly because they don't want to be heroes who died in the line of duty.

Can't speak for other countries.

The police in my country are pretty "useless" when it comes to armed crime. They rarely have guns and more often non lethal weapons like tear gas >_>
I even read in the papers that most people working in the police don't know how to fire a handgun, because it's not manditory to learn.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

Remember the argument against that, however, that the gun laws in the cities are not in place just outside the limits and that causes the high murder rates.

Not that I don't agree with you, however.

I know LW, but the counter to that argument is that if the gun control laws of those cities worked then there would not be illegal firearms in those cities.
Also, why are the surrounding areas less violent than the cities themselves if in these areas just outside the cities, where firearm ownership is less restricted, there is less violent crime.
No matter how you approach this issue the facts are the same.
Gun control in the forms of bans, simply do not work.
Now, that's not to say a universal background check wouldn't help, I've no problem with those provided the legislation passed makes it unlawful for the keeping of records of who has purchased what. Meaning we don't need a national registry, but we do need an instant criminal & mental health check on all purchases.
I don't oppose that provided it doesn't become a form of registration or tracking of who owns what, since as New York just proved, that becomes a means of confiscation.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by hyl

The police in my country are pretty "useless" when it comes to armed crime. They rarely have guns and more often non lethal weapons like tear gas >_>
I even read in the papers that most people working in the police don't know how to fire a handgun, because it's not manditory to learn.

Same in mine. We keep a "special" armed force. I haven't really read about any armed shootouts happening recently...

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Uh, you realize that the FBI report IS from the UCR right? FBI doesn't collect their own crime data.

And the UCR has a whole host of issues all its own, it's far from an end-all-be-all stat, as said so by the FBI themselves, but here's a link to pretty intro level CJ textbook that explains it in more detail:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cif...ed=0CEoQ6AEwBA

Oh, of course. And as your own link says, "rates are more for comparative purposes then absolute numbers." So, while the exact numbers maybe not be entirely accurate, the percentage is. That's why I included the percentage. So, 67% is roughly accurate for the percentage of people killed by a gun in 2009, and 1.4% is roughly accurate. That's how statistics work. You get a sample size and develop %'s. The larger the sample size, the more accurate it is.

That's why, in the past election, the poll results we got were so accurate in predicting the winners. Well, there was a particular side that whined about the liberal leftist media and it's skewed polls, and so developed their own... only to be proven wrong in November.

So, I tend to side with the experts and the data.

And we need to start somewhere with regards to numbers. When more accurate numbers are produced, I'll look at them. And it's not only the FBI's numbers that I look at, either. There are specific studies, like the one I re-quoted above , that took place in King County, and the papers in various scientific, peer-reviewed journals. Also, the UN reports. And when all of those paint a similar picture, well, I figure it probably has some amount of truth there.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Gun control in the forms of bans, simply do not work.

A couple dozen countries would tend to disprove that.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

(Also, the concept of an anti-gun LE is so foreign to me that it's hard for me to believe that people think most LE and military are anti-gun )

It's not so strange. Fire-arms provide a massive first-strike advantage. I can imagine LE would prefer that the individuals they are likely to face wouldn't have easy access to guns.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

A couple dozen countries would tend to disprove that.

Bans are all or nothing. Local bans or banning particular types of weapons don't work, nor can the underground market be ignored.