[Cloud9...68]

I guess it was inevitable that this discussion would veer toward a debate on gun control. Personally, never having been around guns, and having zero interest in them, it wouldn't break my heart if every gun in the country were rounded up and melted down, but that's about as practical as rounding up every undocumented alien, deporting them, and making sure they don't return without going through the proper channels (how's that for covering both sides of the political spectrum?).



While I believe the founders of this country were some of most brilliant people ever collected around a single endeavor, a lot has changed since those times. Back then, the way most people lived, owning a gun was a necessity. Today, that's true for only a tiny percentage of the population. It's really hard to argue against Cosimo's point that the countries with the fewest guns in circulation tend to have the lowest crime rates.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[tamathumper]

I'd be interested in a notation on where that statistic came from, considering that I've read exactly the opposite. I don't know which is *actually* true, but here's an example of what I read that is counter to it, and it would be nice to read both sides of the coin...

====================================================



Violent Crime Increased When Countries Banned Guns

[left]Gun-control advocates conveniently ignore the fact that the countries with the highest homicide rates have gun bans, says researcher John R. Lott Jr. The three worst public shootings in the past year all occurred in Europe, which has enacted everything American gun-control proponents favor.

[/left][left]Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar.[/left]

• In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent.
  
  
• Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnappings by 43 percent.
  
  
• While murders in Australia fell by 3 percent, manslaughter rose by 16 percent.
  
  

[left]Finally, he notes, there exists not one single academic study showing that the federal Brady Act, assault-weapons bans, state waiting periods, background checks, one-gun-a-month rules or safe-storage laws reduce violent crime. Some research even finds that these rules increase crime.

[/left][left]Source: John R. Lott Jr. (American Enterprise Institute), "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today, May 9, 2002.

[/left]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='tamathumper' timestamp='1342996092' post='129754']

I'd be interested in a notation on where that statistic came from, considering that I've read exactly the opposite. I don't know which is *actually* true, but here's an example of what I read that is counter to it, and it would be nice to read both sides of the coin...

====================================================



Violent Crime Increased When Countries Banned Guns

[left]Gun-control advocates conveniently ignore the fact that the countries with the highest homicide rates have gun bans, says researcher John R. Lott Jr. The three worst public shootings in the past year all occurred in Europe, which has enacted everything American gun-control proponents favor.

[/left][left]Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar.[/left]

• In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent.
  
  
• Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnappings by 43 percent.
  
  
• While murders in Australia fell by 3 percent, manslaughter rose by 16 percent.
  
  

[left]Finally, he notes, there exists not one single academic study showing that the federal Brady Act, assault-weapons bans, state waiting periods, background checks, one-gun-a-month rules or safe-storage laws reduce violent crime. Some research even finds that these rules increase crime.

[/left][left]Source: John R. Lott Jr. (American Enterprise Institute), "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today, May 9, 2002.



[/quote]





Complete nonsense article with statistics presented in the most ridiculously distorted spin I have ever seen.. Yes, the worst mass shooting happened in Europe ( Norway ) , but it conveniently fails to mention it was the only incident of its kind in a century, where here in the US it's commonplace. Yes, gun crime in UK rose by an " astounding 40 %..." .. uhhh, yeah, from 30 gun murders A YEAR to 50. We have 50 gun murders every 10 hours of every single day in the U.S.. Seriously, John R. Lott Jr ?!! The guy is a moron. [/left]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

AFAIK, the majority of crime, and incarceration in our wonderful privately owned prisons is related to drugs, and the drug war. Which is a medical issue, and more of a disease in the non technical sense of the word. How it became a crime is another story, and another debate though. The forefathers meant for the right to bear arms to be for more than just feeding ourselves. They also meant it so we had the choice to protect ourselves from tyranny, both foreign, and domestic. There is no military or even group of people on earth that could come marching into mainland USA. Even if they somehow did get past the military, and guards, etc....there are civilians armed to the teeth just waiting for it to happen. Take it away, and we become more vulnerable, and dependant on our government for protection. As big as it may grow, govt can never be everywhere all the time, in every instance to protect us. It simply isnt possible. If it was possible to have an all knowing, all seeing govt everywhere at all times, this tragedy wouldnt have happened. To me..the only true cost of freedom, and liberty, is responsibility.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Man, i tried to avoid the gun control debate, but no such luck.. Ok, here's the solution <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.png" class="smilie" alt="" /> : ( it'll never happen, it cannot possibly happen in this society, but I have all the answers, nonetheless <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/unsure.png" class="smilie" alt="" /> ) Here we go : even for those who believe the constitutional right was for every citizen to bear arms and not just an organized "militia" , fine let's just go with that, but the constitution does not define "arms" so there would be no problem passing a federal law which prohibits everything except , say, a single action .22 caliber rifle at least 4 ft long impossible to conceal and/or carry around without attracting attention .. better yet, a musket ! You now have your constitutional rights ( or one debatable interpretation thereof.. ) still preserved . However, simple possession of anything else ( handgun, etc ) is statutorily punishable by life in prison without parole. No discretion allowed any judge in sentencing. Everyone has a month to turn in their weapons or risk being caught with one and spend the rest of their life in prison. No appeal, no nothing, you have one, you're done. Criminal, or good citizen alike. Would criminals turn in their guns knowing life in prison without parole is their fate if they are caught with it ? Probably not all, but a wild guess would say the majority will...even criminals value their freedom. And if you commit a crime while in possession of a gun, again, statutorily you get capital punishment. No appeal and execution carried out in a week. Military state enacted for a year or two with the army conducting sweeping random searches of homes, cars, etc looking for weapons, to enforce the law. If one is found, you spend life in prison. Draconian you say ? Violating all the liberties we enjoy and rely on, you say ? Sure, and that's why it'll never happen now or at any time in the near foreseeable future, but if you have a better solution, write your congressman, no doubt they'll get on it right away <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/unsure.png" class="smilie" alt="" /> I think we just need to realize that we have 35,000 people killed by guns here every year and it's not changing anytime soon. The occasional massacre is just par for the course because of some deranged nutcase who snaps and goes on a rampage, and those guys will never turn in their weapons, but if you think one armed good guy can stop someone like that, you're only fooling yourself. Chances are far greater that armed good guy will shoot someone in his family or someone else in a fit of anger or road rage, or whatnot..than the chance of being in the right place at the right time and stop some mad gunman clad in body armor and an AK 47.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

Huh, a militia...what is that? Those are all evil terrorists, and just fronts for the KKK. I know cause the the mainstream media told me, and they dont lie. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.png" class="smilie" alt="" /> Good luck organizing one of those. The chances may be remote, but they do make armor piercing rounds. I know one well armed good guy could end that. You do make good points though.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Wow, Dan, an impressive proposal. Definitely an interesting read, and I have to say, I agree with much, if not all, of what you've said.



I'm afraid gun control is an all-or-nothing affair - it won't do any good to pass more laws to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychos, while allowing law-abiding citizens to continue to own them. Either every gun in the country needs to be confiscated, or we need to resign ourselves to the status quo, with the attendant occasional massacre like the one in Colorado as the price we have to pay. And as you say, mass confiscation will never happen.



Also, Monstrous has a very good point about an armed citizenry making a foreign invasion an almost absurd concept - it's a point my dad, who emigrated from Hungary in 1956, and never owned a gun in his life, once made to me. But in this day of high tech warfare, I'm not sure a foreign invasion is something to lose a whole lot of sleep over.

As always, no easy answers...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

duplicate, please delete. browser problems.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[tamathumper]

Actually, the article was written in 2002, so Norway hadn't happened yet. But at least an example was provided, is there a citation for the original statistic?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

An armed invasion of the U.S. by Canadians or Mexicans is a frightening prospect :-) We'll be forced to watch hockey on every channel and mow our own lawns . Sorry, could not resist.

Tama, I did not notice the date of the article, now I wonder what incidents it may have refenced in Europe ? The were some school shootings in England I think, and perhaps another one or two elsewhere in similar gun related events where five or six may have been killed, but again those happen at decades long intervals in Europe, and at century or half century intervals in any given single country, where here in the good ole' USA it's every other year it seems. But the point was really the astonishing totality of gun deaths and injuries here compared to any other civilized place on earth. Anyway, to my earlier point, no solution so useless to debate, just frustrating and very sad to see.

Incidentally, I do own a rifle ( a Ruger semiautomatic, using 5.56 "NATO" ammunition ), bought soon after someone I knew suffered a terrifying home invasion, but if a law was passed to turn it in under penalty of mandatory prison , I'd be the first in the return line with it.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

Hey now, I love hockey. Grew up playing it in Illinois..maybe even coulda got a ride if my mother didnt move me to the damn desert at 13. Dont threaten me with a good time. Haha

The fact that these things happen in Europe at all drives home my point that a ban wont stop it. But yes, a useless debate. The guns arent going anywhere in our lifetimes. The quo will remain.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

I love hockey also, just could not think of anything else to say about " invading Canadians.." Speaking of.... one of the most bizarre coincidences of this tragedy is the girl ( aspiring sports reporter I believe ) who was on vacation in Toronto during the mall shooting there a month or so ago and tweeted about the experience of being right in the line of fire with bullets nearly missing her and hitting other victims...and then a few weeks later she is shot and killed in the Aurora theatre ! I regret not remembering her name right at this moment ..

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

I lived in DC for a long time. In the 80's it was the murder Capitol of the world. Guess what they have? A highly restrictive gun ban. We had lots of guns in the house to protect ourselves living on a street with two crack houses. Every nite it was like the OK Corral. This ban didn't work too well and still doesn't. getting rid of something, banning it or modeling strong legislation against it rarely works. It's against the law to kill people. Some states still have the death penalty, although it takes 30 years or so to run through the legal system and actually be executed. So even the threat of the death penalty and incarceration for illegal gun possession doesn't stop those that want to possess guns and use them in a commission of a crime. It's against the law to drive drunk. Lots of laws to deal with this issue. While drunk driving may have gone down, sober check points and education providing much of the reason, it still occurs everyday. I guess my point is that there is only so much a free society can do or be willing to do to prevent this type of senseless tragedy. unless of course we agree that we are willing to give up even more of our rights and freedoms all under the guise of preventing something that will continue to happen. I'm not interested in giving up more of my rights and freedoms. They are already under the most massive assault that we have seen in most of our lifetimes. Giving up freedom doesn't make one safe!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[tamathumper]

All good points.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

like I said, forget debating "gun control" measures, there will never be an answer to that dilemma for the U.S., but on a related matter does anyone care to speculate why we're exponentially more violent than any other country in this entire world ( and please don't bring up the few countries in Africa where genocide and civil war has been going on for decades as a comparison..) I'm simply at a loss to understand the mentality , or culture , or socio-economics , or any other factors in our nation which leads to per capita murders that are not just 2 X ,or 3X, or 4X higher than anywhere else, but often hundreds of times higher.. ??

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[tamathumper]

Where can I read about that?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[blau]

Saw this online yesterday. Judging from the arsenal of bombs, grenades and etc they found while searching his home, I'm sure he could have picked up guns on the street if he weren't able to buy them legally.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='tamathumper' timestamp='1343062198' post='129816']

Where can I read about that?

[/quote]



you mean gun death rates ? just google " gun death rates in the world's countries " or similar search..

just for kicks, Japan with a population of little more than 1/3 rd of the U.S. has about 25 gun deaths a year. So let's increase their gun death by 3 X and you have 75 gun deaths per year.. compared to about 35,000 gun deaths per year here. There will be those who say, well.. it has to be because it's a homogeneous society, as are most countries in Europe so that's the expalnation .. in addition to being a largely racist excuse, that does not explain England , or Germany, which are far from homogeneous ( granted, not to the degree of our " melting pot " and not with the poverty rate, or lack of education, etc. as we have in this country, but still...) Again, no right answers, just obseravtions which have little explanation other than the ease of acquiring weapons, whether legally or illegally .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

Dan,



I agree with the punishment portion of your diatribe above, but I take issue with your assertion regarding the lawful ownership of guns. How can the possession of a legally own weapon represent a crime? If Ted Turner, on his sprawling ranch has the desire and capability to fire bazookas on his own property without infringing the rights of his neighbors who are you to deny him that right? Punish the crime, and I agree, punish it harshly!



I am firmly in favor of gun rights, but before you think I wave the NRA banner keep in mind that I temper my support of the "Gun Groups" by favoring waiting periods and registration requirements (and training, within reason).



JMHO,



Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[tamathumper]

If I were to believe Google (and NationMaster.com specifically), then in terms of total murders, the U.S. is ranked 63rd - so 62 countries have higher murder rates, they're just getting killed by something besides a firearm... Does that make it better somehow?



Then if we tally in all the people saved by firearms (that never makes the news or the statistics) we may come out on the positive side - should we discount someone's life being saved by having a legally owned firearm when their home is invaded? How about a statistic on rapes avoided - is there one of those?



My point is, I'd rather not make assertions based on Google searches for such a heady subject. I don't mind having an opinion, but people get unreasonable very quickly on this topic and some others. For instance, I'll bet this wouldn't have happened if we had an effective ban on marijuana. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/popcorn.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



Just kidding! Geez, don't get that thread started again. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.png" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.