Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Nothing]

And it is so true, people kill people, not guns. If someone wanted to kill another person, there is many things they could use, if guns were banned, they would be using something else. If you want me to make a list of things they could use, I would. But dont want to inspire some young nuts that may be viewing this, lol.

Australia has shown that making guns more difficult to obtain lowers the murder rate. The murder rate was lowered because the number of murders caused by guns was lowered. These people did not find a different weapon to murder somebody with.
Most murderers do not plot and scheme and find a way to kill somebody. Most murders are in the heat of the moment. Guns are a very good way to kill people and readily available.
So, making guns more difficult to get = fewer murders.
Guns > other weapons for killing people.

Also, Ireland has basically banned most guns and their murder rate shows it. There was not an influx of black market weapons into the country.

Having said that, I'm not for banning guns. How would you get rid of the 200 million guns in this country?

Hey Bar,

First of all, Australia is not the USA. Completely different. Can not compare apples to oranges. On that note, I would still agree that with a ban on guns, it would lead to less murders with guns. But at what cost? Me having the right not not have a gun to protect my property and family? Sorry, not my plan.

Second, if we banned guns, then I would not have the protection that MAY be needed down the road. You may have an increase in home invasions or burglaries. So steal from Peter to pay Paul. Less murders, but more people being robbed. I dont want to lose my rights because of some idiots that cant control themselves.

[Bargod]

I never said there should be a ban on guns. My only oppinion so far is that there should be national regulation and it should be strictly followed. Australia didn't ban guns, it just made them more difficult to get.
And I don't understand why you consider using other nations for examples "apples to oranges". If one country makes it harder to get guns, and their murder rate goes down, then it is fair to assume the same would happen in our country.
I just don't buy into the "more guns = safer society". If it were true their would be no crime in Texas. The vast majority of people I know own guns here, even ones that I thought wouldn't. But, of course, there is crime in Texas. Dallas and Houston have some of the worst crime in the nation.

[Bargod]

Here are some interesting stats from Centers for Disease Control and Department of Justice.

According to the CDC the second leading cause of death in 2003 for the ages 15-34 was accidental homicide with a firearm with 7,950 people killed.

ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF...intentional.pdf

Stats for 2001 (most recent I could find):
Causes of Homicide:
Firearm - 39,951
Cut/Pierce - 6,955
Suffocation - 2,147
Other - 10,036
Total - 59,089

67.6% of murders were commited with a firearm.

I read on a PRO gun site that only 2% if accidental gun deaths are from being mistaken for an intruder. So, by those numbers, 159 people between the ages of 15 and 34 may have been killed (in 2001) because they were mistaken for intruders. That seems like an awful lot of people. It can't be right. It seems like we'd hear about it more if it were. I googled mistaken identity intruder and came up with a bunch of results, but most of the results were about to instances.

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft.
*this includes police officers

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

For 1987-92 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000
incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but
not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen
probably exceeded the number of incidents.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm
Lot's of useful info.
15% of murder victems are spouse or family.
1/3 of victems know their assailant.
14% do not know their assailant.
Homicides committed by friends/acquaintances and strangers are more likely to involve guns than those committed by initmates or family members

Some pretty interesting #'s. Some of the graphs they show are very interesting as well. It's clear that you have to look at a bigger picture to see trends in crime. Rates are the lowest they've been since the 50's and 60's, but before that were as high as they were in the '90's but were at todays rates in the early 1900's, which is to say there are definate trends shown and I don't think that you can attribute any of them to more Americans keeping guns in the home.

[Nothing]

I never said there should be a ban on guns. My only oppinion so far is that there should be national regulation and it should be strictly followed. Australia didn't ban guns, it just made them more difficult to get.
And I don't understand why you consider using other nations for examples "apples to oranges". If one country makes it harder to get guns, and their murder rate goes down, then it is fair to assume the same would happen in our country.
I just don't buy into the "more guns = safer society". If it were true their would be no crime in Texas. The vast majority of people I know own guns here, even ones that I thought wouldn't. But, of course, there is crime in Texas. Dallas and Houston have some of the worst crime in the nation.

Comparing different countries is like comparing apples to oranges. For example, if you were to track how many people in Australia die from a heart attack each year vs USA, Im sure the USA has a much higher rate. Each country lives their lives completely differently than another. When you say Australia made it harder to get, what exactly did they do that made it harder?

Just because a change that another country made helped them out, doesnt necessarily mean it will have the same effect here is what Im getting at. Look at how FOOTBALL is here in the USA. Look at how it is around the rest of the world. Its a huge difference. Look at Soccer around the world, look at it in the USA. Completely different views from different societies.

This post has been edited by Nothing: 09/10/07 3:46pm

[Bargod]

Making guns more difficult to own directly resulted in fewer murders, thus lowering crime. There were no increases in poisonings, stabbing people to death, lynchings or any other way that "if somebody wants to kill somebody they will find a way". Most murders are done in the heat of the moment, and if you don't have a gun you are less likely to murder somebody.

*sorry for not notating where I got my Australia info.
http://www.aic.gov.au/
It's somewhere in there. It's difficult to find accurate info from anywhere but pure stats sites. Both sides cherry pick numbers to make their arguements. You have to find all the numbers to make sense of anything.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/06/08/1127171.htm
Above is an ABC news article I posted the first time I brought up Australia.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Well, it sure must be terrible living in a country where apparently none of you feel safe unless your packing heat.

I live in a place where I don't lock my door, day or night, nor do I own a gun. Amazingly, I don't constantly fear for my life either.

I suspected you were from another country, which one?



I wouldn't say that no one can feel safe unless they are packing heat in the U.S.. I do own guns, don't carry (illegal in my state) and don't fear for my life. My country has a constitution that guarantees my rights to own a gun if I so choose. It sure must be terrible living in a country where apparently none of it's citizens can be trusted.

And it is so true, people kill people, not guns. If someone wanted to kill another person, there is many things they could use, if guns were banned, they would be using something else. If you want me to make a list of things they could use, I would. But dont want to inspire some young nuts that may be viewing this, lol.

Look, it was you who posted an image of a woman either cringing in fear or pointing a gun at a person. You don't live it fear? Well, certainly that ad was selling fear, or in its place, the thrill of being able to shove a gun in the face of those that scare you.

Anyway, my country is Canada. We do have guns. My neighbor has many guns. And he uses the same rational to "defend his family' stuff, which I just laught at because there hasn't been a home invasion where I live by strangers...well, as far as I can remeber. Might as well put up nets to defend against killer flying squirrels! So, either the "safety" argument has to be either an excuse, or you live in some sort of fear that you can't protect yourself from serious dangers you perceive around you.

Anyway, again, my neighbor with the guns, he's a gun collector. OK, I can accept that. Get permits, be totally criminal free, etc. If you really want to collect guns, jump through a couple hoops. After all, "dynamite doesn't kill people, people kill people", but hey, pretty sure you still need to jump though a couple hoops before you can buy a crate of dynamite! Anyway, making it tougher to get guns allows you limit the amount of guns floating around. Houses do get broken into here, as anywhere. But at least most theives, who ALMOST ALWAYS invade when a house is empty, rarely gets to cart away a handful of weapons because the fact is not that many people have them, especially not easy-to-conceal weapons like submachine guns and handguns. I mean, come on. You say only the criminal will have guns....guess where the criminal get most of their guns. By stealing them from ordinary people!

Anyway, here's a couple most common myths that just do not stand up to any scutiny IMO.

1. "Guns don't kill people." A gun is a weapon. Its purpose and design is to kill. Cars aren't designed to kill, but guns are, and for little other purpose. Stop pretending guns and the murder rate have nothing in common.

2. "You can't compare to other countries, they are different." Countries that never had guns and have very different cultures, like Japan, I could accept as not being that relevant. But places like Australia and Ireland where guns were common and the culture was not terrible different...of course you can make comparisons! To dismiss this is to try and dismiss any evidence that you find contridictory.

3. "Only the criminal will have guns". All I know is the US has far a far higher percentage of people using guns to kill other people than a country to it's north that has a very similar culture, but not a "gun" culture. So how can that be, given far fewer law abiding citizens here (Canada) have guns? According to the "gun lobby" theory, our country should be overrun with criminal because they have all the guns, and we don't. In reality, it's the opposite. Less guns overall means less guns in circulation and less gun crimes, period.

I could go on, but I'm getting a little bored! Anyway, let people not get the impression I don't think guns are pretty cool. But if we took gun lobby arguments to their extreme and let everyone walk around with a gun, it'd be the wild west. Maybe you wouldn't get a massacre every 10 years where one or two guys get 20-30 people before being stopped, bu instead you'd have daily shoot-outs and literally 100's of more people blown away daily. Frankly, there's a lot of stupid, short tempered, emotional people out there, and I'd rather they didn't have the ability to buy a few guns on a whim.

Anyway, as for my comment about "living in a country with fear" I'll add that wasn't meant as an insult to America. More as a provacative statment to call people out on the argument that it is all about "protection", because I think the protection issue is mostly bull. A lot of people just like the power a gun offers in their hands, and the right to own guns has become a quasi-religious dogma in some peoples minds. Me, I might own a gun someday, but I'll uses it for either hunting/sporting, or target practice, and I won't complain like bloddy hell that it isn't a .45 calibre handgun that can blow a guys head off because I need it to prevent the King of England from marching in!

[Bargod]

I just started reading John Lott's propaganda, and I have to say that his numbers don't match the numbers listed by the government agencies of the countries he says gun control isn't working in. According to the official government records for crime in Canada, UK and Australia, crime has continued to drop since gun control laws were put in place, not sky rocket as he reports.
In the UK violent crime is down 41% from it's highest rate in 1995. It put gun control laws in place in 1997 pretty much outlawing all guns and making you register air-rifles (much like Ireland).
Official UK crime report
John Lott's page
I already listed the one for Australia.

Still, I think it would be impossible to ban all the guns in this country. There are just too many out there.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Making guns more difficult to own directly resulted in fewer murders, thus lowering crime. There were no increases in poisonings, stabbing people to death, lynchings or any other way that "if somebody wants to kill somebody they will find a way". Most murders are done in the heat of the moment, and if you don't have a gun you are less likely to murder somebody.

*sorry for not notating where I got my Australia info.
http://www.aic.gov.au/
It's somewhere in there. It's difficult to find accurate info from anywhere but pure stats sites. Both sides cherry pick numbers to make their arguements. You have to find all the numbers to make sense of anything.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/06/08/1127171.htm
Above is an ABC news article I posted the first time I brought up Australia.

Yes, that is the darn problem. I started out as playing a "Devil's advocate" but I got a little wrapped up in the argument since I see a lot of playing around with numbers and outright rejection of basic facts. But I too had problem finding some objective analysis out there. IT is too bad the "truth" doesn't have a special interest group. However, clearly the gun lobby has a lot more money to pour into they side. When I tried to look up the Lott article, there first 3 pages of Google hits were almost exclusively various pro-gun websites.

[Stryker9]

Ok, in my own personal situation I have a BOTTOM LINE !!
Statistics, Analysis, Facts play no part here......
"I would rather have a weapon & not need it than to not have it
and need it" Very Simple Common Sense Principle !!

JIM

[Bargod]

Ok, in my own personal situation I have a BOTTOM LINE !!
Statistics, Analysis, Facts play no part here......
"I would rather have a weapon & not need it than to not have it
and need it" Very Simple Common Sense Principle !!

JIM

What if you didn't have it AND didn't need it?
If you can't have that, wouldn't you rather have it and not need it, and to ensure you don't need it stricter nation wide laws were put in place to help prevent people who shouldn't have them from getting them?

This is frustrating, because I don't believe in a gun ban, but I'm starting to see that stricter regulation wouldn't probably wouldn't help either since there is an average of 341,000 instances of gun theft each year (just instances, not # of guns, that would be more). So, if somebody breaks into your home and you aren't there (which is when they tend to break in) and they steal your gun, it will likely be sold and used in a crime.
Also, this wouldn't stop many of the murders of spouse or family as the person who never thought they would use the gun against a family member goes nuts and shoots his wife.

But it still seems like only good, honest people should be able to buy guns legally.

[Stryker9]

"IF" if we could define that word, we would all be better off....

JIM

[*Triggahappy13*]

uhhh, to tired t oread of all this but yeah... im all for guns, and i think gun control can suck and die

[Big P]

GUN BAN=BETTER PICKING FOR THE CRIMINAL PERIOD! Trust me i been on both side of the fence.


Short but TRUE story

Guy wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of his car alarm going off.

A. Guy run out in his boxer with a baseball bat.
B. Guy Walk out off his house with a 45.
C. Guy stay indoor and call police.

All three of these have had Happen to me in my younger bad day. Here what happen.

Guy A came out running with a bat while i was stealing his car and He ran into my lookout with a 9mm, He's Slowly wake back inside.

Guy B Walk out with the 45. and my look out yell out Gun and we Jetted!!

Guy C Had full coverage on his car!!


Ban on Gun is a NONO!!

[Bargod]

P I'm 500 feet from this. Unfortunately, that's how Dallas is. Nice neighborhood stacked on public housing. So, when my neighbors alarm goes off, I call 911, the cops come an hour later... not becuase they didn't respond, but becuase they went to where the suspects go, around th corner a ways... They don't come to the scene of the crime first, becuase they know that the perps are already back in their pub housing. So they head their first to see whats up.
Then they come back to the nice neighborhood to see what the people living there saw.

I'd love tro own a classic Colt '11 .45. When my father in law died I was offered one. I freaked out and said no. I regret that. I could have that classic fire arm and not have a bullet in the house and I'd have my bit of history that I consider that gun to be. I'd also love to have an M1. I want to take it to a range and fire it. And I want to store it at my house.
So I don't want to ban guns, but it has been made CLEAR to me that it is safer to not be around guns. There is just no way around it. I'm not saying F*^k our right to bear arms or anything else. I'm saying from my reading on this, and what my dad told me about guns, I'd rather not have guns around to deal with the problems (still not saying ban guns).
My dad didn't like guns because he grew up an orphan in Hell's Kitchen (true story) and lived on the streets (his mother died when he was 12) until he GADUATED FROM BROOKLYN TECH and joined the Air Force. He told me while growing up that he hated guns for many reasons. First, all his buddy's from the neighborhood that took up guns either became a cop, or went to jail for shooting at a cop. My dad didn't do that. He has many scars from his fist fights, but that's the point of his stories. He fought fist fights. He didn't go to jail. He didn't get killed. He survived to join the Air Force...
Where he was sent to outside San Antonio. He HATED Texas. It took me many years to get the truth, but he HATED Texas because every friggan Red Neck Texan in the bars around his base had guns in thier cars. This is not good for a Brawler from Manhatten. This is very BAD for a brawler from Manhatten. Anyway, my father has hated this stae ever since. He considers Texans to be the biggest Pussies in the world, because they won't put up their fists, they run for their guns.
Yes my dad is a bad ass, yes, Texans don't bother with fist fights. They will just shoot your stupid ass.

[THE Mechanic]

I'm not sure if this is true but I heard a story years ago about a Congresional medal of Honer recipient.Who years after the 2nd world war was in a bar, he was down on his luck and became a drunk and he got into an fight with someone in a bar and was stabbed in the neck and died.To live through the horrors of war and then die like that man what a way to go..If it is true just goes to show you it dose'nt have to be a gun.



I have a few friends who are NYPD and they have told me .They would much rather be COPS than Fireman because perps although have an option to shoot or not to shoot or run,the perp my have a conscience but fire,fire has none and consumes all.I know off topic but rings true.



"T.M."