Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Phallic]

And what if one of these armed guards snapped? Schools should remain gun-free zones.

How would that be any different than any run of the mill police officer snapping? I don't see anyone advocating taking guns away from police.

Ironic, though, that people fear CCW holders despite the fact that they have proven themselves to be more law abiding than police officers as a whole (not an insult to police officers, a vast majority are good upstanding people).

Fact is, it is unbelievably rare for someone to just "snap" and start shooting - these things generally involve some planning. Gun free zones is one of the great scams - the expectation that some arbitrary policy will prevent a psychopath from just walking into a school and opening fire.

Guns cannot and should not be banned. The statistics provided in this thread should be ample evidence that the fabled gun-control laws don't do a whole lot, if anything, to curb violent crime - note I did not target gun crime specifically. It's a fallacy to make the assumption that a murder by gun is any worse than a murder by stabbing / bombing / bludgeoning etc. Note that the worst mass murders in American history were perpretrated not by a gun, but by other means. Included in this, the worst school massacre in US history was done with TNT. A can of gasoline and a lighter killed over 80 people in a nightclub (Happyland Fire).

Guns protect 2.5 million people each year. To deprive people the means to protect themselves and their families is morally reprehensible.

Some may be content with leaving schools without any defenses, allowing a shooter / attacker the opportunity to kill at will until the police arrive, virtually always too late to do much of anything to stop the attack. Others believe the status quo has proven ineffective. Gun control advocates believe in "reasonable" gun laws - it would seem the term "reasonable" changes depending on who you talk to. To myself and millions of others, allowing schools as well as individuals the ability to defend themselves with the proper tool is "reasonable."

 

[Phallic]

Oh, come now, you know those gun laws came about because of the high amounts of murder and muggings in cities, not the other way around. You are putting the cart before the horse in the worst way.

Not to mention the rise in use of crack cocaine, a much more obvious cause for increases in crime in the inner cities in the '80s than a ban on guns.

The DC gun ban is still mostly in effect, to the tune of making it incredibly difficult to legally purchase and own a handgun, and the ban on assault rifles and large-sized ammunition magazines remains in force. If you want to argue the drop in crime rate was based solely on people having the possibility of owning a handgun, you may, but statistically you have no real data to say what the effect of a loosening of the gun ban will be.

EDIT: As for how to get people to give up their assault rifles, you simply make owning one a felony and give people 90 days to relinquish their assault rifles to collection centers. That's it.

Most people will willingly follow laws as long as they don't consider them blatantly unjustified. If you really think the majority of assault rifle owners will secret them away, risking prison sentences of something like a minimum of two years if they were ever discovered, I think you would be mistaken.

If those gun control laws were enacted to reduce violent crime, them I am sorry to say that they have failed miserably. Crime has only gone up in each and every one of these locations following the enactments of strict gun control laws. Conversely, there is not one single state that has experienced an increase in violent crime following the legalization of concealed carry and numerous states that have experienced a reduction - the only exception being Arizona which is an anamoly because of the drug wars taking place at its southern border. There are countless examples of people protecting their lives and the lives of others with the use of a firearm - millions each year to be more specific.

To prevent the spread of misinformation, AR15s such as the one used in Connecticut and Colorado are not assault rifles - they are only cosmetically similar. They lack a select-fire capability, preventing them from being fired in full auto. In terms of banning semi-automatic weapons - considering a vast majority of guns are semi-automatic, that would be akin to banning a vast majority of firearms in the USA. With 200,000,000 known guns (likely many more illegally owned by criminals), this would be a monumental and in all likelihood impossible task.

On top of that, with 80,000,000 known gun owners in this country (with many more who simply refuse to respond to polls - I know many who do this), if only 1% of these people refused to give them up and were willing to fight back against any confiscation efforts (and there are those out there who would), that would mean 800,000 people willing to fight back. This is 100,000 larger than the total number of law enforcement officers in the entire country. The assumption must be made as well that a significant number of LEOs are pro-Gun rights (most tend to be) and wouldn't be entirely thrilled with the notion of a gun confiscation. The same goes with the military as well.

On top of all of this, the argument I stated before still stands. A semi-automatic weapon is *necessary* to properly be able to defend one's self and one's family against a violent attack, especially that from multiple attackers which make up a majority of attacks. These AR15 rifles that are targeted as these "evil" killing machines are used regularily to hunt as well as to protect one's home. The .223 round is easy to shoot, doesn't penetrate walls too severely with the proper ammo (insuring safety of those around from collateral damage) and is accurate. In reality, the .223 round is relatively weak compared to other calibers, to the point that many in the military are dissatisfied with the potency of the caliber. There is nothing specific to the AR15 that makes it any more deadly than many other "less evil" rifles out there - the differences are purely cosmetic. This is why the 1994 AWB was a colossal failure, and why any future attempts at this will be a failure as well.

EDIT: Also worth noting that these "assault weapons" (a term created by the gun control movement with no real meaning on the technical aspects or the effectiveness of the firearm) are used in less than 2% of all violent crime. So the notion many have that these "assault weapons" are terrorizing people is mistaken at best, downright dishonest at worst. An interesting factoid - the last time a real legally owned NFA assault rifle was used in a violent crime was many decades ago. The crime was committed by a police officer.

 

[dnno1]

If those gun control laws were enacted to reduce violent crime, them I am sorry to say that they have failed miserably. Crime has only gone up in each and every one of these locations following the enactments of strict gun control laws. Conversely, there is not one single state that has experienced an increase in violent crime following the legalization of concealed carry and numerous states that have experienced a reduction - the only exception being Arizona which is an anamoly because of the drug wars taking place at its southern border. There are countless examples of people protecting their lives and the lives of others with the use of a firearm - millions each year to be more specific.

There are no significant changes in crime rates when CCW laws are passed. The data can be filtered or tweaked to show in increase or decrease either way. If there was a significant impact it could be seen right away (without having to analyze any data). The truth of the matter is that there are many factors that impact crime rates and the presence (or lack there of) of CCW laws is just a minor one.

To prevent the spread of misinformation, AR15s such as the one used in Connecticut and Colorado are not assault rifles - they are only cosmetically similar. They lack a select-fire capability, preventing them from being fired in full auto. In terms of banning semi-automatic weapons - considering a vast majority of guns are semi-automatic, that would be akin to banning a vast majority of firearms in the USA. With 200,000,000 known guns (likely many more illegally owned by criminals), this would be a monumental and in all likelihood impossible task.

Under the legal definition, an AR15 falls under the classification of an assault weapon (that happens to be a riffle) since it is a semi-automatic weapon that has provisions for a detachable magazine and a pistol grip (in other words it can be used for assaulting crowds of people creating mass casualties in a short period of time - a weapon of mass destruction). This is the definition that was established by the federal AWB and is also the legal definition in the State of Connecticut (an AR15 with a magazine that holds more than 21 rounds is considered an assault weapon in Denver, CO). This is also not misinformation. Just because it is not illegal to possess an AR15 does not mean that it is not categorized as an assault weapon. I don't think that the intent here is to ban all semi-automatic weapons (and I belive the number of known guns in America is closer to 300 million if you add the guns owned by the military), but rather to restrict the ownership of what is classified as assault weapons and are not necessary for personal protection or hunting.

On top of that, with 80,000,000 known gun owners in this country (with many more who simply refuse to respond to polls - I know many who do this), if only 1% of these people refused to give them up and were willing to fight back against any confiscation efforts (and there are those out there who would), that would mean 800,000 people willing to fight back. This is 100,000 larger than the total number of law enforcement officers in the entire country. The assumption must be made as well that a significant number of LEOs are pro-Gun rights (most tend to be) and wouldn't be entirely thrilled with the notion of a gun confiscation. The same goes with the military as well.

It very well may turn out if the AWB were reinstated, that those who currently own a firearm that is restricted under the AWB will be able to keep that weapon as long as they register it (as they did in 1994 when the original law was passed).

On top of all of this, the argument I stated before still stands. A semi-automatic weapon is *necessary* to properly be able to defend one's self and one's family against a violent attack, especially that from multiple attackers which make up a majority of attacks. These AR15 rifles that are targeted as these "evil" killing machines are used regularily to hunt as well as to protect one's home. The .223 round is easy to shoot, doesn't penetrate walls too severely with the proper ammo (insuring safety of those around from collateral damage) and is accurate. In reality, the .223 round is relatively weak compared to other calibers, to the point that many in the military are dissatisfied with the potency of the caliber. There is nothing specific to the AR15 that makes it any more deadly than many other "less evil" rifles out there - the differences are purely cosmetic. This is why the 1994 AWB was a colossal failure, and why any future attempts at this will be a failure as well.

A semi-automatic weapon being "necessary" could not be any more dubious and untrue than the guy who said he saw Big Foot in his back yard. The truth of the matter is that people didn't need semi-automatic weapons in the past to defend themselves and they don't necessarily need them now. In fact a pump action shot gun and a revolver are the two other popular choices for home defense and are less complex than a semi-automatic weapon (they aren't known to jam like that latter weapon as often).

EDIT: Also worth noting that these "assault weapons" (a term created by the gun control movement with no real meaning on the technical aspects or the effectiveness of the firearm) are used in less than 2% of all violent crime. So the notion many have that these "assault weapons" are terrorizing people is mistaken at best, downright dishonest at worst. An interesting factoid - the last time a real legally owned NFA assault rifle was used in a violent crime was many decades ago. The crime was committed by a police officer.

You know, it doesn't matter who came up with the term. What does is the fact that it was legally defined by the federal government in 1994 and the AR15 fall in the category of an assault weapon. I don't really know how accurate the 2% statistic really is, but what I do know is that prior to the federal ban, assault weapons were used in 4.6% of violent crimes, and even after the expiration of the federal AWB, there are some states and cities that still have their own in place so that could be contributing to the lower statistic. Finally, to correct your factoid, the last time a legally owned assault riffle was used in a crime it happened in Tuskaloosa, AL back in July of this year.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I think all the pro-gun people need to look at other countries when they say we NEED to have guns to keep America safe. Why is other countries can function just fine without armed guards in schools and CCW holders safeguarding their freedoms? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[samsnee]

Because other countries don't have to worry about their governments oppressing their people? /sarcasm

Also:

http://news.yahoo.com/firefighters-shot-dead-upstate-ny-fire-150346447--abc-news-topstories.html

Firefighters Shot Dead at Upstate NY Fire



The only solution here is to place a trained, armed office on every fire truck.

 

[Siby]

I was watching Meet The Press with Mr. LaPierre from the NRA. I agreed with several points he made about mental problems, how our society deals with people with mental issues but there were a few points that just didn't make sense to me.

First, he would not concede that limiting the clip size could possibly save lives. It is logical and common sense that if you have smaller clips (5 instead of 30 rounds) the shooter will not be able to get as many shots off before having to reload, hence giving time for the victims to escape, hide, or attack the shooter. Failing to acknowledge this fact shows that he does not want to get on the slippery slope and weaken his position.

Secondly, I found it interesting that he was opposed to closing the gun show loophole because he did not want the federal government involved in private sales between hunters and enthusiasts. But isn't the right given to them a federal right? The Constitution is a federal document, hence all rights to guns falls under the purview of the federal government. You should also be paying taxes on those gun sales, which is also a state government involvement, which in turn are in a federalist system.

 

[Phallic]

There are no significant changes in crime rates when CCW laws are passed. The data can be filtered or tweaked to show in increase or decrease either way. If there was a significant impact it could be seen right away (without having to analyze any data). The truth of the matter is that there are many factors that impact crime rates and the presence (or lack there of) of CCW laws is just a minor one.

One thing that you cannot claim is that crime has increased. If the availability of guns is the reason why the violent crime right is high in the USA, then why has crime been DROPPING over the last 10 or so years, despite a sharp increase in both gun ownership and concealed carry permits?

Under the legal definition, an AR15 falls under the classification of an assault weapon (that happens to be a riffle) since it is a semi-automatic weapon that has provisions for a detachable magazine and a pistol grip (in other words it can be used for assaulting crowds of people creating mass casualties in a short period of time - a weapon of mass destruction). This is the definition that was established by the federal AWB and is also the legal definition in the State of Connecticut (an AR15 with a magazine that holds more than 21 rounds is considered an assault weapon in Denver, CO). This is also not misinformation. Just because it is not illegal to possess an AR15 does not mean that it is not categorized as an assault weapon. I don't think that the intent here is to ban all semi-automatic weapons (and I belive the number of known guns in America is closer to 300 million if you add the guns owned by the military), but rather to restrict the ownership of what is classified as assault weapons and are not necessary for personal protection or hunting.

As I discussed, the "legal" term is nothing but a fabricated term used by anti-gun politicians to push their agenda. They had no meaning prior to the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. The so called "assault" weapons are targeted simply for cosmetic reasons. There is nothing mechanically about an AR15 that makes it inherently other more dangerous than other .223 rifles - to target it alone as a super-deadly-death-ray is dishonest (or ignorant, take your pick). And just out of curiosity, what do you think the purpose of the 2nd amendment is?

It very well may turn out if the AWB were reinstated, that those who currently own a firearm that is restricted under the AWB will be able to keep that weapon as long as they register it (as they did in 1994 when the original law was passed).

Why should another AWB be passed when there is not one single study that can relate that the AWB prevented a single crime? If there is not a significant case supporting it, then to deprive millions of people a right is not in any way the correct or ethical course of action.

A semi-automatic weapon being "necessary" could not be any more dubious and untrue than the guy who said he saw Big Foot in his back yard. The truth of the matter is that people didn't need semi-automatic weapons in the past to defend themselves and they don't necessarily need them now. In fact a pump action shot gun and a revolver are the two other popular choices for home defense and are less complex than a semi-automatic weapon (they aren't known to jam like that latter weapon as often).

It's clear that you aren't entirely aware of how guns work in a self defense arena if this is a claim you are trying to make. You make the assumption that 1) in the heat of the moment you will be able to hit every shot (something that not even the highest trained can do reliably) 2) That the aggressor will be stopped in one shot 3) That there is only one attacker. Statistically, in all 3 of these categories, it usually does not ring true. Unless you are shooting point blank, you likely WILL miss. Unless you hit them in the head or somewhere else along their central nervous center, it will take 2+ rounds to stop them, some cases taking more than even 10. Handgun rounds are notoriously underpowered. A pump gun is a good choice for home defense - but AR15's offer different benefits, such as multiple targets and lighter recoil which benefits people who have a difficulty handling the relatively harsh recoil of a shotgun. Revolvers typically only hold 6 rounds, and as I said before, that is not enough in many circumstances. If what you said were true, then the police would have no need for those semi-automatic weapons.

You know, it doesn't matter who came up with the term. What does is the fact that it was legally defined by the federal government in 1994 and the AR15 fall in the category of an assault weapon. I don't really know how accurate the 2% statistic really is, but what I do know is that prior to the federal ban, assault weapons were used in 4.6% of violent crimes, and even after the expiration of the federal AWB, there are some states and cities that still have their own in place so that could be contributing to the lower statistic. Finally, to correct your factoid, the last time a legally owned assault riffle was used in a crime it happened in Tuskaloosa, AL back in July of this year.

Here's one story relating to that 2% figure that I gave you: http://times247.com/articles/crs-under-2-of-gun-crimes-involve-assault-weapons

It entirely matters. The first AWB was a colossal failure for the reason that it created an arbitrary class of weapons to ban and restrict. An assault weapon is no more deadly than any other class of weapon. If reduction in violent crime is the goal here, then it's prudent to eliminate the political BS and talk about what really works. In terms of the article you cited, I'd recommend you read it again. The only time a fully automatic rifle is referenced is when some witness said "the shots sounded like a full automatic rifle." And with all of that said, nowhere did it say it was a *legally* owned automatic weapon - the ones that require a $200 tax stamp, invasive background check and $20,000 to purchase. The kinds that people who go and shoot up a bar typically don't bother to buy.

 

[Phallic]

Because other countries don't have to worry about their governments oppressing their people? /sarcasm

Also:

http://news.yahoo.com/firefighters-shot-dead-upstate-ny-fire-150346447--abc-news-topstories.html

Firefighters Shot Dead at Upstate NY Fire



The only solution here is to place a trained, armed office on every fire truck.

It's not that they don't have to worry, it's that they don't think it can happen to them. Probably similar to how those in the Sovient Union, Nazi Germany or even the Japanese who were sent to camps during WW2 by FDR. People who think "it can't happen to me" are usually the first ones in line. A consistent trend amongst tyrants and oppressive governments is gun control. I wonder why?

I think all the pro-gun people need to look at other countries when they say we NEED to have guns to keep America safe. Why is other countries can function just fine without armed guards in schools and CCW holders safeguarding their freedoms? It doesn't make sense to me.

Different cultures and socioeconomic factors for one - to limit the discussion to only guns does a disservice to the conversation. A more telling statistic is before and after violent crime rates after gun bans. When looking at (1) Washington DC (2) UK (3) Australia (4) Brazil (5) South Africa amongst others, violent crime and more specifically, gun crime, has increased after strict gun control measures were passed. In the UK, violent crime has nearly doubled since the initial handgun ban. It's unwise to cross-compare flat violent crime rates among countries because its not a simple issue - to hold other variables constant however is a good way to cut through it all. Hence, looking at before and after trends of specific legislation tends to tell a fuller story.

I was watching Meet The Press with Mr. LaPierre from the NRA. I agreed with several points he made about mental problems, how our society deals with people with mental issues but there were a few points that just didn't make sense to me.

First, he would not concede that limiting the clip size could possibly save lives. It is logical and common sense that if you have smaller clips (5 instead of 30 rounds) the shooter will not be able to get as many shots off before having to reload, hence giving time for the victims to escape, hide, or attack the shooter. Failing to acknowledge this fact shows that he does not want to get on the slippery slope and weaken his position.

Secondly, I found it interesting that he was opposed to closing the gun show loophole because he did not want the federal government involved in private sales between hunters and enthusiasts. But isn't the right given to them a federal right? The Constitution is a federal document, hence all rights to guns falls under the purview of the federal government. You should also be paying taxes on those gun sales, which is also a state government involvement, which in turn are in a federalist system.

What is commonly believed does not always hold true - similar to the more guns = more crime argument which has been disproven time and time again. Two of the worst school shootings in US history - Virginia Tech and Columbine, were perpetrated with guns that held no more rounds than 10 (the amount allowed by the 1994 AWB). If you propose to limit magazine capacity to 5, then that would be a bit extreme. 5 rounds is nowhere near enough to reliably protect someone in most cases - there's a reason why no major law enforcement agencies use revolvers anymore.

Magazine capacity limits have been tried and are still being used. There are also hundreds of millions of these magazines in circulation, and nothing less than waving them out of existence (good luck) would stop that. In addition, the production of magazines (especially with new 3D printer technology) is something that most people can just do in their backyard. In other words, historically restrictions on magazine capacity were ineffective, and future restrictions are going to be ineffective as well. There is not one legitimate academic study that relates a magazine capacity limit to lower crime rates.

 

[jmc]

^ Ah, the murder rate and robbery rate in my country dropped post tighter gun restrictions.

 

[Phallic]

^ Ah, the murder rate and robbery rate in my country dropped post tighter gun restrictions.

What country would that be?

 

[jmc]

Australia. Guns aren't even the second most used weapon of choice.

 

[Phallic]

That flies in the face of statistics from even Australia's own government.

http://www.mauinews.com/page/conten...ustralia-after-widespread-gun-ban.html?nav=18

http://www.wnd.com/2000/03/1933/

Plenty of similar articles.

 

[jmc]

Those statistics are 12 years old for christ sake. And guess what? Those numbers have been decreasing every year.

 

[Phallic]

And? Are you saying that since then criminals have handed their guns / weapons in and started singing kumbaya? I'm aware crime rates have fallen since then, as have they here. The spike itself years following the ban is telling in itself.

The US has had declining crime rates in the last 20 years despite a sharp increase in gun ownership and liberalization of CCW laws - explain? Shouldn't our crime rates be skyrocketing?

Chicago and Washington DC have among the lowest rates of gun ownership in the US, yet the among the highest violent crime? Explain?

 

[Baramos]

If those gun control laws were enacted to reduce violent crime, them I am sorry to say that they have failed miserably. Crime has only gone up in each and every one of these locations following the enactments of strict gun control laws. Conversely, there is not one single state that has experienced an increase in violent crime following the legalization of concealed carry and numerous states that have experienced a reduction - the only exception being Arizona which is an anamoly because of the drug wars taking place at its southern border. There are countless examples of people protecting their lives and the lives of others with the use of a firearm - millions each year to be more specific.

The "millions" per year fact that is passed around is based on faulty statistical data in the Kleck and Gertz study in 2007 (DGU means "defensive gun use"):

"222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per year was arrived at."

It's faulty math in the worst way. Even cursory common sense would tell you that there are not 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use in the U.S. every year.

To prevent the spread of misinformation, AR15s such as the one used in Connecticut and Colorado are not assault rifles - they are only cosmetically similar. They lack a select-fire capability, preventing them from being fired in full auto. In terms of banning semi-automatic weapons - considering a vast majority of guns are semi-automatic, that would be akin to banning a vast majority of firearms in the USA. With 200,000,000 known guns (likely many more illegally owned by criminals), this would be a monumental and in all likelihood impossible task.

It is absurd to say that the vast majority of guns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of civilian assault rifles (the AR15 is the civilian model of the M16) and handguns are semi-automatic. Most hunting rifles are either bolt-action or pump-action, along with breech-loading single-shots.

In any case this is entirely ignoring shotguns and revolvers in the number of guns in the U.S., as well.

On top of that, with 80,000,000 known gun owners in this country (with many more who simply refuse to respond to polls - I know many who do this), if only 1% of these people refused to give them up and were willing to fight back against any confiscation efforts (and there are those out there who would), that would mean 800,000 people willing to fight back. This is 100,000 larger than the total number of law enforcement officers in the entire country. The assumption must be made as well that a significant number of LEOs are pro-Gun rights (most tend to be) and wouldn't be entirely thrilled with the notion of a gun confiscation. The same goes with the military as well.

I only cited assault rifles, a small amount of the total guns in the U.S. It is also ridiculous to compare 800,000 people armed with any form of civilian guns versus the U.S. military, FBI, or ATF--unless you are presuming a scenario where those 800,000 people scattered across the U.S. form into an actual army in one single geographical location.

On top of all of this, the argument I stated before still stands. A semi-automatic weapon is *necessary* to properly be able to defend one's self and one's family against a violent attack, especially that from multiple attackers which make up a majority of attacks. These AR15 rifles that are targeted as these "evil" killing machines are used regularily to hunt as well as to protect one's home. The .223 round is easy to shoot, doesn't penetrate walls too severely with the proper ammo (insuring safety of those around from collateral damage) and is accurate. In reality, the .223 round is relatively weak compared to other calibers, to the point that many in the military are dissatisfied with the potency of the caliber. There is nothing specific to the AR15 that makes it any more deadly than many other "less evil" rifles out there - the differences are purely cosmetic. This is why the 1994 AWB was a colossal failure, and why any future attempts at this will be a failure as well.

A shotgun or handgun is more than sufficient to defend a dwelling, even from "multiple attackers". I hate to break it to you but Assault on Precinct 13 was just a movie and not a documentary.

EDIT: Also worth noting that these "assault weapons" (a term created by the gun control movement with no real meaning on the technical aspects or the effectiveness of the firearm) are used in less than 2% of all violent crime. So the notion many have that these "assault weapons" are terrorizing people is mistaken at best, downright dishonest at worst. An interesting factoid - the last time a real legally owned NFA assault rifle was used in a violent crime was many decades ago. The crime was committed by a police officer.

Banning assault weapons would only be one small part of a comprehensive gun control bill. Ammo limits, magazine limits, mandated gun safes/gun locks, limits on the amount of firearms owned, etc. would all be working together to reduce gun violence.

As to hunting: Semi-automatic assault rifles are not needed for hunting. We have had no problem hunting deer with pump-action 30.06 or .277 rifles with scopes. My father has even killed deer with a breech-loaded single-shot .22 (obviously a shot to the head, of course). People even kill deer with muzzle loaders and bows--the idea that semi-automatic assault rifles are widely used or needed is absurd.

 

[jmc]

And? Are you saying that since then criminals have handed their guns / weapons in and started singing kumbaya? I'm aware crime rates have fallen since then, as have they here. The spike itself years following the ban is telling in itself.

The US has had declining crime rates in the last 20 years despite a sharp increase in gun ownership and liberalization of CCW laws - explain? Shouldn't our crime rates be skyrocketing?

Chicago and Washington DC have among the lowest rates of gun ownership in the US, yet the among the highest violent crime? Explain?

What's the percentage of gun related crimes? I can tell you here, it's 13%, that's not even second place.

 

[Phallic]

What's the percentage of gun related crimes? I can tell you here, it's 13%, that's not even second place.

Death by shooting or death by stabbing - it's all murder. Focusing on gun specific crime is a fallacy.

 

[jmc]

Death by shooting or death by stabbing - it's all murder. Focusing on gun specific crime is a fallacy.

No it's not, it gives you an idea of whether gun control is working. If criminals have a more difficult time accessing guns will that stop them from committing crimes? No, of course not. Criminals are criminals. However if it becomes harder and harder for them to obtain firearms the logical outcome is a lowering death rate because other weapons cannot do the same types of damage as a firearm.

 

[Phallic]

The "millions" per year fact that is passed around is based on faulty statistical data in the Kleck and Gertz study in 2007 (DGU means "defensive gun use"):

"222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per year was arrived at."

It's faulty math in the worst way. Even cursory common sense would tell you that there are not 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use in the U.S. every year.



It is absurd to say that the vast majority of guns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of civilian assault rifles (the AR15 is the civilian model of the M16) and handguns are semi-automatic. Most hunting rifles are either bolt-action or pump-action, along with breech-loading single-shots.

In any case this is entirely ignoring shotguns and revolvers in the number of guns in the U.S., as well.



I only cited assault rifles, a small amount of the total guns in the U.S. It is also ridiculous to compare 800,000 people armed with any form of civilian guns versus the U.S. military, FBI, or ATF--unless you are presuming a scenario where those 800,000 people scattered across the U.S. form into an actual army in one single geographical location.



A shotgun or handgun is more than sufficient to defend a dwelling, even from "multiple attackers". I hate to break it to you but Assault on Precinct 13 was just a movie and not a documentary.



Banning assault weapons would only be one small part of a comprehensive gun control bill. Ammo limits, magazine limits, mandated gun safes/gun locks, limits on the amount of firearms owned, etc. would all be working together to reduce gun violence.

As to hunting: Semi-automatic assault rifles are not needed for hunting. We have had no problem hunting deer with pump-action 30.06 or .277 rifles with scopes. My father has even killed deer with a breech-loaded single-shot .22 (obviously a shot to the head, of course). People even kill deer with muzzle loaders and bows--the idea that semi-automatic assault rifles are widely used or needed is absurd.

Even just 1% of the entire adult population in the country is a large number. Large enough that it's morally wrong to deprive them the ability to defend themselves or their families. And yes - needless restrictions on the tools they're allowed to use constitute depravity.

The second amendment was not put in place for "hunting." Discussing hunting as a part of this is irrelevant. If you want to go with a purist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, then everyone should be allowed to own the same guns the military uses, including real assault rifles (not the neutered AR15 that is NOT an assault rifle despite what you say).

And do you really think the ATF, the very same that was caught sending guns to Mexico, has the capacity to confiscate millions of guns from people, thousands of whom may very well shoot back? I don't necessarily advocate this, but there are people out there who are more than willing to die for their rights to bear arms.

Your comprehensive gun control bill has been tried on the national level and is still in effect in many states and locales. You fail to mention why it is that the cities with the strictist gun control have among the highest crime rates.

Your attempts to state that a multiple attacker scenario is "unrealistic" is, sorry to say, ignorant. Most attacks are from multiple attackers. And a handgun is a fine choice, just not with the ridiculously strict magazine capacity laws you wish to impose.

And yes, a majority of guns are semi-automatic. A vast majority of handguns are, and the evil AR15 is one of the biggest selling rifles in the country. The term assault weapons is meaningless - its sole purpose is to incite fear towards the AR15. It's not as niche as you think - there are millions of people who own one and millions more who will in the future, even if you pass some arbitrary bill based on feelings rather than fact.

Only 2% of violent crimes are committed by "assault weapons." I've stated this and have posted a source to back it up. Your "comprehensive" gun control bill would do little than make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. And most of these are illegally obtained, considering gun owners commit less than 1% of all violent crimes, CCW holders comitting even less - more on the order of < 0.1% of all violent crime. Again, less than the average police officer. Restricting legal gun owners would do literally nothing to curb violent crime. I don't know where you get this impression that legal gun owners are committing the crimes, or that criminals buy guns from Cabelas or other retail outlets, but it's a false impression. Truth be told, they can usually get them cheaper off the black market anyway.

We've tried it your way - now to take a different road.

 

[Phallic]

No it's not, it gives you an idea of whether gun control is working. If criminals have a more difficult time accessing guns will that stop them from committing crimes? No, of course not. Criminals are criminals. However if it becomes harder and harder for them to obtain firearms the logical outcome is a lowering death rate because other weapons cannot do the same types of damage as a firearm.

Your logical outcome isn't so logical when the violent crime rates spiked for years after the gun ban. There are plenty of other factors that go into a falling overall crime rate over a period of 12 years. A sudden spike violent crime immediately following the gun ban is not so easy to explain away.

And even if your country is an anamoly, which I doubt it is, there are numerous other countries out there that still have a higher crime rate than prior to their gun bans. Estonia recently passed a CCW bill, one of the few countries in Europe to allow this - crime has fallen. Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world - every person has an assault rifle in their house. Two of the worst mass shootings in the world took place in Norway and South Korea, both countries with very strict gun control laws.

 

[jmc]

Your logical outcome isn't so logical when the violent crime rates spiked for years after the gun ban. There are plenty of other factors that go into a falling overall crime rate over a period of 12 years. A sudden spike violent crime immediately following the gun ban is not so easy to explain away.

You're ignoring the long term implications, things have decreased since 2000. What it's just coincidence? An initial spike can be put down the last embers of assault weapons being easily available, 12 years of a decreasing murder and robbery rate isn't a fluke, it's a pattern. We have a hundred fewer murders, and 10,000 fewer robberies, guns use in those cases are a distant third in terms of usage. Those are the facts. Things don't change overnight, they take time, but eventually things will plateau. So it's is a logical outcome, all it takes is people willing to change their attitude.

 

[Phallic]

You're ignoring the long term implications, things have decreased since 2000. What it's just coincidence? An initial spike can be put down the last embers of assault weapons being easily available, 12 years of a decreasing murder and robbery rate isn't a fluke, it's a pattern. We have a hundred fewer murders, and 10,000 fewer robberies, guns use in those cases are a distant third in terms of usage. Those are the facts. Things don't change overnight, they take time, but eventually things will plateau. So it's is a logical outcome, all it takes is people willing to change their attitude.

You still fail to answer my question - why has the US experienced a similar decline in crime despite an INCREASE, a significant one at that, in the ownership of these so called assault weapons?

 

[jmc]

And even if your country is an anamoly, which I doubt it is, there are numerous other countries out there that still have a higher crime rate than prior to their gun bans. Estonia recently passed a CCW bill, one of the few countries in Europe to allow this - crime has fallen. Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world - every person has an assault rifle in their house. Two of the worst mass shootings in the world took place in Norway and South Korea, both countries with very strict gun control laws.

Um you realize that for Switerland the vast majority have guns in their homes because of military service right? Those people have been trained to use those weapons.

 

[jmc]

You still fail to answer my question - why has the US experienced a similar decline in crime despite an INCREASE, a significant one at that, in the ownership of these so called assault weapons?

What do you want me to say? That the criminals are running 'scared'? Provide me with some links to facts and I'll gladly look over them.

 

[Phallic]

Um you realize that for Switerland the vast majority have guns in their homes because of military service right? Those people have been trained to use those weapons.

And training reduces the tendency of committing crimes how again?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

As per your desire for some stats, here are a bunch.

What do you want me to say? That the criminals are running 'scared'? Provide me with some links to facts and I'll gladly look over them.

No, but if you claim that availability of guns increases crime then our crime rates should be skyrocketing. If what you say is true, then there must be another reason, right?

In addition, your statement does hold some truth. In a survey of convicted felons, a vast majority said that a police officer did not scare them. What did scare them, however, was the possibility of a civilian target being armed. There's a reason why, with the exception of a small handful (2, I believe), a vast majority of mass shootings where more than 4 people were killed in the last several decades were committed in "Gun free zones."