Gun Control

Brian?

SeanW wrote: »

Then tell me why Switzerland is not a blood soaked mess? They have more guns per capita there than the U.S?

I don't know. But I expect it's not as simple as giving you one reason, it's a nuanced issue.

Guns do kill people though, don't they?

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

you incorrectly assume "Home Invasion" is the only justified reason, and more importantly that you view "Home Invasion" as happening inside a hallway or something, whereas a legitimate property owner - surprise - can actually own land. A farmer, for instance, can be subject to trespassing. Someone living outside of an urban area may be subject to wild predators as well. In Alaska its from what I understand a very common practice for members of the population to be armed.

I have nothing against those needing guns, owning guns.

I see home invasion, i.e someone breaking into your house, and trespassing as different things. Home invasion was given as a reason to own an AR15, I don't think so. As for trespassing and predators, wouldn't a bolt action rifle do the trick?

A friend of mine with a small ranch in Arizona tells me he goes out the door with a .45 hand gun and a shotgun if he thinks something is amiss. Even though he has an AR15 in the house. The AR15 is seen as a toy.

This is all subjective. I have formed an opinion on assault rifle ownership based on personal experience.

The law is I feel deliberately a bit loose about the definition of what is and is not a so-called "legitimate" use of a gun that will satisfy extremist groups, because at the end of the day law-abiding citizens will be subject to citizens whom are not. Not to turn this into a "Gun-Free Zone" debate, but those tragedies have happened.

Converting them to fully auto is also illegal though, the conversion kits are illegal and being found with one, is also illegal.

I know that converting them is illegal. But that doesn't mean it isn't done.

Overheal

As for trespassing and predators, wouldn't a bolt action rifle do the trick?

Now you're entering the whataboutery phase of the argument. Maybe the gun owner is not a crack shot that can hit a bear square in between the eye from 10 yards away. Maybe in whatever situation arises you don't want to dick with rearming a bolt action weapon. Maybe a home invader will not go down in one shot. Maybe, and this is just hearsay (well no its not), a home invader can be shot multiple times, then make the 200 yard trip back to his house and call the authorities himself to get medical attention for his antics. There are and have been many cases that are exhaustive to display that one shot isn't always sufficient.

I know that converting them is illegal. But that doesn't mean it isn't done.

Thats really the crucial point of the debate isn't it: despite gun control regulation implemented, people do things anyway. How about that then.

SeanW

Brian? wrote: »

I don't know. But I expect it's not as simple as giving you one reason, it's a nuanced issue.

Perhaps, but it's not as simple as "more guns = more gun murders" as Switzerland has shown.

Guns do kill people though, don't they?

Yes, guns load themselves, aim themselves, and pull their own triggers. All without human intervention. That's why Switzerland is a blood soaked mess. :pac:

Brian?

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, but it's not as simple as "more guns = more gun murders" as Switzerland has shown.

I never said it was, did I?

Manic Moran

For people who know what they are doing, ARs are actually the best form of home defense weapon, especially in the US where so many walls are made of wood and plasterboard. This is why many SWAT teams have transitioned from submachine guns and shotguns to carbines. The reason I use a pistol and not a rifle myself is that I have a five year old daughter, and a pistol safe with a fingerprint reader is much easier to keep in the bedroom than a rifle one.

Manic Moran

I am seeing a lot of the normal arguments come up, including a number which are framed out of ignorance. (For example, though, yes, converting an AR to full auto is technically possible, it usually requires both machining of the receiver and access to restricted sears. As a result, such conversions are very rare.)

This doesn't surprise me: when I moved to the US 14 years ago, I was very definitely in the Irish camp that outside of smaller calibre firearms for sports shooting, only government agencies should have access to firearms. However, after years of exposure, and doing my own research on the matter, I have over time changed my position that the US system for firearms ownership is very reasonable, especially for a country like the US. We have a significant issue with criminal violence, and a smaller issue with mass shootings, but there are very few laws which we can realistically enforce which would have any effect on either of those two, for the obvious matter that criminals tend not to worry too much about breaking firearms laws. An interesting domestic case in point is the current Detroit Chief of Police, who is currently making waves by suggesting that armed citizenry is a good thing for their own protection and that instead of focusing on the firearms, we should instead be focusing on criminals and the ill. He didn't always have such a policy: when he was LAPD's chief of police, he had a defecto "guns not for the general populace" policy. Over time he has changed his stance, especially now he is CoP for a known violent crime city.

The first and most obvious problem with many of the proposed solutions is that there are millions of firearms in circulation. You're not going to get rid of them, no matter what political will there is. Even registration without confiscation is not going to happen: for an example, look at the case of Canada in the last decade, where there was mass non-compliance by the famously polite Canadians with their long gun registry, which was finally abandoned as a waste of time and money a few years ago. Recent attempts in NY, CT and a few years prior, CA, give similar examples in the US.

Then you have the question of actually ridding the country of the things. You cannot randomly search people or property for weapons, we have this little Constitutional issue known as the 4th Amendment. And this is before you get to the legal issues about enacting such a ban such as Constitutions, or the policy issues such as hunting or self defense.

On the matter of hunting, there is strong advocacy amongst hunting enthusiasts for semi-auto weaponry. They have less felt recoil, and especially for smaller prey such as varmints, the rapid follow up capability makes them more effective either if you miss, or if there are a couple of the pests to get rid of. Go on the various hunting boards and look for the threads. The general conclusion is "to each his own." Prohibiting them because you personally feel that you should never need more than one shot isn't going to fly.

For self defense, nothing beats a semi-auto. There is a reason that no major police force today in the US issues its personnel either revolvers, or pistols with limited magazine capacity. (It is also why New York's police forces screamed bloody murder when they discovered that New York's knee-jerk SAFE act applied to them as well). Revolvers are popular choices for novices (they are so simple and cheap, someone who is untrained can't screw it up), and criminals (they don't leave shell casings behind as evidence and they are cheaply disposable.) Shotguns are commonly used for similar reasons. But if one actually does the research, and is willing to spend a little time and effort learning to use them, semi-auto carbines are the way to go, semi auto pistols come in second.

Constitutional discussion on the matter of the right to arms alone is never given full breadth. Most analysis of the Constitutional right to arms focuses on the Federal 2A, and the militia clause. (And yes, as pointed out, by law basically every male is in the Federal militia in the US. That's why there are consequences for failing to register for Selective Service (The Draft). Many States have similar scope for State militias).

However, it should not stop there. Some 44 states have the right to arms in their State Constitutions as well. Some are identical to the Federal one, others are very explicit. (For example, Delaware's right to bear arms for "defense of self, family, the State, hunting, and for any other lawful purpose.") Even if, somehow, Federal 2A was changed (good luck getting those votes from enough of those 44 States to get the 2/3 requirement), a citizen's State constitutional right still applies to him. A number of States have started enacting "domestic firearms legislation," which basically states that if a weapon is made in a State, marked as being made in the State, is only sold in the State, and is used in the State, then it does not trigger Congress' jurisdiction as inter-state commerce.

The matter of concealed weapons is another one which currently may well be off the table. Although there is a circuit split on the matter, the two courts which have taken an in-depth look have found that there is a right to bear arms in public. Whether that right is to be exercised by openly carrying the weapon or concealed carrying the weapon is for the legislatures of the various states to decide, but they cannot ban both at the same time. The last State to have a blanket prohibition (Illinois) was given a smack down by the 7th Circuit last year. My own State, California, took a drubbing of its own by the 9th, so I look forward in the next year or so to being able to wander around armed. I don't currently do so as it's illegal. (Witness earlier statement about who follows laws).

A common misconception is that people who are fighting the latest rounds of legislation are not pro gun control. We are just not pro more gun control. We have some already. As the Supreme Court said, there is no right to for any person to carry any weapon around for any purpose whatsoever. Reasonable restrictions are desired. To this end, convicted felons may not do so. Those mentally incompetent may not do so. You can't go armed on an airliner. Machine guns (which by the legal definition includes assault rifles) are restricted federally, and in some places, by State. I can't own an assault rifle in California, even if I could afford it (I can't, really) and passed the ATF criteria. Even then, there is still room for more legislation (to add to the twenty thousand or so firearms laws already on the books in the US), such as more/improved background checks. The problem is legislative overreach. If that federal legislation which was proposed after Newton had only provided a requirement and facility for background checks on private transactions (eg gun shows), as the media commonly reported it to do, it would likely have encountered much less resistance than it actually received. The reason it was objected to (and I objected to it) was that if you read the fine print, it actually did more than that, including requirements for third-party transactions, and record-keeping. The problem is that unless you knew the mechanics behind what the registration proposed, which the vast majority of people don't, you don't see the overreach.

And, frankly, ignorance is behind a significant portion of firearms legislation. Usually the politicians trying to restrict them don't like the things to begin with, so they are not prone to do their research. That's how we end up with such wonderful pieces of legislation such as California's regimen which prohibits weapons purely on the basis of cosmetic appearance. (Really, custom engraving, or a different color on a pistol makes it presumed unsafe unless tested, paid for and listed). This is quite possibly the main reason us gun owners cringe when we hear about the latest knee-jerk legislation. It's usually proposed by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and the only practical effect of it is to gain votes, usually from voters who also don't care enough to know what the legislation talks about either, but it all sounds great, so we'll support it. Amusingly, I've heard similar complaints from healthcare and education professionals as well about legislation directed towards their fields.

In any case, any proposed solutions to the US's gun violence problem needs to to meet a few criteria, some hard, some soft.

Hard ones, you can't do anything about. It must take into account the fact that there are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation and they're not going away. It must take into account the fact that in some places, it is foolish to go without a firearm. (Rural states with bears, alligators, mountain lions come to mind. Until 9/11 it was mandatory to fly with a large calibre rifle in the airplane in some States). The legislation must be targeted towards some specific effect and be likely to have that effect. Most legislation doesn't seem to.

Soft criteria may be more flexible in theory. Do you believe that an individual has a right to effective self defense? If so, how many restrictions can one morally place upon the ability to actually conduct it, either in terms of the nature, or with time, place and manner prohibitions (eg gun free zones).

Simply saying "I don't like evil black rifles" or "we should not allow concealed carry" do not really meet these criteria. Come up with practical suggestions, which can be politically enacted, and which are likely to have the desired effect, and we'll talk.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

For people who know what they are doing, ARs are actually the best form of home defense weapon, especially in the US where so many walls are made of wood and plasterboard. This is why many SWAT teams have transitioned from submachine guns and shotguns to carbines. The reason I use a pistol and not a rifle myself is that I have a five year old daughter, and a pistol safe with a fingerprint reader is much easier to keep in the bedroom than a rifle one.

What kind of home intrusion are people expecting, seal team 6 to come and try and steal your tv ??
Each to their own but living in the US a long time now, never felt the need for it but I understand why some do.

Manic Moran

No, just one to three guys with, if anything, knives or pistols.

Stop thinking melodramatically (Seal team 6? Really?) and actually look at it logically. If the objective is to end the threat to you as quickly as possible, with the minimum of danger to yourself or others, a modern carbine is the best choice out there. Barring special circumstances, such as my storage requirement, or if you only have one hand, there is no advantage to use a pistol, and shotguns have their own problems, not least inaccuracy.

Mjollnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, just one to three guys with, if anything, knives or pistols.

Stop thinking melodramatically (Seal team 6? Really?) and actually look at it logically. If the objective is to end the threat to you as quickly as possible, with the minimum of danger to yourself or others, a modern carbine is the best choice out there. Barring special circumstances, such as my storage requirement, or if you only have one hand, there is no advantage to use a pistol, and shotguns have their own problems, not least inaccuracy.

In a confined area like a room or a hallway in a home invasion?

Given the spread of a shotgun, inaccuracy is not an issue compared to an AR.

If anything, a shotgun is preferable to an AR in such circumstances, and won't present problems of where a high-velocity bullet might end up.

Dar

Mjollnir wrote: »

Given the spread of a shotgun, inaccuracy is not an issue compared to an AR.

How wide do you think the spread of a shotgun is at close range?

Mjollnir

Dar wrote: »

How wide do you think the spread of a shotgun is at close range?

Depends on the choke and the shot size.

In any case, wider than a .233

Manic Moran

Mjollnir wrote: »

In a confined area like a room or a hallway in a home invasion?

Given the spread of a shotgun, inaccuracy is not an issue compared to an AR.

If anything, a shotgun is preferable to an AR in such circumstances, and won't present problems of where a high-velocity bullet might end up.

You have it the wrong way around. The spread of a shotgun at typical indoor ranges is such that you generally have to be about as accurate with the shotgun as you would a rifle. There's no 'close enough', really, and if you do have a lot of spread, then you have to worry about some projectiles going past the target even if you hit it. Most shotguns are not as easy to aim precisely as a rifle.

If anything, a shotgun is preferable to an AR in such circumstances, and won't present problems of where a high-velocity bullet might end up.

And where might such a high velocity bullet end up? I've already pointed out that carbine ammunition is excellent for US indoor use because of its lack of penetration.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
"If the round fired is a miss and hits only wood or drywall, the projectile will break apart into smaller pieces—while these are still dangerous, their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet"

For further details of how many walls buckshot will go through, see the Box O' Truth. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

The problem is that people keep equating 5.56mm rifles with military spec ammunition. The military is limited by law to the type of ammunition they are permitted to use. Civilians, including police, are not. As a result, I can use ammunition specifically designed for use inside homes out of my personal rifle, and modern technology has gotten very good at making the stuff.

Overheal

Considering a scenario where say the family dog is also attacking the home invader and you need to shoot at him, I could see why you'd also rather the rifle over the shotgun. The odds are much more likely you're going to hit something you don't intend to with the shotgun.

Mjollnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have it the wrong way around. The spread of a shotgun at typical indoor ranges is such that you generally have to be about as accurate with the shotgun as you would a rifle. There's no 'close enough', really, and if you do have a lot of spread, then you have to worry about some projectiles going past the target even if you hit it. Most shotguns are not as easy to aim precisely as a rifle.

No, not really. I'll take the spread of a 12 gauge and, say, 6-7 shot on improved cylinder over a AR any day (or night, was it were).

And precision isn't the name of the game here. Just hit the target period. A wounded target is far easier to deal with than one that you missed.

And where might such a high velocity bullet end up? I've already pointed out that carbine ammunition is excellent for US indoor use because of its lack of penetration.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
"If the round fired is a miss and hits only wood or drywall, the projectile will break apart into smaller pieces—while these are still dangerous, their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet"

For further details of how many walls buckshot will go through, see the Box O' Truth. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

The problem is that people keep equating 5.56mm rifles with military spec ammunition. The military is limited by law to the type of ammunition they are permitted to use. Civilians, including police, are not. As a result, I can use ammunition specifically designed for use inside homes out of my personal rifle, and modern technology has gotten very good at making the stuff.

The problem if it hits a window or some other such thin and fragile surface.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, just one to three guys with, if anything, knives or pistols.

Stop thinking melodramatically (Seal team 6? Really?) and actually look at it logically. If the objective is to end the threat to you as quickly as possible, with the minimum of danger to yourself or others, a modern carbine is the best choice out there. Barring special circumstances, such as my storage requirement, or if you only have one hand, there is no advantage to use a pistol, and shotguns have their own problems, not least inaccuracy.

Well if I looked at it logically then I would probably look at the statistics on the frequencies and consequences of home intrusion, and whether having an AR to end a threat justifies the consequences that may come from these actions.

Manic Moran

Mjollnir wrote: »

No, not really. I'll take the spread of a 12 gauge and, say, 6-7 shot on improved cylinder over a AR any day (or night, was it were).

And precision isn't the name of the game here. Just hit the target period. A wounded target is far easier to deal with than one that you missed.

The spread of the typical 12 gauge riot gun is about 1" per yard. The typical room is, what, 4 meters? 6? You're not getting much more chance to hit, and if you do need that extra inch or two of spread to wing the target, that means that there's a fair bit of buckshot which missed and has to go somewhere anyway. Besides, if you have a low-recoil semi-auto, you're going to get the follow-on shot off much more quickly.

I would argue that the name of the game is stopping the target immediately. Winging him with buckshot may not necessarily have that effect (though, yes, it will probably cause him to take a serious rethink in most cases)

The problem if it hits a window or some other such thin and fragile surface.

Interestingly, I have not found any testing of modern (i.e made the last two or three years) home defense ammo against windows after a brief search. But if the round shatters upon hitting plasterboard/drywall, I can't imagine it does too much worse against glass.

Manic Moran

Carcharodon wrote: »

Well if I looked at it logically then I would probably look at the statistics on the frequencies and consequences of home intrusion, and whether having an AR to end a threat justifies the consequences that may come from these actions.

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

Mjollnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

The spread of the typical 12 gauge riot gun is about 1" per yard. The typical room is, what, 4 meters? 6? You're not getting much more chance to hit, and if you do need that extra inch or two of spread to wing the target, that means that there's a fair bit of buckshot which missed and has to go somewhere anyway. Besides, if you have a low-recoil semi-auto, you're going to get the follow-on shot off much more quickly.

I would argue that the name of the game is stopping the target immediately. Winging him with buckshot may not necessarily have that effect (though, yes, it will probably cause him to take a serious rethink in most cases)

Perhaps we're using different terms.

Again, I wouldn't use buckshot (00) for home defense because of the potential problems already mentioned. Something closer to 6-7 shot would be far more appropriate, and it depends on the choke of the barrel, as well.

Improved cylinder or cylinder bore will get the job done quite nicely up close.

To my experience, getting shot at, not even actually getting shot, is enough to have any perp reconsider his/her actions.

Overheal

The spread of the typical 12 gauge riot gun is about 1" per yard. The typical room is, what, 4 meters? 6?

You... used yards and meters interchangeably...

Manic Moran

Mjollnir wrote: »

Perhaps we're using different terms.

Again, I wouldn't use buckshot (00) for home defense because of the potential problems already mentioned. Something closer to 6-7 shot would be far more appropriate, and it depends on the choke of the barrel, as well.

Improved cylinder or cylinder bore will get the job done quite nicely up close.

To my experience, getting shot at, not even actually getting shot, is enough to have any perp reconsider his/her actions.

Birdshot? Fair enough, it's one of those debated issues in the US. "Birdshot is for the birds" is not an uncommon response: It's designed to take down birds, not stop grown men, but, yes, it will almost certainly have an effect.

But that just negates the overpenetration problem compared to an AR, it doesn't affect so much things like recoil force or base accuracy.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

Yes, I believe we are having different arguments.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

It's not actually a Boolean decision because all other factors are not constant.

You'll never convince me, or a lot of people I'd wager, that a rifle is the best weapon for defence in a home invasion.

It worries me thought that you're not actually thinking of defence, you're unhappy with the idea of merely injuring or scaring off the invader. Is this correct?

Grudaire

Manic Moran wrote: »

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

Do you have any stats on how effective having a gun is if this fabled home invasion occurs?

My understanding is that having a gun at home doesn't end up resolving home invasions, but more regularly ends up in home shootings (accidental and otherwise).

Manic Moran

The goal is to stop the invasion. If this is done by scaring off the guy, fine, but such a reliance on what the other guy chooses to do takes the control out of the hands of the homeowner. Similarly, if injured, that does not necessarily stop someone, especially if they're not entirely in control of their faculties, or just pumped up with adrenaline. The only thing which will actually stop someone immediately is either a shot to the nervous system, or major trauma. There is no burden of responsibility on the homeowner towards the invader.

I realize that I am unlikely to convince you, because it goes against what you know, understand, and believe, and I doubt you are sufficiently interested to go do the research on your own on firearms boards, subject matter media, or other such sources to correct yourself.

Grudaire, look up "defensive gun uses", take whichever figure you like, to include those provided by the anti-gun groups or the government. (I'm on an iPad in Moscow right now, not convenient for me to find such data). However, see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/18/se-cupp/crossfires-se-cupp-cites-cdc-armed-citizen-safety-/ which talks about the recent report that those who are armed are less likely to be injured in case of attack than those who are not. If I shoot myself or someone else accidentally, then that's my own bloody fault and I should have taken greater care. I am liable for the reprecussions. I submit that the value of proper, expected use outweighs the detriment of unexpected misuse, much like every other part of our society, from drink to cars.

We also have a much lower "homeowner present at the time" rate of burglary than most countries, probably because there is a not insignificant chance of getting shot by a homeowner. This reduces the chances of any confrontation in which anyone is likely to be injured on either side in the first place.

Grudaire

Manic Moran wrote: »

I realize that I am unlikely to convince you, because it goes against what you know, understand, and believe, and I doubt you are sufficiently interested to go do the research on your own on firearms boards, subject matter media, or other such sources to correct yourself.

:rolleyes:

I'm actually pretty open minded, and would probably get a gun if I could. That said I don't think I need one, and I think the American peope would benefit from less guns too.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Grudaire, look up "defensive gun uses", take whichever figure you like, to include those provided by the anti-gun groups or the government. (I'm on an iPad in Moscow right now, not convenient for me to find such data). However, see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/18/se-cupp/crossfires-se-cupp-cites-cdc-armed-citizen-safety-/ which talks about the recent report that those who are armed are less likely to be injured in case of attack than those who are not. If I shoot myself or someone else accidentally, then that's my own bloody fault and I should have taken greater care. I am liable for the reprecussions. I submit that the value of proper, expected use outweighs the detriment of unexpected misuse, much like every other part of our society, from drink to cars.

Did you read the link you posted?

• Guns do help when used to 'attacking or threatening an offender', does that exclude the cases where the gun isn't to hand, or the intruder gets the gun?
• The research does not cover the accidents that may happen:

"For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use."

Manic Moran wrote: »

We also have a much lower "homeowner present at the time" rate of burglary than most countries, probably because there is a not insignificant chance of getting shot by a homeowner. This reduces the chances of any confrontation in which anyone is likely to be injured on either side in the first place.

I'd like to see stats on that too. Absolute rates of burgalry, because I can only find relative rates of burgalry quoted when I google and get sent to gun lobby websites! :pac: (Proportional rates don't count if there are just far more unoccupied robberies)

Manic Moran

Grudaire wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I'm actually pretty open minded, and would probably get a gun if I could. That said I don't think I need one, and I think the American peope would benefit from less guns too.

Apologies, I was referring to Brian's statement that "You'll never convince me"
I should have made that distinction clear.

Did you read the link you posted?

Of course. I've even read the entire 113 page report it's about.

• Guns do help when used to 'attacking or threatening an offender', does that exclude the cases where the gun isn't to hand, or the intruder gets the gun?
• The research does not cover the accidents that may happen:

a) Yes, it does, and no, it doesn't. If it's not to hand, you didn't use it to attack or threaten anyone, and if the intruder gets the gun and injures or kills you with it, then it definitely counts as someone who attempted to defend themselves and was injured.
b) Why should it? If I go and shoot myself, then that's not some generic bad thing which society needs to avoid, it's a specific case of me being bloody stupid and deserving what I got. If I go and shoot someone else by accident, then that's me being bloody stupid, and deserving what I get by way of criminal or civil prosecution. My being stupid should not affect the legitimate use by other people who aren't so careless. There are about 600 accidental deaths per year by firearm in the US. Some 3,500 accidental drownings. Firearms have a legitimate beneficial lifesaving use, what's the argument in favour of swimming pools beyond less specific exercise and physiotherapy requirements? The statement about accidents has no relevance in the discussion of whether or not you're better off with a firearm in the cause of defending yourself. All other criteria, such as 'what chance I will accidentally shoot my daughter' or 'what chance that I will be dispossessed and shot by my own weapon' (By the way, weapon retention is easier with a long gun than pistol) are factors to be taken in the initial decision to defend home and health by force of arms in the first place, that doesn't mean that others should remove that decision for me.

"For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use."

All of which are factors within the control of the gun owner, who should be responsible for his actions with that firearm. Fundamentally, this comes down to an argument over 'is it better to have a society which judges itself by overall statistics, blind to individual circumstance, or is it better to have a society which values the importance to its denizens of their own individual circumstances as opposed to having them subservient to what is deemed 'the common good on the basis of whatever set of statistics is being used'?

I'd like to see stats on that too. Absolute rates of burgalry, because I can only find relative rates of burgalry quoted when I google and get sent to gun lobby websites! :pac: (Proportional rates don't count if there are just far more unoccupied robberies)

I'm still on the road, so don't have time for much research, but a chap over here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50597508 is quoting ONS and FBI figures as 1 per 41 households in the UK and 1 per 51 in the US. (which is kindof scary, really)
As to hot burlgaries, this chap writing in the Telegraph is quoting some 50% for England and Wales, and 10% for the US. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

Gleck/Kopel (Statisticians known for their pro-gun outlook) quote about 45% for UK and Netherlands ant 13% for the US. This University of Chicago paper http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Brookings-Burglary-Policing-Ch3-2003.pdf proposes that their methodology is a bit flawed, and that the true rate is about 35-45% of UK burglaries are hot. The paper notes that only the US officially released hot burglary statistics, hence the estimations.

FISMA

Brian? wrote: »

Guns that are held unconstitutionally should be confiscated anyway IMO. I.e. guns held by anyone not a member of a well organised militia.

Who do you believe is the militia? Examples please.

Grudaire

Sorry Manic, I thought I'd have time to rely sooner. I think you argue a strong case for the pro gun side, but not one I'd agree with. It's a pity I don't have time to make a proper contribution to the thread

Manic Moran wrote: »

All of which are factors within the control of the gun owner, who should be responsible for his actions with that firearm. Fundamentally, this comes down to an argument over 'is it better to have a society which judges itself by overall statistics, blind to individual circumstance, or is it better to have a society which values the importance to its denizens of their own individual circumstances as opposed to having them subservient to what is deemed 'the common good on the basis of whatever set of statistics is being used'?

I realise that America has a different set of values both socially and economically. But I personally opt for the common good within reason. The pro-gun argument comes down to home invasion and other fear based arguments (which seems to be less of an issue in America by your stats) and ignores the fact that America tends to use guns to kill other Americans.

Manic Moran

Grudaire wrote: »

I realise that America has a different set of values both socially and economically. But I personally opt for the common good within reason. The pro-gun argument comes down to home invasion and other fear based arguments (which seems to be less of an issue in America by your stats)

Chicken or egg? Burglars like to avoid confrontation to begin with, but if they do encounter a homeowner in the UK, what's likely to be the worst that happens? They get beat about with a cricket bat? In the US, there is a reasonable likelihood of getting shot and killed, the stakes get a bit more rich. Since it is reasonable to presume that most burglars are out for easy money, not high risk money, it would be logical that American ones would take more care than their UK counterparts in their target selection, probably aborting more of their raids.

Bottom line, I only have one life. As does my daughter. I do not appreciate being told I must forfeit my ability to control its safety, possibly forfeiting that life, because some politician somewhere wants to reduce me to a statistic

and ignores the fact that America tends to use guns to kill other Americans.

Doesn't ignore it. Of the 12,000 firearm murders we get a year here (or whatever the number is), what percentage is done by legally armed persons? Member of gang A in South Central LA shooting at member of gang B, for dissing his car or whatever, likely is not using a legally held firearm, may well not be legally entitled to hold the firearm, and probably isn't shooting at a fine, upstanding, law abiding member of the community. If no practicable law can keep that from happening, then what is the justification for prohibition for generally law abiding folk such as myself?

"Fear based argument" is a bit of a misnomer. I have smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and a fire extinguisher in my house. Is it a fear based argument to have the tools to text to an unlikely house fire? Or just a sensible precaution just in case?

Grudaire

Talking about protecting your daughter but ignoring the increased risk to her from having a gun in your house doesn't make sense (yeah if you shoot yourself you deserve it etc, but that argument ignores the fact that accidents are a major problem with guns)

Illegal guns are easier to get in America because there are more legally held guns. (And fewer requirements re storage etc)

Equating smoke alarms and guns makes me feel that you are probably the one with the entrenched opinion on this thread.
Smoke alarms alert you to smoke hopefully saving your life, guns kill hopefully killing other animals or people and not someone you like.

Lapua Magnum

Brian? wrote: »

Guns that are held unconstitutionally should be confiscated anyway IMO. I.e. guns held by anyone not a member of a well organised militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment (Bill of Rights)


The 2nd amendment is just a confirmation of the inalienable right that the people have a right to self-defence. They have a right to rise up against a Tyranical Government, as the Founding Fathers did against the British. That is the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights, to confirm the inalienable rights of the people (as set out in the 1689 Bill of Rights). The founding fathers fought for these rights and they are mentioned in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independance. It has nothing to do with arming the militia. The militia and military get their framing (& access to arms) elsewhere in the constitution (Section 8).

"THE PEOPLE" had particular meaning to the founding fathers and is mentioned in the very first line of the US in the US Constitution ("We the People") and several times in the Declaration of Independence.

Manic Moran

Grudaire wrote: »

Talking about protecting your daughter but ignoring the increased risk to her from having a gun in your house doesn't make sense (yeah if you shoot yourself you deserve it etc, but that argument ignores the fact that accidents are a major problem with guns)

No, accidents are a major problem with people. We find ways to hurt ourselves all the time, sometimes by things which have practical purposes (cars, drills) and sometimes by things which have no practical utility at all (rock climbing, skydiving).

My 'ready' pistol is stored in a fingerprint safe. As long as I keep it there, the closest that is liable to result in an accident caused by the gun is that she trips over the safe in the dark.

Accidents, such as they are, fall under three general criteria.
1) "I was playing with/cleaning/etc the gun and shot myself or someone." Yeah, i.e. stupidity, under the control of the owner. Some very basic rules need to be broken in order for that to happen. And yes, it does happen. With consequences for the person who broke them, who should be well motivated to not do so in the first place. I've been working with firearms professionally for 15 years now, those rules are fairly ingrained into me, anc most other people who, by and large, don't go about shooting people either.
2) "I left the gun unattended, and someone else found it". i.e. stupidity. Who leaves an unsecured firearm outside of their positive control in a situation where there are kids around?
3) "I heard a noise in the dark, and accidentally shot my daughter". That wasn't an accident. That was a deliberate shot against a target you were unsure of, which probably also means that you had no reasonable presumption of fear to use lethal force to begin with.

So in effect, the accident argument is an attempt to legislate against stupidity and / or incompetence, and to, by default, presume that all people are stupid and incompetent with firearms.

Illegal guns are easier to get in America because there are more legally held guns. (And fewer requirements re storage etc)

There are so many firearms already in circulation that even if it were possible to reduce the numbers of legally held firearms, it wouldn't make a huge difference in the arms already in the control of criminals. Mexico has very strict anti-gun laws, look at the fun they're having. (And contrary to the oft-quoted claim, most of the cartels' firearms do not get sneaked across the US border, they tend to come in from South and Central America, even the ones of US manufacture)

The 'storage' requirement is a dead letter now that the supreme court has ruled on the issue. If you have a right to a firearm to defend yourself, the government cannot mandate that you keep it locked at all times. "Knock-on" laws, however, remain untouched. eg "a gun owner is held responsible if he leaves the gun where a kid can get it and the kid then does something illegal."

Equating smoke alarms and guns makes me feel that you are probably the one with the entrenched opinion on this thread.
Smoke alarms alert you to smoke hopefully saving your life, guns kill hopefully killing other animals or people and not someone you like.

I do have a fairly entrenched position, which I entrenched after going to the US with a fairly "Irish" attitude to firearms, then I changed over time. I merely seek to ensure that you understand why.
In the event of a threat to your safety posed by another human, a gun can save your life, much as a smoke detector will to a threat posed by fire.

Assuming that the '1 burglary per 51 households' figure is correct, and that the 13% figure of hot burglary rate is correct, that means that there is about a 1:390 chance of a home invasion (on the US national statistic basis) when you're at home. Given the National Fire Protection Association figures of 366,600 home structure fires in a year, that's a 1:320 chance of your house catching fire. That's not a huge difference in likelihood, and either can result in serious harm to you. Having the tools for either likelihood is simply sensible.

NTM

Madd Finn

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, but it's not as simple as "more guns = more gun murders" as Switzerland has shown.

Yes, guns load themselves, aim themselves, and pull their own triggers. All without human intervention. That's why Switzerland is a blood soaked mess. :pac:

Actually, Switzerland has one of the highest gun homicide rates in Europe. Still nothing like the US though.

Madd Finn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of the 12,000 firearm murders we get a year here (or whatever the number is), what percentage is done by legally armed persons?

Member of gang A in South Central LA shooting at member of gang B, for dissing his car or whatever, likely is not using a legally held firearm, may well not be legally entitled to hold the firearm, and probably isn't shooting at a fine, upstanding, law abiding member of the community. If no practicable law can keep that from happening, then what is the justification for prohibition for generally law abiding folk such as myself?

Much as I dislike the implication that somebody from South Central LA is "probably..(not)..a fine upstanding law abiding member of the community" and therefore deserving of the cheaper life that seems to pertain there, the argument about "Scumbags killing scumbags" cuts both ways.

I will accept that many (I have no idea how many) US gun homicides are of and committed by rival criminals. But then, so are most of ours. I am not sure what percentage of the "12,000 or so firearm murders" in the US fall into this category but I am guessing, just guessing mind, that it's similar to the percentage of our 20 or so gun murders which occur every year.

Let's say it's an identical X % in each country's case.

Even allowing for population differences, the (100 - X)% of 12,000 gun-homicide victims in the US who ARE "fine upstanding law abiding members of the community" is very much greater than the (100 - X)% of 20 odd victims here.

Which is a bit stark, even allowing for population differences. In fact in round figures it's ten times the number!!!*

So ten times as many "Fine upstanding law abiding members of the community" per head of population are killed in the US, compared with Ireland, every year.



*(Irish population 5m, US population 300m ie 60 times greater.

20 gun murders in Ireland equates to 1200 in US. Your figure is 12,000!!!)

Manic Moran

Madd Finn wrote: »

Much as I dislike the implication that somebody from South Central LA is "probably..(not)..a fine upstanding law abiding member of the community" and therefore deserving of the cheaper life that seems to pertain there, the argument about "Scumbags killing scumbags" cuts both ways.

I did not mean to imply that everyone from South Central LA was not a fine upstanding member of the community, but that the chances are that the member of Gang B who was being shot at by the member of Gang A probably wasn't.

I will accept that many (I have no idea how many) US gun homicides are of and committed by rival criminals. But then, so are most of ours. I am not sure what percentage of the "12,000 or so firearm murders" in the US fall into this category but I am guessing, just guessing mind, that it's similar to the percentage of our 20 or so gun murders which occur every year.

You are making an assumption on the figures there. We already accept that the US has a vastly different culture of violence than Ireland does, so attempting to extrapolate similarities in victims is hazardous.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2013/07/05/police-report-most-homicide-victims-have-crime-records/

(Note, that's just those who were killed who had previously been arrested, and doesn't count those who may have been criminals but hadn't been arrested for anything yet)

I don't know, and can't find from a quick search, what the Irish figures are.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

4th times a charm eh?

Healthy gun control for me would be a system that includes:

A register for all owners.
A tracking system for purchasing ammunition.
No concealed carry allowed.
No assault rifles.
Nothing over a .44 caliber unless you are hunting bison/Grizzley bears and have a permit to do so.
All owners must possess a relevant permit. Full FBI background checks for permits at owners cost.


That pretty much sums up the most important changes. Some of which are laws in some states already. My frame of reference is Arizona. Where none of the above are laws.

Some good points there. I would add in that you would need to carry insurance on any gun you own.

Be like Nutella

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

AbusesToilets

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

They are allowed in places where you can purchase and consume alcohol, like restaurants and bars. Why should someone be less able to defend them selves if they are in a place like that? It is already illegal (to my knowledge) to conceal carry and be imbibing.

Makes more sense than it being a serious crime for a CC permit holder being in a restaurant, whereas it would be a misdemeanor for someone without a permit to do the same thing.

Overheal

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

Well, look what happening in Connecticut. Designate a Gun Free Zone, and most people will view it as a Gun Free Zone while the very few but very dangerous will see it as an invitation to massacre.

Manic Moran

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

Why not? What's wrong with putting some personal responsibility on the owner? It's not as if we prohibit car keys in bars, though the only reason for having a car key is if you wish to drive home after the evening in the bar is done. You can kill someone just as well driving drunk. Probably better, actually, as drunks are notoriously poor shots.

sin_city

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why not? What's wrong with putting some personal responsibility on the owner? It's not as if we prohibit car keys in bars, though the only reason for having a car key is if you wish to drive home after the evening in the bar is done. You can kill someone just as well driving drunk. Probably better, actually, as drunks are notoriously poor shots.

If there was ever an incident involving a gun shotout in a bar due to them being allowed in bars it would be widely reported.

If someone’s life or lives were saved due to this measure no one would ever know.

Those types of stories are not sexy enough for the media and don’t fit the agenda.

Manic Moran

http://www.timesdispatch.com/archive/gun-crimes-drop-at-virginia-bars-and-restaurants/article_07eae8c7-9e74-56d6-8928-a9fe2add8ebf.html

With the increase in States allowing firearms to be carried in more places, we get a good example of before-and-after comparisons, instead of parades of horribles.

Virginia's bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law's first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found.

LeinsterDub

1 city, 1 weekend , 14 dead .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-independence-day-2014-mayhem-in-chicago-sees-police-chief-admit-we-lost-it-after-82-shootings-and-14-deaths-on-deadly-4-july-bank-holiday-9593017.html

Be like Nutella

I'm for gun laws of any sort that even theoreticallly can reduce gun deaths or massacres but unless somebody can offer a solution which involves dealing with the 200+ million guns in the US already then...

LeinsterDub

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'm for gun laws of any sort that even theoreticallly can reduce gun deaths or massacres but unless somebody can offer a solution which involves dealing with the 200+ million guns in the US already then...

We can't put in place traffic safety laws while there currently exists cars...

AbusesToilets

Instead of demonising guns and looking to create more laws that only punish legitimate gun owners, more effort should be put into dealing with issues like mental health treatment. The lack of available facilities and treatment options is criminal and has no small part to play in the cases of those committing these mass shootings.

The sensationalistic reporting of major news outlets also serves as encouragement to sick individuals who feel it will bring them fame and notoriety.

LeinsterDub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Instead of demonising guns and looking to create more laws that only punish legitimate gun owners, more effort should be put into dealing with issues like mental health treatment. The lack of available facilities and treatment options is criminal and has no small part to play in the cases of those committing these mass shootings.

The sensationalistic reporting of major news outlets also serves as encouragement to sick individuals who feel it will bring them fame and notoriety.

There was basically a mass shooting in Chicago over the independence day weekend. Of course since it was 14 different shooters it's not news worthy in the US. Mass shootings aren't the issue either is mental health

Manic Moran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There was basically a mass shooting in Chicago over the independence day weekend. Of course since it was 14 different shooters it's not news worthy in the US. Mass shootings aren't the issue either is mental health

Arguably neither are the gun laws: Chicago's are some of the strictest in the nation already. Sometimes touted as a model for other parts of the country to follow.

Doesn't seem to be working.

LeinsterDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably neither are the gun laws: Chicago's are some of the strictest in the nation already. Sometimes touted as a model for other parts of the country to follow.

Doesn't seem to be working.

The only item I and probably you own that has any way where the destructive potential as guns is my car.
I am required to

1. Prove my abilty to drive safely
2. Prove its safe to drive (NCT)
3. Pay towards the collective damage it does (Motor tax)
4. Pay to cover the damage I may do as an individual (Insurance)
5. Inform the government it's in my charge (Registration)
6. Inform the government it's not longer in my charge (Change of ownership)
7. Can have my right to it removed if I fail to comply with some reasonable standards
8. Are limits where I can take it

I think this would be a reasonable list of requirements for gun ownership