Guns.

[Pete.]

Some gun control mis-conceptions.

Gun Control Saves Lives

New York City and Washington, D.C. are two of the most restrictive cities in the country with respect to gun control, yet they are also two of the least safest cities in the country.
Criminals buy guns outside of the restrictive areas and bring them in illegally.
Arlington, VA has a significantly lower crime rate than D.C., but it's right next door (see the FBI "Crime in the United States" reports).
Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a member of your own family than an intruder.
The study by Arthur Kellermann from which that statistic is pulled doesn't say that. The number includes suicides. The study doesn't take into account defensive uses in which a shot was not fired (99% of the uses), and it doesn't reflect intruders avoiding homes with firearms inside.
Your gun is more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder.
Less than one percent of defensive gun uses results in a kill (see Gary Kleck's book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America). According to the National Institute of Justice's report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense. With tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, that means that firearms are used 40 times more often for protection than for murder.
We would all be safer if there were fewer guns.
Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous, but in the right hands they are used for protection and deterrence. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Georgia's homicide rate dropped 21% after making it easier to get guns, whereas Wisconsin's rate went up 33% during the same time period after making it more difficult to get guns. There are a lot of factors that go into homicide rates, but gun ownership is definitely not one of them.
We don't need guns in a civilized society.
How many people living in or around urban areas leave their cars unlocked or their front doors open all the time? There are civilized and uncivilized people in the world, and there are places and events that lead to some very uncivilized behaviour (like hurricanes). Having a gun means that people in the area can defend themselves and others against those uncivilized people.
Guns should be banned because thousands die every year.
Most of those people are criminals killed by criminals, according to the FBI "Crime in the United States" report. Also, many of those deaths are suicides. If someone is going to kill themselves, and they can't get a gun, they'll try something else. Again, guns are used far more often in self-defence.
We need to do something about the increasing access to guns.
Over the last half-dozen decades, the government has steadily restricted our right to keep and bear arms, and access has been decreasing. However, none of the 20,000 laws on the books are making it any harder for criminals to get guns, because by definition a criminal won't abide by the law.
The police can protect us.
In several cases, the courts found that police do not an obligation to respond to emergency calls. Even when they do, though, it's often too late. According to a story in US News and World Report, G. Witkin found that 95% of 911 calls are dispatched too late to stop a crime. When someone breaks into your home, you don't have time to call police. When a gunman charges into a diner and shoots up the place, you don't have time to call police.
It is too dangerous for the average citizen to deal with criminals.
Citizens fighting crime happens all the time. However, even better is to have crime not happen, and gun ownership is an excellent deterrent. After a series of rapes in Florida in 1966, women began buying guns and the police department ran training sessions in handgun use. After 36 rapes in 1966, there were 4 in 1967 (see Paxton Quigley's book "Armed and Female").
The safest way to deal with criminal assault is not to resist.
The US DOJ found that of 32,000 attempted rapes in 1979, 32% were successful, but in the case of an armed victim, only 3% were successful. Should a victim just sit back and let an attack happen, or should they defend themselves? What about defending your children when someone comes after them? Criminals avoid armed victims. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring the head of household to keep a gun, and burglaries dropped by 89% (see Gary Kleck's "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force).
Allowing people to carry weapons means every disagreement will turn into a shootout.
People currently have many weapons, including lawn implements, kitchen utensils, sporting goods and household appliances, all of which have been used in murders. In states that have liberal carry laws, crime rates are generally lower. Florida's carry law in 1987 was followed by a homicide rate drop of 39% according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
The average citizen with a gun is a bigger threat to himself and others than a criminal is.
Proper training is very important. The NRA has spent millions of dollars on training adults and children. In fact, the NRA is the only organization spending money to try to educate kids about gun safety, but they're being stopped at every attempt by knee-jerk politicians and soccer moms who want to hide their children from the realities of the world. Accidental death rates from firearms have been declining steadily for 50 years, and armed citizens shoot and kill twice as many criminals as police do.
Firearms drain resources because of medical costs.
Most of the medical cost is because of criminal violence, not lawful possession of firearms. Did you know that medical malpractice causes more deaths per year than firearms, according to a Harvard Medical Practice Study?
Countries where gun ownership is severely restricted have a crime rate that is much lower than ours.
England and Japan have lower murder rates than the US, and they have restrictive gun laws. However, Switzerland and Israel have high rates of gun distribution and have even lower rates. South Africa's murder rate is even higher than the US, and they have very restrictive gun laws.
The police favor gun control, and they know more about crime than we do.
The 12th Annual National Police Survey produced in 1999 by the National Association of Chiefs of Police showed that police reject gun control as an effective crime control and that they support private firearms ownership.
Only police and trained and responsible enough to carry guns.
According to the Washington Post 8/28/94, pA1, 19 out of 1000 officers in Washington, D.C. were arrested. According to the Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, only 9 out of 1000 carry permit holders in Florida had licenses revoked.
There's nothing wrong with a waiting period for a background check.
So if someone is threatened, they should ask the criminal to wait a few days so that a background check can be completed? Criminals don't wait for background checks -- they buy on the black market.
Guns should be registered.
Would that help make life difficult for criminals? No. New York and Washington, D.C. required registration years ago and promised not to ban guns. Then, politicians decided to ban some guns and used those registration lists to round them up (see 9/5/92 Daily News article "Weapons Ban Defied"). A man named James Wright was a gun control advocate who received a grant from President Carter's Justice Department to study effectiveness of gun control laws. He found that waiting periods, background checks and other gun control laws were not effective in preventing or reducing violent crime ("Second Thought About Gun Control" in The Public Interest, Spring, 1988).
Trigger locks and smart guns will reduce the danger from guns. To be used for self defence, a gun must be loaded and ready to use. You cannot legistlate safety, but you can educate. You can teach children what to do when they see a gun. The NRA is spending millions to try to teach children the proper thing to do when they find a gun (stop, don't touch, go find an adult). Criminals won't use smart guns, and they won't wait for you to prepare your gun for use. Any delay can mean the difference between life and death.

[Scott Calabro]

Pete,

Please come to America and run for office!!!!!!!!!!!



Cheers,
Scott

[Pete.]

No thanks Scott, it's much safer here where only the criminals have guns.

[Freewheel]

Big-Foot,

I didn't have any problems, I did hesitate when I suspected a person holding an RPG was a teenager, but that was more due to SOP's (caution with possible minor combatants) than anything else. Intel later revealed he was a 26 year old blow in.


Most of the problems described here are the result of people not really thinking about the scenario. If you have your handgun specifically for household defence, is it really going to be useful to lethally injure an intruder? There have for many years been products available that allow non-lethal force to be used in some standard firearms. For home defence, use them, you'll only need them once.


In this debate, along with others, a specific distinction needs to be made between lawful and unlawful use of firearms, cars, airliners etc.


Pete,

Thank you for quoting an authoritative source. As humans, we tend to accept what is presented to us as fact, whereas it's the raw data that tells us the actual story.

I understand that in most parts of the western world there has been a rise in unlawful firearm use in association with drug distribution. (anecdotally, if somebody has specialised knowledge please let us all know) Most other forms of firearm misuse - by both lawful and unlawful owners - have remained stable by percentage of population over many years.



I don't have any issues with there being a mild control.

I don't mind there being a need for them to be stored securely, I'd do this anyway, though I do object to the premise that it needs to be audited.

I do mind a registration system that effectively draws revenue for a politically motivated (and generally very poor) service that wasn't statistically justified.

I really don't mind a licencing system that at least requires a person to demonstrate some knowledge of safe handling procedures. Knowing your backdrop would be an example.

I do mind a requirement that a person be a member of an approved club/association and conduct specific participation a specific number of occasions in a specific period. In NSW (for long arms) the requirement is to participate in 4 events every 12 months. This is a pain in the backside when you don't own a farm and live 700km from the nearest licenced range....

I do very much mind not being able to allow a minor under the age of 12 to handle a firearm. Simply because I can't teach them safe handling habits until they're virtually a teenager and interested in other things, as well as getting silly. I think 10 is about the right age, but others will disagree.

I don't necessarily go along with the argument that personal carriage is either a peacemaker or a fearmonger and I probably wouldn't carry one anyway, but I'd enjoy having the choice, thus my earlier remarks.



Pete was busy posting while I was composing the above reply, so;

There are numerous relatively small scale examples of practical and sensible approaches to personal firearm use, as Pete has mentioned. There are also a number of examples of apple v orange comparison on both sides of the debate, which emphasises more than anything else that there just isn't enough large scale information available. Why not? Take your own guess, my guess is that the people that can afford to fund broader scale studies don't want to know the result.....

[Bill Musarra]

Georgia's Governor signed into law, the right for a registered gun owner to carry their weapon on public transportation, and into any restaurant, including those that serve alcohol. There are restrictions, and it will probably be challenged in the courts, but the public will ultimately be safer.
There are several cases in the U S where, had the owner of a handgun had their weapon, they could have stopped a mass killing. One at a McDonalds. One at a middle school. I don't remember the names or places but basically at the Mickey D's a daughter had to watch her mother and father be gunned down because they had left their handgun in the car in the parking lot, which was the requirement of the law. The middle school, the vice principle had to run a quarter mile to retrieve his gun, and then a quarter mile back, when a deranged student started indiscriminately shooting in the school. That was the requirement of the law at that time.
At a shopping mall that had a sign posted at the entrance, "This is a gun free zone" The gunman killed 6 patrons of the mall before the security force responded. Of course they didn't have weapons and had to wait on the police to respond.
There are many stories of this type. Unfortunately the media fail to report them, or worse they report only the parts they want to promote their agenda.

[chuck smith]

and Randy, I will remain amused how some people are willing to risk their own or their familys life so as not to "perpetuate the madness" as you say. You choose to live in that environment as is your decision. I live in a quiet southern city, and although I am a facial trauma surgeon by trade ,I have never been exposed first hand to lethal violence. Would I freeze up if faced with a lethal situation? I do not know and hope to never find out, however, much like many other uncertainties in life, being prepared to take appropriate action is a certanty in my life.

[John]

Better have it and not need it; rather than need it and not have it.

[I LOVE GT40- Paolo]

also here, italians are some of the beast guys around.
U all surely wellknow our Beretta, Franchi, Uberti...all the region near Brescia is the land of those artist.

In italy we have (as usual) a mess in laws.
It is as Scott says,and italians anyway always have a fetish love for weapons (I know guys with up to 10 rifles at home..)
Probably we have to divide gun lovers into 2 main cathegories: self defense owners and sport shooters.
Surely I am one of the second.

Too many weapons around are NOT a good sign imho,too many fellows dont respect what a weapon can do, and is ugly to read (quite often) what happens in college with kids..

Dunno, really..

[Dalton]

Pete, you're a stirring the pot type of old b*st*rd aren't you? Certainly got the forum moving.
While it's a side issue here, I object to the censorship where you can graphically show guns and shooting and people (actors) being wounded or killed as much as you like on TV or in movies, but cannot show in similar detail two consenting people having wild, passionate sex (which is much more worthwhile and harms no one).

Just two cents worth.

[Brian Hamilton]

I'm going to chime in one more time about this subject. Actually, this is the most civilized discussion I have ever seen on this subject! The cool thing is we have perspectives all over the world, most places you don't have that. You have local guys of just US guys speaking their opinions. Anyways, what I was going to say is that I'm now a Real Estate Agent. The types of property I show and sell are mainly Farm & Ranch properties with lots of acreage. I also live in Texas, Central Texas, where there are all manner of snakes and nasty things that want to bite you. I don't see a problem carrying a small caliber shotgun with me when I show property, especially vacant land.
In the same token, I don't see a problem with me carrying a pistol when I show a house. There were a string of murders of Real Estate Agents a few years back where they were killed by people "interrested in houses". It's a self defense thing for me. I also live in the country, so having a gun is almost a requirement to get rid of predators trying to get your horses. BUT, I am also a gun enthusiast. I mean, I could have an old Remington bolt action rifle, but I choose to have a H&K G3. I could have a regular old Mossberg or Remington shotgun, but I think I'll go with a SPAS12 or Saiga12.
Thank God we live in a country where we're faced with such "tough" choices. LOL
If faced with a situation, would I freeze up? Honestly I'd love to say I wouldn't but I know I probably would. Anyone who is faced with it without military training most likely would. As Randy said, even those with military training do. But I'd like to think I wouldn't just as an instinct to protect myself and family. I honestly hope I never have to face that situation, but I'd like to be prepared if I do.
Better to have it & not need it than to need it & not have it... Great quote.

Thanks,

Brian

[brianstewart]

Some interesting data on graphs to be found on here

Gun Facts

and here

Gun Facts - Global Gun Homicides

Who wants to live in Honduras?

[Ron Earp]

Originally Posted by brianstewart

Some interesting data on graphs to be found on here

Gun Facts

I think going there would be about as productive as going to

National Rifle Association - NRA Website Gateway

for a balanced viewpoint. Both organizations have clear agendas that are quite a bit different from one another.

[Pete.]

Interesting how two opposing points of view can come up with "scientific" statistics done by eminent academics to prove they are right.
How can a simple boy from the bush decide who is correct?

Does anyone have figures done by an independent organisation? I.E. Not the anti gun lobby or the N.R.A.

Dalton as always you have seen right through me, I'm with you mate make love not war.

I have to go now a bloody croc has made off with one of my pigs I'll blow the bastard away!
Oh no I cant the government made me hand in my guns.

[Freewheel]

All,

I was reflecting on this debate overnight and something rather profound occurred to me;

Here we are, having a debate on views that those involved hold very deeply, yet there is no abuse, name calling or childishness.

At the same time, the mod has let it run, even encouraged it, without fear that his site will be somehow dimished by it.

Just goes to show the intellectual level here is substantially higher than in every other forum I can think of, and a number of other threads here.

Thanks Ron!

[Joey Dean]

In February 2001 at Crossroads Mall in Oklahoma City, OK. I watched three young men take an older ladies (65 plus) purse as she and her husband walked to the car. Two walked away, the third drew back his fist to hit the lady in the face. Her husband fired one round into his chest. The other two turned and one started to pull a pistol from his waistband. The husband shot two rounds into his chest. The third assailant threw his hands up and hit the pavement with his knees.

Mall security, local police, and the state Highway Patrol all responded. The first to respond was the Highway Patrol in 7 minutes followed by mall security (unarmed) and lastly the local police in about 12 minutes. This was after a shots fired report, for the record. The fire department and ambulance were there before the local police.

In his statement to the Highway Patrol the man said he was going to let them leave until violence was offered to his wife and then to him. The first assailant lived, the second, I believe, was dead before he hit the ground, and the third was arrested (the news later offered that he was already wanted for assault).

This was about 4 years after the states concealed carry law came into effect. It made up my mind that I had made a good choice in taking the class and obtaining my CCW.

I did not enjoy what I saw, but I totally understand and applaud the decision the gentleman made when he decided to defend his wife and himself. If it was dependent on a totally physical confrontation, then the older couple would have been sorely outclassed.

What I learned that day was that you are ultimately responsible for you and your families safety, that threats choose where they will make themselves present, and that an attempt at a peaceful resolution (they were willing to let them walk away with the purse) is not a guarantee that there will be one.

[Foowowee]

Good post. Those sons-of-bitches got exactly what they deserved. We live in a potentially violent world. I applaud the senior gentleman's action.

Mike

[Bill Bayard]

Since guns are the topic, here's some firepower for you, Pete!

[Pete.]

Ahhh, Bill my brother, she looks to far dangerous for me. But then one can dream.


jcdean, a terrible thing to see and an even more horrible experience for the elderly couple. And his response IMH