Some thoughts on "gun control"

I'm not personally into guns but I am a strong believer in the right for citizens to legally purchase pretty much any type of precision target weapon (i.e. guns).

One of the strawman arguments I hear often is "Why not let people have nukes then?" and the reason is that the constitution intended citizens to bear arms -- specifically weapons that have a relatively high degree of precision.  Explosives, canons, etc. are not precision weapons.

Now before someone gets hung up on the above paragraph and starts naming various non-gun weapons that are arguably precise let me get to the meat of this discussion:

Guns are the great equalizer.  Societies in which citizens have few guns also tend to have more crime when comparing similar demographics. Gun opponents tend to fixate at overall crime rates or cherry pick types of crime ("gun violence") but when you compare apples and apples (like two middle class families in the US or UK) you find that the society that has guns tends to suffer less from crime.

That's because criminals have to think twice before doing a home invasion.  Home invasion, in Britain, is relatively common. Former Beatle George Harrison was attacked in his home by an intruder and severely injured.  In the US, home invasions are very rare because the would-be intruder never knows when the residents might be armed.

I don't want to have to rely on a benevolent government for all my protection. I expect to have the right to defend myself and my family -- with lethal force if necessary.

Certainly, there are a few nuts out there and some of them (not many but some) do purchase their weapons legally. But that's going to be true with anything. More people die due to cars and alcohol and I don't think we're going to be outlawing those things any time soon either.

Update: 

As if to help prove my point...

Found on this blog today:

An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.

The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.

The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.

In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County.

The victim reported the crime to police, and her landlord repaired the broken window.

She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched off the electricity to her house.

She tried to call 911, but couldn’t because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Preyer collapsed, the woman escaped and went to a neighbor’s home, where she called police. Officers, who arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house. He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later.

Swingle said the victim identified Preyer as the attacker in both incidents. Preyer, of Jackson, Mo., had wet caulking from the recently repaired basement window on his clothing when he was shot.

“I will not be filing any sort of charge against this 57-year-old woman, who was clearly justified under the law in shooting this intruder in her home,” Swingle said.

Thank God we haven't given the government the ability to take our guns.

51,752 views 94 replies
Reply #1 Top

I see people like Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein the two senators from California who are fierce gun control people yet they both go about armed, it's like they can protect themselves but we are to stupid to protect ourselves. Talk about Hypocrisy. Both are fairly Liberal in their politics, both want to control the citizens they represent by denying them weapons.

Reply #2 Top

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."

Reply #3 Top

Quoting Island, reply 2
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
End of Island's quote

There in lies the difference between the English and us, the English have no fear of a citizens uprising if they try to put down its citizens, if our government gets to Crazy they have to fear such a thing as an armed revolt.

Reply #4 Top

I would appreciate if you link to statistics about murders/severe injuries during burglary by class/income for the USA and UK.

George Harrison was attacked by a psychopath not a "normal burglar", and no free society can do anything against psychopaths, I mean maybe he would have shot him but it wouldn't have prevented the psychopath from trying.

gun control usually doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to carry guns in most europe countries just that they have to pass some tests (which aren't harder than those you need to pass to get a fishing license) and/or are only allowed to carry them at home/own property. And that shotguns and stuff like that isn't allowed either (shotguns aren't really a precision weapon I think).

Given that 60% of murders in the USA are done with guns and that criminals won't change their habits when homeowners don't have guns anymore, abolishing weapons wouldn't do any good. But "gun control" can also mean to just teach people how to prevent that their children kill themselves or others with those guns. I don't think its bad when people have guns but they should be very responsible with it and know what can go wrong when they aren't careful.

Luckily I live in a country with a murder rate so low that the risk of getting killed by a car while buying the weapon is higher than getting killed from a gun (and about 80-90% of the murders over here are between relatives/friends anyways and no gun is going to prevent that in most cases)

 

 

Reply #5 Top

Quoting Moderateman, reply 3

Island Dogcomment 2"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
There in lies the difference between the English and us, the English have no fear of a citizens uprising if they try to put down its citizens, if our government gets to Crazy they have to fear such a thing as an armed revolt.
End of Moderateman's quote

 

This. I dont care what people say...gun control as it is , is not the answer. The bad guys still get guns, and all this does is penalize the Citz that are law abiding.

 

Im all for what the guy says about teaching people how to use guns the right way... thats cool, what i dont like is when you start banning guns of any type....

Reply #6 Top

Luckily there's an ad for an armor vest next to this article. :D

~Zoo

Reply #7 Top

We should be allowed Nukes too.

The average, intellegent, Citizen could figure out how to build a Nuclear weapon... the plans are online, and it's relatively easy.  Lets not forget that Lead, or Gold, is only a few atomic points below Uranium.

But as far as Guns go?  I'm pretty secure having mine.  I trained my family and friends on safety of guns... just repeatedly drill into their heads "Never point this at something you don't want dead." whether it's loaded or not.

Like violence in games: education of the topic is more important then restriction.

Reply #8 Top

Lets not forget that Lead, or Gold, is only a few atomic points below Uranium.
End of quote

Feel free to try "upgrading" those into fissile Uranium and let me know how that goes. I'll stick with my AR-15 :p

Reply #9 Top

Holy incomplete argument, Batman.

Your first point is something that both of us can agree on. People comparing weapons of immense power to a 7-round pistol is flawed, to say the very least. However, that's where my agreement with you ends.

Talking about guns without bringing gun crime into the argument is silly. That's like talking about why we should ban alcohol without talking about any crimes that include alcohol – what's the point? I, too, would appreciate links to all relevant statistics and points that you made (my social sciences instructor would fail you at the moment). In 2006-2007, there were 50 gun murders in the UK (PDF source). Crimes that involved a firearm totaled 634 in the same period. 

It's interesting that you draw comparisons to a European country. According to this document (with sources), of the top 10 worst cities for gun murders in the USA or European regions, 8 were in the US. Only one city in the top-20 list is from the UK. 

If we break it down to a per-100,000 rating for regions, which removes the population from the equation, the UK has 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. For comparison, the US has 5.5. Canada has a rate of 1.7. If guns make society safer, why is the USA's murder rate so relatively high? 

I briefly mentioned that list of unsafe cities in the US and in Europe. The only UK city in the top 20 list is Belfast, Northern Ireland. Even though it's the most dangerous city in the UK, it's safer than the US, as a whole. 

While researching a bit for this reply, I came across a list of arguments against my point, in support of your view. It suggested that if you remove gun murders from all the murders committed in the USA, the States would still have a higher murder rate than Japan, Australia or the UK, therefore eliminating the argument that guns are the problem. They then go on to state that it must be a more complex social issue that is the root cause, not lax gun laws. While I see their point, I fail to understand how monumentally stupid it is. I don't see how it's somehow OK to allow arguably the easiest way to deliver a lethal blow freely into the hands of people whose mindset is so skewed.

Most of the people who commit gun crimes steal their weapons from rightful, legal owners. And no matter how much I am in support of liberty, freedom and the rest of that, I think that more restrictions should be placed on any legal owner. If I had a pet lion (OK, going out on a limb here), you'd expect me to ensure that it couldn't break loose on the neighborhood. I only think it's right that owners of dangerous weapons, like guns, should be required to have a gun safe and to securely store their guns inside one when not in use.

Reply #10 Top

One more thing – you're saying that there are other crimes that are far higher in the UK than in the US and it's because guns are more freely available. So what you're saying is that if I live in the US, my home has a lower chance of being burglarized and my possessions have a lower chance of being stolen, but I have a higher chance of being killed. Am I reading this right? You'd rather be killed than have some stuff stolen from you?

Reply #11 Top

Quoting NHeerDesign, reply 9
Holy incomplete argument, Batman.

Your first point is something that both of us can agree on. People comparing weapons of immense power to a 7-round pistol is flawed, to say the very least. However, that's where my agreement with you ends.

Talking about guns without bringing gun crime into the argument is silly. That's like talking about why we should ban alcohol without talking about any crimes that include alcohol – what's the point? I, too, would appreciate links to all relevant statistics and points that you made (my social sciences instructor would fail you at the moment). In 2006-2007, there were 50 gun murders in the UK (PDF source). Crimes that involved a firearm totaled 634 in the same period. 

It's interesting that you draw comparisons to a European country. According to this document (with sources), of the top 10 worst cities for gun murders in the USA or European regions, 8 were in the US. Only one city in the top-20 list is from the UK. 

If we break it down to a per-100,000 rating for regions, which removes the population from the equation, the UK has 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. For comparison, the US has 5.5. Canada has a rate of 1.7. If guns make society safer, why is the USA's murder rate so relatively high? 

I briefly mentioned that list of unsafe cities in the US and in Europe. The only UK city in the top 20 list is Belfast, Northern Ireland. Even though it's the most dangerous city in the UK, it's safer than the US, as a whole. 

While researching a bit for this reply, I came across a list of arguments against my point, in support of your view. It suggested that if you remove gun murders from all the murders committed in the USA, the States would still have a higher murder rate than Japan, Australia or the UK, therefore eliminating the argument that guns are the problem. They then go on to state that it must be a more complex social issue that is the root cause, not lax gun laws. While I see their point, I fail to understand how monumentally stupid it is. I don't see how it's somehow OK to allow arguably the easiest way to deliver a lethal blow freely into the hands of people whose mindset is so skewed.

Most of the people who commit gun crimes steal their weapons from rightful, legal owners. And no matter how much I am in support of liberty, freedom and the rest of that, I think that more restrictions should be placed on any legal owner. If I had a pet lion (OK, going out on a limb here), you'd expect me to ensure that it couldn't break loose on the neighborhood. I only think it's right that owners of dangerous weapons, like guns, should be required to have a gun safe and to securely store their guns inside one when not in use.
End of NHeerDesign's quote

 

Start taking away liberties we wont have many left down the road. I Love how you guys preach about safty.... Wanna live in china? You punish law abiding citz meanwhile not solving the problem. People that are not to have guns WILL get guns some how some way... look at drugs.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting watertown1978, reply 11

 
Start taking away liberties we wont have many left down the road. I Love how you guys preach about safty.... Wanna live in china? You punish law abiding citz meanwhile not solving the problem. People that are not to have guns WILL get guns some how some way... look at drugs.

End of watertown1978's quote

How much does what I said punish law-abiding citizens? All I've suggested are measures to put guns in safe hands and to avoid the wrong hands. The measure I've suggested is via a gun safe that owners must have. This seems perfectly reasonable.

Also, China has an extremely, ridiculously low gun crime rate, though this is because of a blanket ban on guns. 

Reply #13 Top

Quoting NHeerDesign, reply 12

watertown1978comment 11
 
Start taking away liberties we wont have many left down the road. I Love how you guys preach about safty.... Wanna live in china? You punish law abiding citz meanwhile not solving the problem. People that are not to have guns WILL get guns some how some way... look at drugs.


How much does what I said punish law-abiding citizens? All I've suggested are measures to put guns in safe hands and to avoid the wrong hands. The measure I've suggested is via a gun safe that owners must have. This seems perfectly reasonable.

Also, China has an extremely, ridiculously low gun crime rate, though this is because of a blanket ban on guns. 
End of NHeerDesign's quote

 

YEah great China is awesome ...why dont you move there? O thats right because they dont have rights like me and you do.

 

Look I am all for better training with guns... thats fine. But as soon as you start to limit what people can buy or do ( withen reason... there is no need for nukes now :P) your taking away liberties that our founding fathers fought for and gave us.  As the years go by people tend to forget that.. in fact most kids cant even tell you the true meaning of the 4th of July

Reply #14 Top

I can understand when people need weapons to feel safe but this "guns are needed to claim civil rights against government" is a bit strange considering two of the most successful revolutions of the 20th century had been accomplished by being peaceful: India and eastern Germany.  People chanted "no violence" and it worked; I don't even want to imagine what the Communist Parties of Russia and Eastern Germany had done if there had been 70000 gun-wielding demonstrants on 9th october 1989 in Leipzig.

Reply #15 Top

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
End of quote

If your AK47 can't take down a stealth bomber, you'll never win against the US state if it decides to put you down.

Arguments that guns protect against a malicious state are a bit redundant considering how incredibly sophisticated military weaponry is compared to civilian varieties.

Reply #16 Top

Arguments that guns protect against a malicious state are a bit redundant considering how incredibly sophisticated military weaponry is compared to civilian varieties.
End of quote

I think people are more concerned about something like  a "national security force" type problem. Especially one that will be " just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." as the military.  ;)

Reply #17 Top

Feel free to try "upgrading" those into fissile Uranium and let me know how that goes.
End of quote

You mean they do not come with upgrade protection? ;)

To the serious.  Nheer and CesaersGhost apparently read the title and skimmed the article because they missed the point.  Brad was not arguing about gun statistics.  He conceded that societies that have guns have higher rates of gun crimes.  His point, and one that is easily demonstrable (google is your friend) is the reprecussions of anti-gun laws on the modus operandi of criminals.  George Harrison not withstanding (there are loonies in every bin), the fact remains that gun contol societies have a lot higher incidence of home invasion, than do Gun Societies.  It is simple logic.

Most of the gun crimes in the US bear this out.  They are committed on the streets, where an ambush or quick scan (sometimes faulty - remember Death Wish) gives the criminal all the information he needs to know concerning the possession (or lack there of) of a firearm.  Behind closed doors is another thing entirely - Superman only exists in comic books.

His point is that he would rather trust himself to protect his family than the local constabulary.  And again, statistics are in agreement with him.  While the police is most cities, even the US, are hard working dedicated people that respond quickly to calls, the fact they are not there when the criminal is, means you have a period of time to fend for yourself.

Do you want to do it with a loud mouth?  Or a 45?

Reply #18 Top

Arguments that guns protect against a malicious state are a bit redundant considering how incredibly sophisticated military weaponry is compared to civilian varieties.
End of quote

Actually no.  As we have seen in Iraq - it is one thing to conquer a nation.  It is another to subdue the local populace.  Stealth Bombers and Smart bombs work very well against armed fortifications and armies, but not against an armed citizenry.

Reply #19 Top

If we break it down to a per-100,000 rating for regions, which removes the population from the equation, the UK has 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. For comparison, the US has 5.5. Canada has a rate of 1.7. If guns make society safer, why is the USA's murder rate so relatively high?

End of quote

What definition of "murder" is used in the statistics? I have heard that the US consider every unexplained death a "murder" for the purpose of statistics, while the UK consider as a "murder" only those unexplained deaths that were later shown to have been murders.

I don't know about Canada.

It's also possible that gun control simply works better on smaller islands (Great Britain and Ireland) than on a country with land borders and very long sea borders. I can imagine that it is more difficult to smuggle guns into the UK than into the US. (And it is presumably also more difficult to smuggle guns from the US into Canada than from Mexico or the coast.)

 

Reply #20 Top

I can understand when people need weapons to feel safe but this "guns are needed to claim civil rights against government" is a bit strange considering two of the most successful revolutions of the 20th century had been accomplished by being peaceful: India and eastern Germany.  People chanted "no violence" and it worked;

End of quote

Yes and no...

Violent revolutions rarely improved anything. The American revolution was an exception, not the rule. It was generally better to leave the government alone rather than replace it violently.

Most fascist (and communist) dictatorships have been the result of armed uprisings against the previous governments. So Europeans and Americans perhaps have a different idea of what an armed uprising means for the country. The last armed uprising in Germany were the Freikorps and SA beinging down the Weimar Republic  (which succeeded) and before that the armed uprising by communists against first the Kaiser and then the Weimar Republic (they failed).

Peaceful revolutions work if the authority is as moral as the revolutionaries. It worked with the British in India because Ghandi had a history of being a loyal subject (he campaigned for Indians to support Britain in her wars) and because his cause was just and seen as just by the British public. It worked in East-Germany because the East-German dictatorship didn't have the guts to act without Soviet approval and Gorbatchev was not the type for gunning down people. If East-Germany had reacted violently, the Soviet Union was likely to put a stop to it and replace the entire government by force anyway, so giving in was the better way for everyone but the highest functionaries.

Romania was not as lucky; but it wasn't an armed populace that fought the revolution, but the army (the opponent was the communist secret police).

 

I don't even want to imagine what the Communist Parties of Russia and Eastern Germany had done if there had been 70000 gun-wielding demonstrants on 9th october 1989 in Leipzig.

End of quote

Considering Germany's hostory such gun-wielding protesters would likely have been Nazis or communists. Germany's (small-r) republicans and monarchists never protested violently. Normal Germans tend to accept authority, not question it. Most Germans are normal, only a minority are fascists or communists and only those two groups have a tendency to wield guns against the government. (Gun control laws keep them under control.)

 

 

 

Reply #21 Top

Arguments that guns protect against a malicious state are a bit redundant considering how incredibly sophisticated military weaponry is compared to civilian varieties.

End of quote

This is problematic.

Guns worked very well in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Presumably Germany didn't want to flatten the entire region.

But on the other hand, guns in Nazi Germany were freely available to law-abiding citizens, just like in the US. The problem was not gun control, but the definition of "law-abiding citizen", which didn't include Jews. Hence the Jews were technically criminals and had to get guns like other criminals. (And we know criminals can always get guns and gun control doesn't affect them, right?)

I am worried about another aspect in the "guns protect civil rights" argument. In my experience (taken from history books, from what my parents told me about Germany's history etc.) civil rights can never be protected by guns because the reason civil rights go away is that somebody used guns to take power and was supported by a majority (or very large minority) of the people anyway.

Far from using guns to stop Nazi terror, Germans with guns helped the Nazis into power. I'm not sure I want to trust those same people to protect anybody's civil rights. The Weimar Republic government used those people (the Freikorps) against the communists, and successfully so. But in the long run protesters with guns were Germany's downfall rather than her safety net.

It is quite possible that this will be totally different in the US; but I doubt it. If anything what will happen is that some liberal idiot (like Obama) will do something deemed unconstitutional by the militia nuts and they will attack and lose. And if they should win, the new government will be against gun control, for the constitution, for American values, and also the worst dictatorship that has ever existed in north-America; because the values of someone rarely dictate his attitude towards those who don't share the same interpretations of those values.

 

Reply #22 Top

Quoting cactoblasta, reply 15
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."If your AK47 can't take down a stealth bomber, you'll never win against the US state if it decides to put you down.Arguments that guns protect against a malicious state are a bit redundant considering how incredibly sophisticated military weaponry is compared to civilian varieties.
End of cactoblasta's quote

Don't need to shoot it down mate, just take its base.   Aircraft dont win wars the infantry do,  everything esle is just support for the infantry.  Sophictcated millitry might can be beaten by much lesser technologies.

Besides if the legally armed part of the US desides to revolt against the government, a large percent of the military would side with it,  since its THIER families that are revolting.

Reply #23 Top

Besides if the legally armed part of the US desides to revolt against the government, a large percent of the military would side with it,  since its THEIR families that are revolting.

End of quote

Yes, that's what happened in Germany in the early 1930s.

 

Reply #24 Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 23
Yes, that's what happened in Germany in the early 1930s. 
End of Leauki's quote

Germany did not have an open civil/revolutionary war.  Anyways  you can't expect a people how have been told what to do for so long to self-govern responsibly so soon.  The 13 colonies governed themselves for a long time bofre its revolution.

Reply #25 Top

If we break it down to a per-100,000 rating for regions, which removes the population from the equation, the UK has 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. For comparison, the US has 5.5. Canada has a rate of 1.7. If guns make society safer, why is the USA's murder rate so relatively high?
End of quote

My blog was fairly short and yet some people lack the reading comprehension of even that.

Which part of:

Societies in which citizens have few guns also tend to have more crime when comparing similar demographics. Gun opponents tend to fixate at overall crime rates or cherry pick types of crime ("gun violence") but when you compare apples and apples (like two middle class families in the US or UK) you find that the society that has guns tends to suffer less from crime.

Compare the murder rate of middle class America with middle class UK or Canada and you'll find that they're roughly the same but that the CRIME rate is much higher in the UK (I don't know Canada's middle class crime rate though).

It's not politically correct to talk about but it's the elephant in the room but the US has huge popuations of minorities which very much bias the overall results. I won't pretend I know why that is the case only that it is.

There is no UK equivalent of say Detroit or Flint or heck Washington DC in terms of crime and it has nothing to do with guns or what have you.