Draginol Draginol

Some thoughts on "gun control"

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.

51,753 views 94 replies
Reply #26 Top

Germany did not have an open civil/revolutionary war. 

End of quote

No, but it did have armed citizens opposing the government. And it worked.

You might not want to call it a revolution, but the socialist MPs who were forcibly removed from parliament certainly saw it differently.

 

Reply #27 Top

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.

End of quote

Perhaps you simply have many nutters in your population. Can happen...

 

Reply #28 Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 26
Germany did not have an open civil/revolutionary war. No, but it did have armed citizens opposing the government. And it worked.You might not want to call it a revolution, but the socialist MPs who were forcibly removed from parliament certainly saw it differently. 
End of Leauki's quote

It is not I that doesnt call it a revolution but history.   It is you who wish to rewrite the history books to suit your own agenda.

Calling it a revolution because most Germans were scared to actual stand up to Hitler is like when someone who is afraid of a mouse calling it a wharf rat. 

With Hitler never getting a majorty vote the way I see it there should have been a revolt, against Hitler, but it didnt happen, because they allowed their fear to control them.  But revolutions are BAD right Leaki?

Reply #29 Top

It is not I that doesnt call it a revolution but history.   It is you who wish to rewrite the history books to suit your own agenda.

End of quote

Yeah, right, it my "agenda" that makes me point out that the armed thugs in Germany were the Nazis and that the Nazis took power by force (namely by forcing opposition MPs not to attend sessions, also by burning down synagogues and Jewish homes and shops).

It's all my "agenda", nothing of it happened.

The Freikorps never did try to get the Nazis into power and the Nazis never got into power. All thanks to guns.

 

Calling it a revolution because most Germans were scared to actual stand up to Hitler is like when someone who is afraid of a mouse calling it a wharf rat. 

End of quote

Yes, but the SA and Freikorps were not afraid to stand up to the Weimar Republic government.

 

With Hitler never getting a majorty vote the way I see it there should have been a revolt, against Hitler, but it didnt happen, because they allowed their fear to control them.  But revolutions are BAD right Leaki?

End of quote

As I said before, the only people in Germany willing to revolt violently were fascists and communists. Both were fighting the Weimar Republic government in the 1920s and the fascists finally won in the 1930s.

And yes, the vast majority of revolutions are bad.

Especially that one.

You don't want to call it a revolution; but when armed thugs take over government buildings and put MPs into prison illegally, that's what a revolution is. And no, it didn't help that they had guns.

 

 

 

 

Reply #30 Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 25


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?
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.

End of Draginol's quote

When you're talking about guns, calling gun crimes "cherry-picking" is frankly ridiculous. Also, while petty crimes may be lower in the US, murders and other high-violence crimes are lower in the UK or Canada. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my home broken into and have some guy steal my possessions than be shot at. Canada and the UK also have minorities, and the minority rate is often higher in many places in Canada than the States, so that argument doesn't really fly. And I know that London's visible minority rate is extremely high (their electronic parking meters, for example, are in something like 8 languages, as far as I've heard). 

No, there is no UK equivalent of those cities – I'd say the question is why the US has such violent cities.

Reply #31 Top

and the minority rate is often higher in many places in Canada than the States,
End of quote

Where?  And then lets compare crime rates. 

But again you miss the point.  Brad has conceded the gun violence and statistics.  You have not even touched on his contention - Home invasion.  I gather you have never been shot at or been robbed in your home.  I hope you never have to decide based upon experience - what is worse.

Reply #32 Top

When you're talking about guns, calling gun crimes "cherry-picking" is frankly ridiculous. Also, while petty crimes may be lower in the US, murders and other high-violence crimes are lower in the UK or Canada. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my home broken into and have some guy steal my possessions than be shot at. Canada and the UK also have minorities, and the minority rate is often higher in many places in Canada than the States, so that argument doesn't really fly. And I know that London's visible minority rate is extremely high (their electronic parking meters, for example, are in something like 8 languages, as far as I've heard). 

No, there is no UK equivalent of those cities – I'd say the question is why the US has such violent cities.

End of quote

Bolded part: Bullshit.

Canada: Asian + African + Arab: ~6%

UK: Black + Indian + Pakistani: ~5%

If you look at the crime rate -- violent or otherwise of Americans of European descent and Canadians and UK it's basically the same across the way other than in the area of burglaries and rapes which are significantly higher per 100,000 in UK and Canada.

That is what we call comparing apples and apples.

 

 

Reply #33 Top

Your position is more relevant to every household should be equipped with burglar alarms than handguns. The stats are stacked because it is common knowledge that the US--with the exception perhaps of some rogue states--has the most violent crime because guns are readily available to criminals whereas the vast majority are without arms. Until it is mandated that every citizen carries a handgun, I suspect, we are left with your favorite word: choice

Reply #34 Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 33


When you're talking about guns, calling gun crimes "cherry-picking" is frankly ridiculous. Also, while petty crimes may be lower in the US, murders and other high-violence crimes are lower in the UK or Canada. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my home broken into and have some guy steal my possessions than be shot at. Canada and the UK also have minorities, and the minority rate is often higher in many places in Canada than the States, so that argument doesn't really fly. And I know that London's visible minority rate is extremely high (their electronic parking meters, for example, are in something like 8 languages, as far as I've heard). 
No, there is no UK equivalent of those cities – I'd say the question is why the US has such violent cities.
Bolded part: Bullshit.
Canada: Asian + African + Arab: ~6%
UK: Black + Indian + Pakistani: ~5%
If you look at the crime rate -- violent or otherwise of Americans of European descent and Canadians and UK it's basically the same across the way other than in the area of burglaries and rapes which are significantly higher per 100,000 in UK and Canada.
That is what we call comparing apples and apples.
 
End of Draginol's quote

I noticed you conveniently didn't include the US minority population. After checking the CIA factbook (which seems like the same resource you used), I find that it's Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%. Which kicks it up to about 5.5% (link). So, a little more than the UK, and a little less than Canada. However, I won't include Alaskan native, because you didn't include Canadian natives, which knocks the figure back to about 4.5%. Which is now less than both the UK and Canada. Which un-bullshits my bullshit.

After checking this list of rapes per capita, indeed Canada is higher than the US. However, the UK is lower than the US. So your argument is half correct.

Also, I have said before – the murder rate in the US is higher than in Canada and the UK. This is fact. I didn't bother checking the burglary rate because, and I have said this twice before, I'd rather have some stuff taken from me than being killed.

I also fail to see the psychological spin you're trying to put on it. You're saying that criminals have to think twice before entering a home because the owners may have a gun. But since having a gun is a right protected in the Constitution, it's relatively easy for a criminal to get a gun as well.

 

 

Reply #35 Top

Quoting Dr, reply 31


and the minority rate is often higher in many places in Canada than the States,
Where?  And then lets compare crime rates. 
But again you miss the point.  Brad has conceded the gun violence and statistics.  You have not even touched on his contention - Home invasion.  I gather you have never been shot at or been robbed in your home.  I hope you never have to decide based upon experience - what is worse.

End of Dr's quote

I have continually stated that I'd rather have some material possessions taken from me than be shot.

Reply #36 Top

I noticed you conveniently didn't include the US minority population. After checking the CIA factbook (which seems like the same resource you used), I find that it's Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%. Which kicks it up to about 5.5% (link).

End of quote

black 12.85%

I cannot imagine how you managed to overlook that given that you saw the other numbers.

The text then concludes with "about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic".

That's about 80% whites and 20% minorities. Plus nearly 20% of the 80% are another minority (hispanics). This puts the total to 35% minority.

 

 

Reply #37 Top

I noticed you conveniently didn't include the US minority population. After checking the CIA factbook (which seems like the same resource you used), I find that it's Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%. Which kicks it up to about 5.5%
End of quote

Um, you missed black and hispanic - which pushes the total to almost 30% (if not already at that).  What were you thinking of?

And I take it you never have been robbed or raped.  Well, at least you have not been murdered.

Reply #38 Top

I won't deny minorities are overrepresented in that crimes, but even if you exclude them it is way above those of other industrialized countries, so taking that as explanation is a bit cheap (and won't solve the problem either) as it doesn't explain why the murder rate of non-hispanic whites (3 per 100.000) is two to three times higher than in other industrialized countries. I am not saying that would go down with stricter gun control, the world would be a better place if it was so easy to just change a single parameter, but saying "its only/mainly the minorities - not us" doesn't solve problems.

France has about 9% muslims and about 3 to 5% non-muslim blacks and yet they don't have high murder rate just occasional riots.

Most european countries don't count their own citizen as minorities btw ;)

Reply #39 Top

I noticed you conveniently didn't include the US minority population. After checking the CIA factbook (which seems like the same resource you used), I find that it's Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%. Which kicks it up to about 5.5% (link). So, a little more than the UK, and a little less than Canada. However, I won't include Alaskan native, because you didn't include Canadian natives, which knocks the figure back to about 4.5%. Which is now less than both the UK and Canada. Which un-bullshits my bullshit.
End of quote

Are you high?

Black represents 13% and they're (CIA) counting Hispanics as white which are another 14% of the population.

Are you really that unfamiliar with the United States?

Reply #40 Top

I won't deny minorities are overrepresented in that crimes, but even if you exclude them it is way above those of other industrialized countries, so taking that as explanation is a bit cheap (and won't solve the problem either) as it doesn't explain why the murder rate of non-hispanic whites (3 per 100.000) is two to three times higher than in other industrialized countries. I am not saying that would go down with stricter gun control, the world would be a better place if it was so easy to just change a single parameter, but saying "its only/mainly the minorities - not us" doesn't solve problems.
End of quote

False. If you balance just Euro-Americans vs. Europeans it's about the same. That's the point. Where are you getting your stats?

Gun violence in the US amongst whites is - surprise surprise - about the same as it is amongst Canadians despite Canada's stricter gun control.

Making guns illegal in the US would do nothing about violent crime because, by definition, criminals break the law and guns are readily available illegally here.

In the UK, where gun violence between whites is about the same as it is here, they have the added bonus of home invasions and burglaries.

 

Reply #41 Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 40


I noticed you conveniently didn't include the US minority population. After checking the CIA factbook (which seems like the same resource you used), I find that it's Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%. Which kicks it up to about 5.5% (link). So, a little more than the UK, and a little less than Canada. However, I won't include Alaskan native, because you didn't include Canadian natives, which knocks the figure back to about 4.5%. Which is now less than both the UK and Canada. Which un-bullshits my bullshit.
Are you high?
Black represents 13% and they're (CIA) counting Hispanics as white which are another 14% of the population.
Are you really that unfamiliar with the United States?

End of Draginol's quote

Really mature, Brad ("are you high?"). Don't you know that the first rule of debating is to never launch the personal attacks? Canada also has a "mixed background" category which accounts for 26% – that includes asian/white, black/white, black/asian, and all sorts of other wonderful combinations. I did actually miss the black count on the US page (my bad), but excluding that 26% from Canada was your bad. Any way you cut it, that's a lot that you missed.

Also, you've updated the original post with an article (a single article!) about guns being the saviour. Now, if you read my first post, you'd note that I'm not in favour of the removal of guns from people. They're great for all sorts of killing/defense duties. What I did say was that all owners should have a gun safe and keep their weapons locked up until needed. The gun that the woman used could have easily been in the hands of the rapist instead of hers.

Quoting Dr, reply 38


And I take it you never have been robbed or raped.  Well, at least you have not been murdered.

End of Dr's quote

I've been robbed. I had a friend who was shot and killed. I know which is worse, and it definitely isn't losing my TV, DVD player, stereo, etc.

Reply #42 Top

Really mature, Brad ("are you high?"). Don't you know that the first rule of debating is to never launch the personal attacks?

End of quote

I assume Brad found it insulting that you would misquote the CIA world factbook at him.

Also, the sentence "I noticed you conveniently didn't include the US minority population" was meant as a sarcastic remark, wasn't it?

Reply #43 Top

Most european countries don't count their own citizen as minorities btw

End of quote

Most European countries have immigration policies that don't make it easy for those minorities to become citizens.

I find it rather sarcastic to use European xenophobia as an argument against the US.

Question: "Is there racism in the Soviet Union?"

Radio Erivan: "No. We don't have any negroes."

 

Reply #44 Top

"We have no gay people in Russia - there are homosexuals but they are not allowed to be gay about it. The punishment is seven years locked in prison with other men and there is a three-year waiting list for that."

Yakov Smirnoff

Reply #45 Top

Really mature, Brad ("are you high?"). Don't you know that the first rule of debating is to never launch the personal attacks? Canada also has a "mixed background" category which accounts for 26% – that includes asian/white, black/white, black/asian, and all sorts of other wonderful combinations. I did actually miss the black count on the US page (my bad), but excluding that 26% from Canada was your bad. Any way you cut it, that's a lot that you missed.
End of quote

Okay, you're an idiot. You should go away now and let the adults talk.

Reply #46 Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 47


Okay, you're an idiot. You should go away now and let the adults talk.

End of Draginol's quote

Every single one of the comments I've made has been coherent, articulate and well within fact. I did miss that one statistic on the Factbook, but then I corrected myself (and, rather conveniently, you as well). Forgive me for continuing.

I believe it's now time for you to show your statistics that show that of two middle class societies in the UK and US, the one with more guns (the US, obviously) has less crime.

 

Quoting Leauki, reply 43



Really mature, Brad ("are you high?"). Don't you know that the first rule of debating is to never launch the personal attacks?

I assume Brad found it insulting that you would misquote the CIA world factbook at him.
Also, the sentence "I noticed you conveniently didn't include the US minority population" was meant as a sarcastic remark, wasn't it?

End of Leauki's quote

Sarcastic, not personal. There is a difference.

Reply #47 Top

Sarcastic, not personal. There is a difference.

End of quote

Yes.

Sarcasm implies that the other person is an idiot and that you are above stating it as an opinion.

Personal is the honest way of stating an unwarranted opinion.

Both are the wrong way to discuss things.

 

 

Reply #48 Top

I have to say that I totally agree with everything you've said here Draginol/Frogboy/Brad.  I have actually read before that crime in ye olde wild west was actually far lower than it is today, largely in part due to the widespread ownership of guns (not to mention the death penalty - tell the government to rev up that electric chair already!)

The government is supposed to protect us, but it can't be everywhere at once.  The city I live in has about 250,000 people, and you rarely see a police officer, so everyone speeds, everywhere and always.  If the police department gave everyone a portable speedtrap, you can bet that that would stop really soon.

Reply #49 Top

If the police department gave everyone a portable speedtrap, you can bet that that would stop really soon.

End of quote

And just imagine how soon it would stop if the police department gave everyone a gun.

 

Reply #50 Top

It probably wouldn't.  How would you know which of the people around you have your plate number to the police?  And even if you were to shoot them, they can shoot back, which would certainly make me think twice.

Anyway, it's a moot point - I was merely using that as an example.  If you gave everyone a gun, then petty crimes would soon disappear, because people don't want to get shot, right?

Ironically, I've heard that in spite of his favorable stance toward gun control, US president-elect Obama wants to create a 'citizen's police force/military', and make sure they were armed.  I have to ask though: if you're trying to control guns, why would you give them to anyone?  Making anti-gun laws and then turning around and giving certain people guns is a prime condition for a black market.