Why no resurge in gun control advocacy?

[John Cuthber]

I can't see this idea

"The reason we are allowed to bear arms is for the people to defend themselves against their government. Which means that the people should be able to own any weapon the government has."

working while the government has more money to spend on guns and mercenaries than you have.

Don't get me wrong; I have alot of sympathy for the idea; I just don't believe that it will work.

[ParanoiA]

basically, it means "defend yourself as much, and whenever, as you think is neccesary, but if you can't justify you're actions, then you'll be punished". which is why i never understand the complaints about these laws: if you can't give a decent justification for your actions, that's probably because you don't have one, and you went too far.

 

But that's not consistent. Flip of the coin in terms of jury selection could get my innocence or guilt. That's why we have the right to kill when they enter our homes. Most people don't want to. But they have the right - within reason.

 

Like Sisyphus said, you can't chain them to the wall and torture them for hours.

 

At the same time, giving an intruder the consideration of clearly establishing his intent is MORE consideration than he is giving. That gets people killed. People that didn't deserve it in the least.

 

At the end of the day, it's a toss up as to what their intentions are. Who deserves more consideration? The home owner, or the intruder? To me, the home owner deserves ultimate consideration. Even if it's just a coked up teenager, he's still guilty of something (intrusion) - the homeowner is guilty of nothing. So, at that point, the credibility of the intruder is nil, so why does the non-guilty homeowner have to risk his life - even further - for a situation he isn't even responsible for creating?

[Dak]

No, we just realized that it's a waste of breath with folks who don't see the obvious common sense in that. If you don't get that, than all logic is apparently useless in convincing you...

 

with the UK gun thing: bear in mind that wen guns were legal, you weren't allowed to wander round with them, or (iirc) own one without a licence, which weren't granted to most people. so not much has actually changed.

 

and i'm pretty sure that UK gun crime tends to be for the uber-criminals(in the form of armed robbery, and criminal assasinations), rather than muggings and gang fights.

 

1/ far less criminals have guns in the UK than in the US, and they're hardly ever used for most crimes (muggings, etc). armed robbery (with a gun) is much rarer than in the US.

 

2/ as john cuthber said, the police have guns, so we're hardly all cowering in fear from armed criminals.

 

consider this:

 

it's illegal to carry knifes in the UK

 

so, obvioulsy, only criminals carry knifes, and if one mugs me i'll be unarmed and unable to defend myself.

 

however, it's also true that most criminals don't carry knifes (as those that do tend to fall victim to random police stop-searches, and get arrested), which i doubt would be true if knife-carrying wer legal; and we're certainly not all at the mercy of knife-wielding criminals because the law abiding citicens must walk unarmed, thanks to the police.

[ofgreenstar]

What do you do when the police come for you?

[Sisyphus]

What do you do when the police come for you?

 

The police are coming for me?!

[Dak]

But that's not consistent. Flip of the coin in terms of jury selection could get my innocence or guilt.

 

which is what a retrial is for.

 

At the same time, giving an intruder the consideration of clearly establishing his intent is MORE consideration than he is giving. That gets people killed. People that didn't deserve it in the least.

 

At the end of the day, it's a toss up as to what their intentions are. Who deserves more consideration? The home owner, or the intruder? To me, the home owner deserves ultimate consideration. Even if it's just a coked up teenager, he's still guilty of something (intrusion) - the homeowner is guilty of nothing. So, at that point, the credibility of the intruder is nil, so why does the non-guilty homeowner have to risk his life - even further - for a situation he isn't even responsible for creating?

 

do you think that a randomly selected group of people would likely think that the non-guilty homeowner should risk his life -- even further -- for a situation that the trespasser is responsible for creating? (the answre is no)

 

if, given the specifics of the case, any action other than outright killing carried a percieved significant risk to the homeowner, and a jury would agree that they weren't over-reacting, then outright killing them becomes legal.

 

if, given the specifics of the case, other non-fatal actions carried no or insignificant percieved increases in risk to the homeowner, and a jury would agree to this, then outright killing them becomes illegal.

 

again, it just boils down to 'kill them if neccesary, but not otherwize'.

 

avoiding taking huge risks with your life counts as 'neccesary'

 

whilst fleeing unarmed just so they wouldn't burgle you again doesn't.

[ofgreenstar]

careful to write it off so easy. The assimilates won't fear the police. its those who think differently that will. It doesn't make them wrong.

Just hope that whatever majority is in power always agree with your philosophy.

[John Cuthber]

Any legal system that depends on a jury to make decisions has a risk of mistakes being made; that's the reason there are appeal systems.

It's hardly a reason to avoid making laws just because the outcome could depend on a jury.

 

Why do you say this "giving an intruder the consideration of clearly establishing his intent is MORE consideration than he is giving."

There is no requirement for any clarity of intention. All you have to do is show that it was reasonable for you to think that what you did to defend yourself, was what was required in the circumstances.

If he pulled a club and you mistook it for a knife so you got a knife and stabbed him you would be in the clear (provided that the jury believed you)

 

If it's dark then the jury will accept that it was a reasonable mistake.

Even if you say that you didn't think clearly because you were to frightened then (particularly if you are old and frail) the jury will take that into consideration.

"What do you do whe

 

Can I check on something?

If a lunatic walks into a house in the States, naked and gibbering and comes across, for the sake of argument, a bunch of gun fans showing each other their prize possesions, and one of them (the home owner) shoots him, would that be legal?

Would it be fair?

I feel that decision should be made by a jury who are aware of the facts rather than a prescriptive law that says "he's in your house; he's fair game".

 

"What do you do when the police come for you?"

Well, either I have faith in the judicial system, or I accept that there's no point discussing gun control law or any other law because it won't be enforced. Even with a gun I couldn't take on the police in a fight. How does this make a difference to gun control?

[ParanoiA]

Err, what about the fact that, since the police carry guns, it's simply not true?

Oh, I just realised, it's a waste of breath with folks who don't see the obvious common sense in that. If you don't get that, then all logic is apparently useless in convincing you...

 

Oh come on John. Do I really have to point out that police are only minutes away from the dead bodies...not from stopping the crime?

 

The government can't protect you during a crime. They can only bring justice. MOST of the time, they're only damage control. That's a fact of life. It's not their fault, they can't be everywhere at every moment.

[ParanoiA]

If a lunatic walks into a house in the States' date=' naked and gibbering and comes across, for the sake of argument, a bunch of gun fans showing each other their prize possesions, and one of them (the home owner) shoots him, would that be legal?

Would it be fair?

I feel that decision should be made by a jury who are aware of the facts rather than a prescriptive law that says "he's in your house; he's fair game".[/quote']

 

I'm not sure that would be legal. And I believe a jury is always involved anyway, in these cases. How do they know you didn't drag this person into your house?

 

I'm going to take a break and go look this stuff up. We need some facts if we're going to continue. So far, I'm just going off of memory. Believe me, that's not dependable.

[ofgreenstar]

The point being made is you give your right to survival up when you decide that under such an instance you will rely on the police. Because if the police were the intruders who would you call? What if you couldn't call anyone?

 

Personally i would never want to have a violent encounter, but if forced into such a point, i would guess that my instinct would be to survive.

 

On top of that you put a lot of trust into the authorities. This is stupid, especially in the system we have now. Our principles may be good, but our government is crap and we have trouble following what we each thinks is right.

[Sisyphus]

Who is making that point? I thought the discussion was about whether "reasonable self defense" is a reasonable law?

 

And yes, I love the Clash, too, but we don't take political prisoners, here. What exactly do you expect to be doing that the police raid your house and try to kill you?

[waitforufo]

With a population of about 300 million there are an estimated 200 million guns in the US. Know one knows the real number. My guess is that there are more guns than people. Currently guns are “tracked” in the US from the manufacturer to a registered dealer to the individual. In most States, that is where the paper work stops. Manufacturers and dealers maintain there own records. Law prohibits the creation of a central data base. Such tracking started in 1968 with the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Prior to that date, guns could be purchased by mail in the US with no record. Those guns are still out there. In most States today, sales from individual to individual are completely untracked. California is an exception (may guess is there are a few others), were legally guns must be transferred through a dealer. One however can claim that there guns were unknowingly stolen. That means that nearly all guns are untraceable. Proof of this can be found in most news papers want adds under “guns and ammo” or another such similar title.

 

If you want US citizen to buy more guns, just push for more gun control laws. If the firearms industry ever builds statues of there favorite US citizens I’m sure they would start with one for Bill Clinton and another Sara Brady. More guns were sold in the US due to the efforts of those two individuals than any two people in US history.

 

My point? Trying to close the barn door at this point in the US would be quite difficult if not impossible. Criminals and nut jobs will always be able to get guns in the US.

 

With regard to “gun free zones,” such places should be required by law to have all entrances and exits guarded and all those entering electronically or physically screened. The guards should be armed. Declaring an open campus a “gun free zone” anywhere in the US is wishful thinking at best and madness at worst.

[ParanoiA]

From Wiki:

 

Under the law, citizens cannot be prosecuted for using deadly force against suspected threats to themselves in their houses - for example (and primarily), intruders. The origins of the law can be traced to a case of a break-in, involving a Dr Frank Sommer from Oklahoma. After shooting dead an intruder, the law was passed within weeks. The success of the law is shown by many as a clear advocation for self defense as deterrence; the crime rates in Oklahoma for burglary fell from 58,333 in 1987 to 31,661 in 2000.

 

First, note the drop in burlgaries. I didn't even realize the law was all that effective. I just thought it was a basic rights kind of law. Doesn't mean that's the reason, but still interesting enough.

 

Now, I think the first line explains it. They just can't be prosecuted for using deadly force. That doesn't mean it isn't looked at by a jury. That doesn't mean you can shoot anyone who walks in your house - they have to be proven to be an intruder.

[ofgreenstar]

I thought the discussion was about whether "reasonable self defense" is a reasonable law?

 

all relative to the individual who survived. My point is i would like to be able to have discussions about this, rather than being a statistic in one of these discussions.

On a purely naturalistic level we need to be able to defend ourselves. Granted this doesn't always happen, but thats why we try to distinguish between those who seek harm, and those who are forced to harm.

[Haezed]

At least nobody has brought up the old line about "If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have them" so I guess the message has got through about that.

 

This will be true in America for years to come (period on my laptop, is still not working); Criminals will assume that lawabiding citizens are now defenseless but it will take years before it even becomes difficult for them to find guns;

 

The recent case is a bit different; here we have a guy who is not really connected to the criminal element in our society going to a gun store for a gun and, regretablly, getting one despite the history of mental illness; he shouldn't have gotten a gun as it was but I don't think you are going to keep one away from an intent killer for a long long long long LONG long time

[Haezed]

Guns are merely a more efficient way of killing people. The reason we are allowed to bear arms is for the people to defend themselves against their government. Which means that the people should be able to own any weapon the government has.

 

What could a lightly armed citizenry possibly do against a superior force complete with modern armor?

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

the first civilian, urban uprising in German-occupied Europe, the heroic revolt begun by the Jewish Fighting Organization was joined by the remaining ghetto population. It was the longest lasting Jewish uprising lasting from April 19 through May 16, 1943. Of negligible military value, the revolt became a symbol of the indomitableness of the human spirit.

At the outbreak the ZOB consisted of about 600 members. However, thousands of Jews spontaneously joined the uprising once it had started. The Germans had the most modern military weapons, including tanks. The ghetto fighters had a few guns, mainly pistols which turned out to be useless, some hand grenades and most effectively Molotov cocktails (glass bottles filed with gasoline).The fighters had been severely hampered by lack of arms. They had tried with very limited success to obtain weapons from the Polish underground, the Armia Krajowa (AK, Home Army).

 

The leadership of the uprising realized that to attack the Germans directly would be suicide; therefore it was decided to attack at the crossings of ghetto streets from the rooftops and attics of surrounding houses. Underground bunkers were prepared and stocked with provisions.

 

The ghetto was surrounded with a guard armed with a machine gun placed every 25 feet. The main German forces entered the ghetto. At two places they were attacked by the Jewish fighters and retreated. Tanks were brought in but these were hit with Molotov cocktails and set on fire. The fact that the enemy retreated at the first encounter evoked jubilation among the Jews.

 

Now, imagine the result if even 1 in 3 families had light arms;

[SkepticLance]

The idea that you have to shoot a burglar is a mite ridiculous. There are always alternatives. If you and your family are able bodied, just jump out a window, and call the police from your neighbours. Sure, the burglar may do all sorts of damage in the mean time (that's why you have insurance); but damage to home and property is better than a killing.

 

If you and/or your family are not able bodied, make lots of noise. That works 99% of the time. Then call the cops.

 

The idea that you need guns to oppose an oppressive government is just as ridiculous. The IRA felt they had an oppressive government. Whether they were right or wrong, the fact is that they faced very strict gun laws and still managed to get enough weapons to carry out all sorts of highly destructive actions. If America got an oppressive government, and had to establish a resistance movement, they would have no problem getting all the weapons they needed illegally.

 

Free availability of guns is an unmitigated disaster.

[ParanoiA]

Who is making that point? I thought the discussion was about whether "reasonable self defense" is a reasonable law?

 

And yes, I love the Clash, too, but we don't take political prisoners, here. What exactly do you expect to be doing that the police raid your house and try to kill you?

 

I think he's making the point that surrendering ( I would say limiting ) your survival rights ( gun rights ) over to the police, puts an awful lot of trust into an entity that is not 100% trustworthy.

 

The idea that you have to shoot a burglar is a mite ridiculous. There are always alternatives. If you and your family are able bodied, just jump out a window, and call the police from your neighbours.

 

Do you realize what you just glossed over and makes your point meaningless? Two things. One, that somehow we know an intruder is just a burglar. Seriously, I would love that and happily jump out a window. In fact, I'm not all that sure I'd be in a hurry considering the idea of buying all new stuff.

 

And Two, that I can wake my family and get out in any covert fashion. Most families live in 3 bedroom homes and they're all 3 usually in use - sleeping. So you're talking about sneaking around from room to room waking up kiddos and the wife and not being seen or making any noise in the process - and then jump out of a window. That's practically impossible. Not to mention I'd expect them to check the rooms first anyway, after breaking in a home.

 

And depending on the answer to number one, that could be a bad, bad thing.

[ParanoiA]

The idea that you need guns to oppose an oppressive government is just as ridiculous. The IRA felt they had an oppressive government. Whether they were right or wrong, the fact is that they faced very strict gun laws and still managed to get enough weapons to carry out all sorts of highly destructive actions. If America got an oppressive government, and had to establish a resistance movement, they would have no problem getting all the weapons they needed illegally.

 

Ok...if it's no problem getting all the weapons we need then why do you care about gun laws? Honestly, that doesn't make any sense to me. Yes it would be a problem arming up. In fact, with better technology it would get harder and harder to arm up against them. Some would say the very act of toying with the second amendment, is the first act of an oppressive government. You may not mean to be oppressive today, but it has to start somewhere.

 

Not to mention, you just admitted that it's no problem to get guns illegaly, supporting that only outlaws will have guns. So, why are you so adimant about getting guns out of responsible gun owner's hands?

[bascule]

As I understand it, gun violence has risen in the UK since the laws passed in the wake of Dunblane. That point would seem to stand in response to a number of posts above, and I'm surprised nobody has raised it in this thread. Have I heard incorrectly on this? I'm almost positive I've even heard it reported on these boards before, not just in the news.

 

Yeah, I would've chimed in on that point but I haven't been posting much lately.

 

Some basic practical arguments for guns:

 

- If a burglar knows law abiding citizens don't have guns in their homes, they'll be less wary about breaking and entering and more aggressive in their confrontations with occupants. If I were a burglar, I'd certainly be worried about pointing a gun at a shotgun-brandishing homeowner, especially knowing that they're within their right to shoot you dead (at least in America)

 

- If a mugger knows law abiding citizens are unarmed, they will be less wary about mugging the average individual. If they whip out a knife and you whip out a gun, they're kind of screwed (provided you know how to operate the gun)

 

- Know what America doesn't have? A happy slapping problem.

 

The effect of gun ownership varies dramatically with the culture. Clearly in places like New York, LA, or Detroit, gun ownership has dramatic negative consequences.

 

I live in a county whose yearly homicide rate bounces between 0 and 2. We have little violent crime. You may remember our most famous homicide: Jon Benet Ramsey, and how horribly our police department bungled the case. That's because homicides here are so infrequent that our cops have no idea what to do.

 

One Texas city passed a resolution REQUIRING residents to own and maintain a firearm. Guess how many firearm-related fatalities it has had in the past 25 years since instituting the law? Zero. And its crime rate is lower than a neighboring city which passed anti-gun resolutions:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

Now granted, Texas was also home of two of the biggest mass shootings in US history... so it cuts both ways.

 

Living in an area where I'm effectively shielded from inner city gang-related gun violence, perhaps I have a biased opinion. But I also question the ability for legislation to actually reduce gang-related gun violence, considering gangs aren't exactly big on the whole "legality" thing.

 

Should suicides really count negatively against guns? If someone wants to commit suicide the problem doesn't lie in the tool they choose to off themselves with. Helium is arguably the best way to commit suicide. Should we ban helium? How about cars?

 

Incidentally, it looks like Congress will probably do something about the issue of availability of databases on mental illness during background checks for gun licensing. The issue is actually supported by the National Rifle Association and other gun-freedom advocacy groups, and therefore enjoys broad bipartisan support.

 

I completely agree (as I stated earlier): VT happened because the background check system failed, and that's what needs to get corrected here.

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA re burglaries.

Where I live, the police estimate every house in the country gets burgled every 33 years as an overall average. Contact between burglar and resident is exceedingly rare. Reason is that burglars are not stupid and do not enter a home where the signs are that people are in.

 

Shootings currently run at about 10 burglars shot for every resident, nearly always by a hunting rifle. Reason : gun laws are so tight that burglars do not cary them. The police have a pretty good idea who the burglars are in any area, and will stop and search them. If they carried a hidden gun, it would mean time in prison.

 

The simple fact is that the USA, with its loose gun control, has the highest per capita murder rate in the OECD. That is hardly something to be proud of. The clear solution is strong gun control. Obviously, it will take time. In the long run, it would drastically reduce the number of people dying from bullet penetration each year. Especially if police routinely check people who they know have a criminal record. And in any town or suburb, the cops know who to check.

 

ParanoiA said :

 

Ok...if it's no problem getting all the weapons we need then why do you care about gun laws? Honestly, that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Faulty logic. There is a very big difference between an organisation like the IRA getting illegal weapons versus casual criminals or ordinary citizens. If the USA became a totalitarian government, and people banded together as resistance movements, then they would go to the extraordinary lengths that the IRA had to, and get their weapons.

 

I would venture a prediction about this thread. I predict that most of those who are supporting loose control of guns are males. I am a red blooded male myself, if a little longer in the tooth than most. I understand the attraction of a weapon that can turn the ordinary person into 'hell on wheels'.

 

There is a strong emotional attraction to the thought that little nobodies like myself and most of the contributors to this thread can become powerful with a gun. This is mostly a fantasy, but we are all attracted to fantasies. We dream of becoming John Wayne, and trampling down the unrighteous.

 

However, if we put aside the emotional thinking and the desire for power, rational thought tells us that more people die with loose gun control than with tight controls. This alone should make those of us able to think rationally opposed to loose gun control.

[ParanoiA]

Where I live, the police estimate every house in the country gets burgled every 33 years as an overall average. Contact between burglar and resident is exceedingly rare. Reason is that burglars are not stupid and do not enter a home where the signs are that people are in.

 

Where I live, burglaries would be preferable to the home invasions that are on the rise. The difference between the two is that home invasions are about terrorizing the occupants.

 

The simple fact is that the USA, with its loose gun control, has the highest per capita murder rate in the OECD. That is hardly something to be proud of. The clear solution is strong gun control. Obviously, it will take time. In the long run, it would drastically reduce the number of people dying from bullet penetration each year. Especially if police routinely check people who they know have a criminal record. And in any town or suburb, the cops know who to check.

 

You don't know that loose gun control is the cause of the per capita murder rate. I'm sure it contributes, but to what extent? We also have a pop culture completely in love with violence. If knives were the top weapon, they'd promote it. They'd make knife guns, or screw with the engineering and come up with ridiculous flavors of bad ass knives. This violent attitude is the problem - and the reason the rest of us need our guns.

 

Also, our system requires the second amendment. The armed people help to be sure our government doesn't turn against us. Don't under estimate the importance of such things.

 

Faulty logic. There is a very big difference between an organisation like the IRA getting illegal weapons versus casual criminals or ordinary citizens. If the USA became a totalitarian government, and people banded together as resistance movements, then they would go to the extraordinary lengths that the IRA had to, and get their weapons.

 

True enough. But it's better we prevent the oppression, not react to it. The amendment, simply being there, is enough to keep things in line. We take it for granted.

 

would venture a prediction about this thread. I predict that most of those who are supporting loose control of guns are males. I am a red blooded male myself' date=' if a little longer in the tooth than most. I understand the attraction of a weapon that can turn the ordinary person into 'hell on wheels'.

 

There is a strong emotional attraction to the thought that little nobodies like myself and most of the contributors to this thread can become powerful with a gun. This is mostly a fantasy, but we are all attracted to fantasies. We dream of becoming John Wayne, and trampling down the unrighteous.[/quote']

 

I have no idea who you're listening to or where you're getting your poetry on american gun lust, but it's almost funny. I think you're putting a little too much into it. Sure, there's some psychology with males and guns and it's going to boil down to physical security and dominance, perhaps some alpha competitive crap thrown in. But I don't know anyone ready to walk the streets for the bad guys packin' our Ak-47's, ready with the dirty harry one liners. (Or dirty harold as borat would say...)

 

It's really just about protecting yourself against scary people. We see craziness on the news night after night - homicides, rapes, assaults, home invasions containing elements of all three - so we want to be able to have something to help us in a nightmare scenario.

 

I own a modest 20 gauge. It's small enough that my wife can shoot it, but powerful enough to take someone down. The pellets are small and the wound delivered is less severe, depending of course on the location. We go shooting about once a year. It's fun, the whole family enjoys it. We go over the rules again and then I clean it and put it back in my locker. No fantasies, just practical gun ownership. Most gun owners are responsible people. But our violent culture isn't interested in them.

[bascule]

The simple fact is that the USA, with its loose gun control, has the highest per capita murder rate in the OECD.

 

Okay, here's how it compares worldwide:

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

 

We're #24.

 

Our homicide rate per capita is 3 times the UK's and about 4 times that of New Zealand. However, those differences have not changed substantially since the UK and New Zealand imposed gun control laws. Even when gun control was much looser in the UK and NZ, the homicide rates were about the same.

 

That is hardly something to be proud of. The clear solution is strong gun control.

 

Well, I'm glad correlation implies causation. Oh wait, it doesn't.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

 

Have you paused to consider that America's unique culture might be a potential factor in our homicide rate? Do things like gang violence and its cultural glorification ever enter into your thinking?

 

How about the actual effects of gun control? How many of these countries had low murder rates before enacting gun control?

 

Only 5% of violent crime committed with a firearm within the US which lead to a successful prosecution involved a legally obtained firearm.

 

How is more stringent gun control supposed to stop crimes committed with illegally obtained firearms?

[Sisyphus]

 

How is more stringent gun control supposed to stop crimes committed with illegally obtained firearms?

 

I guess we have to focus our efforts in the direction of making it harder to obtain firearms illegally. I don't think it's an insurmountable problem. "They're already illegal! What can more legislation do?" Plenty. Domestically produced firearms, at least, could probably be mostly controlled just by holding the last legal purchaser strictly accountable when the gun turns up in a crime. If the gun really was stolen, they should have to report it immediately and be subject to intense scrutiny. But then, responsible gun ownership includes making the guns extremely hard to steal, anyway. Guns smuggled into the country are a different matter, but we're already headed towards inspecting every cargo container, and building a damn wall to keep out Mexicans. It wouldn't be foolproof, of course, but it would not be impossible to make things awfully uncomfortable for the black market.