SkepticLance Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 Pangloss said : "Those regimes aren't repressive BECAUSE they have widespread gun ownership, they're repressive AND they have widespread gun ownership!" I did not mean that. I was trying to make the point (possibly badly) that gun ownership does not lead to benevolent government, as shown by the fact that widespread gun ownership is found in oppressive nations. Thus the argument that gun ownerships stop governments becoming opressive is invalid. ecoli said : "The reason why nations like New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, exist in the first place is because of firearms." Strangely, in the case of New Zealand, you are correct, but not for the reason you think. NZ is probably unique in that the colonial government was invited in by the native people. They did not invade. However, this was the result of guns. Some of the native tribes obtained muskets and were running rampages up and down the country, killing thousands of those tribespeople who did not have muskets. The majority of the tribes got together and asked the British to come in to protect them. It could be argued that the natives would not have needed the colonial government if guns had not previously be made available to a minority.
ecoli Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Strangely, in the case of New Zealand, you are correct, but not for the reason you think. NZ is probably unique in that the colonial government was invited in by the native people. They did not invade. However, this was the result of guns. Some of the native tribes obtained muskets and were running rampages up and down the country, killing thousands of those tribespeople who did not have muskets. The majority of the tribes got together and asked the British to come in to protect them. It could be argued that the natives would not have needed the colonial government if guns had not previously be made available to a minority. Its an interesting story, but I disagree with your conclusions. The problem was that one group got access to guns, but the others didn't. Using the tactical advantage, this group obviously used old rivalries to justify the normal human reaction of warfare, in the attempt to spread its boarders... something that guns let the Europeans do very well. If the other tribes had the foresight to get muskets from the Europeans also, equal access to weapons would have been a stabilizer, assuming equal skill. At least, that one tribe with the muskets would have thought twice before taking another tribe with the same weapons and skill in warfare. Instead they cowered and asked the European colonial powers to protect them. The superior weapons and skill of the Europeans made that easy, but I bet the other tribes didn't realize that the Europeans would be moving in, to colonize the region, and ultimately displace much of the native population. Equal access to weapons and training weapons use and novel tactics could have prevented European colonialism... but obviously that wasn't to be. OBviously there are other factors to consider, such as disease and whatnot. But, by and large, equal access to coercive force stabilizes a society. In modern, western societies, the most stable parts are where police activity is fair and evenly distributed. Most suburban households don't need to own handguns to protect themselves, because the police are well paid and good at their jobs, and can easily enforce laws equally. In poor urban areas and authoritarian governments, wealth is not distributed and the enforcement agencies are easily corrupted. As such, a higher level of violence goes without notice... and its the people with the guns that are "most equal." If everyone had guns and were willing and knew how to use them, I think that story would be quite different.
Pangloss Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I did not mean that. I was trying to make the point (possibly badly) that gun ownership does not lead to benevolent government, as shown by the fact that widespread gun ownership is found in oppressive nations. Thus the argument that gun ownerships stop governments becoming opressive is invalid. Okay. I don't know that that automatically applies in all situations, but I don't mind the example. Sorry I misunderstood.
Ozone Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Originally Posted by SkepticLance: "Conclusion - permitting guns in the home, and especially hand-guns will dramatically increase the loss of life due to suicide. " Actually, for suicide, a shotgun is a sure thing (rotten.com): Jul 2 1961 In the tile-covered foyer of his home in Ketchum, Idaho, novelist Ernest Hemingway commits suicide with his favorite shotgun. When the body was later found, "only his chin, mouth, and vestigial scraps of his cheeks were still connected to his body." Sounds effective, one shot too! It's good for the environment. Seriously. I suppose we should ban every other instrument that has been, can be used for or might possibly be employed to kill someone. That wouldn't leave much. Banning the guns makes sure of two things: 1. Only criminals will have them (they do not respect the laws, after all). 2. The lawmakers will face less resistance next time they wish to enrich themselves by infringing upon the rights of the "common" man (or woman, as the case may be). I hate to say it, but shooting is a fun and enjoyable past-time *and* is handy if someone decides to break into your house in the dark of night to kill your family (here, there is a new wave of "kill them then take their stuff" type of lazy and disrespectful criminals. Here, at least for now, it has been found that we can (and will) bear arms. Is it any wonder why shooting rampages frequently (nowadays) seem to occur in "gun-free" zones? Best, O3
arnoldschwartz Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Threatening to kill someone is surprisingly effective. Most guns are not used for killing people. Most gun owners have never killed anyone. Guns are usually used for threatening people, whether as part of a robbery, law enforcement, or self-defense. I agree most people who brandish guns never actually plan on using them. They just want to instill fear into thier enemies
SkepticLance Posted July 3, 2008 Author Posted July 3, 2008 (edited) To ecoli Re the natives of New Zealand. Before the coming of the European, the natives (Maoris) fought among themselves using various clubs. They did not even have the bow and arrow. The death toll from intertribal warfare was extremely low. The few records of these battles show that, of hundreds involved in conflict, only 2 to 3 would die. Would it not be better if this was the limit of weaponry available today? To ozone Re the results of tighter gun control (as opposed to total bans) - this does not need to be speculated about, since there are numerous nations which have done that. The results are very clear. Fewer guns means fewer deaths from violence - whether self violence by suicide, or violence against others - a lower murder rate. My country has a high rate of violent crime, since a high percentage of our population (25%) are from cultures recently limited to technologies from the stone age. Gangs, intergang warfare, rapes, assaults etc are common. Total violent crime per capita seems to be similar to the USA. However, the murder rate per capita is about 25% that of the USA. The difference is that, if you attack someone with a club or knife, your victim will probably survive. Not if you attack with a gun. Official murder rates : Worst : Columbia at 0.6 per 1000 people per year No. 24 : USA at 0.04 per 1000 per year No. 52 : NZ at 0.01 per 1000 per year The USA has the highest murder rate of 'developed' nations, though a bunch of third world countries are worse. Of those murders, approximately 60% in the USA are from firearms, while only 10% in NZ are from guns. Does this not suggest a safer nation would arise from stricter gun control? Edited July 3, 2008 by SkepticLance
Mr Skeptic Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 A thread about guns is never complete without mention of Kennesaw, the city where gun ownership is not just a good idea, it's the law.
iNow Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 This may sound cold, and does not present a very fair representation of my true position on the issue of bearing arms, but with overpopulation being such an issue, why do we care if people kill themselves with a gun?
ecoli Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 This may sound cold, and does not present a very fair representation of my true position on the issue of bearing arms, but with overpopulation being such an issue, why do we care if people kill themselves with a gun? because people aren't doing it in high enough numbers for it to be an effective population controller
doG Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 According to the statistics at suicide.org, firearms are the method used in 55% of suicides, not just handguns. Banning handguns alone would not stop those that use a shotgun. All suicides lumped together are an average 0f 10.8 per 100,000 population and firearm deaths are at a rate of 5.9 per 100,000. That's 0.006% of the population. IMO the other 99.994% should not give up their rights to keep and bear arms because of the 0.006%, especially when the 0.006% could just hang themselves anyway if guns were banned. Gun control, i.e. regulation, that makes guns inaccessible to those unqualified or too mentally unstable to bear arms is a reasonable restriction on the population.
SkepticLance Posted July 3, 2008 Author Posted July 3, 2008 To doG In case there is some misunderstanding, no-one has said that hand-guns were responsible for all those suicides. The original statistic was 55% of all firearm deaths are suicides. My original source said that hand-guns were disproportionately represented, but did not specify exactly what proportion of suicides came from hand-guns. As I see it, though, a hand-gun is ideally designed for suicide. In fact, it is not much use for much else. With one exception. It is an excellent murder weapon at close range when there is a need to keep it concealed until the time for the murder. For most other purposes, it is of little use. For warfare, you need accuracy at range, which is exactly what a hand-gun is useless at. Similarly, it is a lousy hunting weapon. While Western movies often show the hero drilling coins with his trusty Colt 45, the truth is that most people could not hit a barn door with one (OK, a slight exaggeration). For self defense, you are better off with a rifle or shotgun, since they are accurate at a greater distance, and you simply do not want to get close to someone who is threatening your life. I do not believe much in the self defense argument, anyway, since with guns restricted most of the time no-one gets seriously hurt in confrontations. If one person has a gun to 'defend' themselves, it usually guarantees at least one party getting badly hurt or killed, and often both parties. It was interesting to see in the Michael Moore movie 'Bowling for Columbine' that he concluded that the main reason for the terrible firearms death rate in the USA was the pathological attitude of Americans themselves. Americans tend to see guns as a constitutional right, and often see no problem with killing burglars and the like to protect their family and property. Many Americans fail to see that large scale possession of firearms, including hand-guns, actually leads to more innocent people being killed than if those weapons were severely restricted. And just to make things clear. I have not advocated total bans. Just much stronger restrictions. A responsible person who hunts deer should be able to own an appropriate rifle. The weapons I would like to see banned are those that are specifically designed for killing people, including hand-guns for anyone except police. Plus a major restriction on who can own a weapon. Those who have criminal convictions, psychological problems, or just plain fail to know the principles of safe firearms use, and the laws governing the same, should not be permitted to own a firearm.
Ozone Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 "Re the results of tighter gun control (as opposed to total bans) - this does not need to be speculated about, since there are numerous nations which have done that. The results are very clear." No, they are not. How many lawful gun owners have been involved with a non-defensive homicide? How many criminals (who will have them anyway)? Human nature dictates that if killing need be done, killing will be done and it will be done using whatever is at hand (fork, soda straw, club, ashtray, bowling ball, etc.). Yesss. I suppose that stabbings and bludgeonings (general smiting) have gone up quite a bit. It would appear, however that this mode of homicide (suicide is rather difficult with a club) is unreliable and messy. O3
SkepticLance Posted July 3, 2008 Author Posted July 3, 2008 Ozone There is a big difference between intent and results. The intent to harm or kill often does not result in that consequence. I have seen numerous news reports of victims who have been stabbed many times, and still lived. However, if the assaulter uses a gun, survival of the victim is way way less. The same applies to suicide. If you decide to kill yourself and try it with poison, drugs, drowning etc., you will probably survive. Lots of such people recover from their depressed state and are most grateful that they chose a less lethal mode of suicide. However, if you try to kill yourself with a firearm, you have little chance of being able to repent later!
doG Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 As I see it, though, a hand-gun is ideally designed for suicide. In fact, it is not much use for much else. With one exception. It is an excellent murder weapon at close range when there is a need to keep it concealed until the time for the murder. For most other purposes, it is of little use.... I think the law enforcement and military officers of the world would disagree with you that their guns are only useful for murder so the claim they are of "not much use for much else" since it is the key tool in their arsenal for deterrence. I think we probably agree that removing guns from mentally unstable people and those that are criminally inclined would decrease gun violence originating from those individuals. So we really just disagree on disarming responsible, law abiding individuals that would use them for protection and deterrence. IMO armed targets are victims of crime less often than unarmed targets. Feel free to show how disarming potential crime victims that are responsible, law abiding individuals will make them less susceptible to crime. I also just stumbled across an old news piece you might find interesting.
cellbioS Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 To doG For most other purposes, it is of little use. And just to make things clear. I have not advocated total bans. Just much stronger restrictions. A responsible person who hunts deer should be able to own an appropriate rifle. The weapons I would like to see banned are those that are specifically designed for killing people, including hand-guns for anyone except police. Plus a major restriction on who can own a weapon. Those who have criminal convictions, psychological problems, or just plain fail to know the principles of safe firearms use, and the laws governing the same, should not be permitted to own a firearm. First of all, handguns are also used for sport. In fact, many hunters use them for short range target practice so that when they hunt, they are better equipt to kill an animal and not just wound it so that it runs off and dies days later, in pain. And, yes, there are rules about who can and can not own firearms. Those that have a psycological problem can not get a firearm until 5 years after treatment, etc. Handguns are not made to kill people, but that's what people use them for. Should we also ban cars and trains, as they are killing many people too? It's not that gun control needs to be tougher, it's that the penalty for illegally using a firearm needs to be stricter. At gun shows and sales, one is not allowed to touch a firearm unless a gun owner's card is shown. Those who LEGALLY own guns are very aware of the reprecussions. Those who are criminally in possession of a firearm are not and those are the ones that need to know that there are rules for a reason.
john5746 Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Handguns are not made to kill people, but that's what people use them for. Should we also ban cars and trains, as they are killing many people too? Dynamite isn't made to kill people either. Cars have a purpose - to transport people quickly. You need to take a test and get a license to drive a car. Guns have no function short of entertainment other than to threaten bodily injury.
cellbioS Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Dynamite isn't made to kill people either. Cars have a purpose - to transport people quickly. You need to take a test and get a license to drive a car. Guns have no function short of entertainment other than to threaten bodily injury. Tell someone who hunts for food that guns have no purpose other than entertainment or bodily injury. Some areas will allow hunters two tags during deer season instead of one. One is for the the hunter and the other is for the same hunter to kill a deer for a needy family that has no money to buy meet. And yes, you do have to take a class in order to get a hunting license in Illinois, unless the law has changed in the last few years..
Pangloss Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 There was a case here just a few miles from my house yesterday that shows the importance of gun ownership. A man and his brother and his wife and their kid were home when two men entered and tried to rob them. The men were armed with knives. One of the men who lived there grabbed his gun, drilling one of the robbers as he came out of the master bedroom. The other one (I guess after he heard the shot) grabbed the child and dragged him out the front door. The shooter followed him out and drilled him on the front lawn. Both criminals died. No charges were filed in the case, the police considering it self-defense. Neither of the perps had a gun, but does anyone want to tell me how those people would have been better off if they hadn't had that gun in the house? You could argue that nobody would have died, but frankly those two got exactly what they deserved. You could also argue that cases like this are relatively rare, but I don't know that that's even relevant (or true). This statistic about suicide -- I just don't see how that's my problem or concern. It seems like we put too much stock in numbers sometimes. I admit I've come around on vehicle safety (I wear my seat belt). But on some issues we just take it too far.
iNow Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Does anyone seriously think that restrictions on guns will prevent them from being sold on the black market? That's just naive if you do. If someone wants one, they will get one. Blame human ingenuity, I guess. Treat the root of the problem, not the symptom.
foodchain Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Saying guns will protect us is not really all that true. Personally in such a situation I would rather be in the tank, if per say you really think that situation would happen. I doubt the U.S military would go to war with the America public at large. Another thing is that guns don’t kill people, bullets do, along with people using them. That being said seeing is how we don’t understand the ever present reality of violence, or fear or being human I don’t see how having a gun rich culture of humans beings as being something overtly successful in the long run, just imagine if some person shot Einstein on a robbery for instance, difficult it is to equate these things. The well over ten thousand and up to twenty thousand murders per year via firearm is a bad thing I would think, along with the ridiculous amount of crime in general committed with such. The idea of making the gun more paramount in everything American is sick to think about. I don’t want public school to be a military checkpoint, and I also could care less about making our deaths via handgun rate jump up into the hundreds of thousands. Even with the death penalty it seems like always someone is ready to be executed, how will gun saturation fix ending crime or crime with guns? First of all you would have to know the future and then commit the crime of acting first, with your gun or whatever. I also think logic or some objective understanding of guns hardly exists even politically. I think the constitution also makes law against guns pretty much a no go, even if by gun you were talking about some musket type rifle to use against say the British for instance.
Phi for All Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Please note the limited area of discussion in the OP, people. This is NOT a thread about general gun control. Please keep your responses regarding hunting, protection, assault rifles, automatic weapons and such out of here unless you are able to make a point about handguns and suicide. We had this thread called "Guns" that went on for 31 pages. It's easy to do if you aren't specific in limiting the topic.
john5746 Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Hand guns are obviously not just for suicide. I used a .22 pistol to kill my dogs during spring break from college. They had gone off for a week chasing tail and had fought other dogs and probably themselves. They were in pretty bad shape, so I ended their suffering with a bullet in the back of the head. I doubt if I would have done it with a knife or bow and arrow. I would have had to take them to a vet, which would have been difficult, pretty big dogs and one of them was in a creek and was in no mood to be moved. I could have used a rifle of course, so this is no justification for a pistol.
doG Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Please note the limited area of discussion in the OP, people. This is NOT a thread about general gun control. Please keep your responses regarding hunting, protection, assault rifles, automatic weapons and such out of here unless you are able to make a point about handguns and suicide. Hang on now. In defense of his original post on hand guns and suicide the OP said: To doG...As I see it, though, a hand-gun is ideally designed for suicide. In fact, it is not much use for much else. With one exception. It is an excellent murder weapon at close range when there is a need to keep it concealed until the time for the murder. And then you want to say we're not allowed to counter that claim with examples of other legitimate uses? After he conceded the stats originally posted included all firearms, not just handguns, i.e.? To doG In case there is some misunderstanding, no-one has said that hand-guns were responsible for all those suicides. The original statistic was 55% of all firearm deaths are suicides. My original source said that hand-guns were disproportionately represented, but did not specify exactly what proportion of suicides came from hand-guns.
Phi for All Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 And then you want to say we're not allowed to counter that claim with examples of other legitimate uses? ... unless you are able to make a point about handguns and suicide.This is an explosive topic and the urge to bring out all your ammo is a high-powered one. You don't need to snipe at me, I just want folks to avoid blasting away with both barrels on all their gun stances without regard to the OP.
SkepticLance Posted July 3, 2008 Author Posted July 3, 2008 To doG I took a look at your reference. Not very convincing. They could not even quantify how many schoolboy 'weapons' were firearms and how many were knives, and they admit that the British firearms murder rate (and overall murder rate) are way lower than in the USA. I know how NZ police use hand-guns. They are issued only in emergency (except to airport police, who carry them all the time). They are trained to fire only at very close range, and to aim directly at the centre of the torso, due to the infamous lack of accuracy. Even then, they have to hold the gun in two hands, and aim very carefully. Hand-guns are carried by police only because of their compactness. When it comes to their use, anyone with a rifle has a major advantage.
Recommended Posts