Lets talk about firearms- guns...

[JoshF]

The second scenario can't have a happy ending in the courts if we're talking about shooting a military or police officer.

[Neon]

I'm as godlessly liberal as most people on this site, but gun bans have been shown to be at best, ineffective and at worst, counterproductive in lowering rates of violent crime. On an emotional level I hate guns and would like to make them go away, but I realize a ban will not accomplish anything positive.

People do tend to equate gun control with bans, which I think is outright dangerous. I don't think a background check or a waiting period is an outrageous regulatory requirement for ownership of a firearm. It's true that these requirements wouldn't necessarily stop a convicted felon/mentally disturbed person from acquiring guns, but they are somewhat of a deterrent. It's analogous to modding consoles - manufacturers know they can't stop the most determined pirates from modding their consoles and burning their games, but simply having the hassle of needing a modchip in the first place stops a lot of piracy (imagine how common it would be if you could casually burn a game for a friend and have it work on your console).

[Nuke]

Don't ban guns, ban the bullets! Or at least make them expensive.

[Twiddle]

Really!? Theres no background check or waiting period in Arizona?
Not even for handguns?

Nope.

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

Don't ban guns, ban the bullets! Or at least make them expensive.

What makes you think that a prospective shooter won't spend a couple more dollars for bullets?

[jp]

Don't ban guns, ban the bullets! Or at least make them expensive.

What makes you think that a prospective shooter won't spend a couple more dollars for bullets?

He said "expensive". Not slightly costlier, "expensive". So like, $50 for a bullet or something like that.

And I'm sorry, but I'm sure a very low percentage of gun fatalities come from hired assassins who would be putting out that kind of money.

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

Don't ban guns, ban the bullets! Or at least make them expensive.

What makes you think that a prospective shooter won't spend a couple more dollars for bullets?

He said "expensive". Not slightly costlier, "expensive". So like, $50 for a bullet or something like that.

And I'm sorry, but I'm sure a very low percentage of gun fatalities come from hired assassins who would be putting out that kind of money.

50 a bullet is so ridiculous that it won't happen because bullets are used for stuff other than us killing each other. They're also used for us killing animals and other fun activities.

A more realistic price would be doubling the price of bullets, but that might have undesired side effects like people using food stamps for bullets.

[jp]

What makes you think that a prospective shooter won't spend a couple more dollars for bullets?

He said "expensive". Not slightly costlier, "expensive". So like, $50 for a bullet or something like that.

And I'm sorry, but I'm sure a very low percentage of gun fatalities come from hired assassins who would be putting out that kind of money.

50 a bullet is so ridiculous that it won't happen because bullets are used for stuff other than us killing each other. They're also used for us killing animals and other fun activities.

A more realistic price would be doubling the price of bullets, but that might have undesired side effects like people using food stamps for bullets.

Very well.


Bullets that can only be used in rifles stay the same price.

Bullets that can be used in hand guns cost $50 a bullet unless purchased and used on a shooting range.

[Acid King]

Woah I think I agree with you. I like the idea of a citizen's army when it's defending against a foreign state too (you know, terrorists.)

So we agree on atleast one thing? Man, I just shit my pants.

[GaijinPunch]

Don't ban guns, ban the bullets! Or at least make them expensive.

What makes you think that a prospective shooter won't spend a couple more dollars for bullets?

He said "expensive". Not slightly costlier, "expensive". So like, $50 for a bullet or something like that.

And I'm sorry, but I'm sure a very low percentage of gun fatalities come from hired assassins who would be putting out that kind of money.

Actually he only repeated it. The person who original said it (Chris Rock) said bullets should be $5,000.

[bakaichi]

I agree with that! Shooting an animal from a safe distance while its eating or drinking or just walking along is an assassination.

No it's not it's slaghter, and I want a fair fight as much as a cat or a wolf. Hey! I'm only human I don't wanna die and hunting isn't about killing everything as much possible. I can't see how breeding an animal for the sole porpose of eating it is any better.

[Michaelm]

Do people honestly think that getting a legal gun in the States is as easy as walking in a store, saying "I would like to buy that gun!" and then paying and leaving? There are background checks and waiting periods.

The reason that so many criminals are able to get a hold of guns so easily is because they obtain them *gasp* illegally.

Do people really think we confuse theory with practice ?!?
We also have all sorts of laws so young people can't drink alcohol and stuff.
In theory they should ask for identification. In reality they just ask for the age and believe the answer.

I can go telling the world about our theoretic laws but when in reality they just mean shit it doesn't bring me much, now does it ?

[Ed Oscuro]

gun bans have been shown to be at best, ineffective and at worst, counterproductive in lowering rates of violent crime.

Where? In the states, where criminals can dodge gun laws by getting them from out of state?

In Britain and elsewhere the gun ban seems to be working pretty darn well.

[Acid King]

Where? In the states, where criminals can dodge gun laws by getting them from out of state?

In Britain and elsewhere the gun ban seems to be working pretty darn well.

The thing is, guns don't cause crime. You can remove guns from the equation, which might lower crimes committed with guns, but may not impact crime overall.

[Michaelm]

The thing is, guns don't cause crime. You can remove guns from the equation, which might lower crimes committed with guns, but may not impact crime overall.

But they do cause deaths which will be impacted by regulation.
Also, if robbers don't dare to rob without having a gun it also impacts crime overall.

[jp]

The thing is, guns don't cause crime. You can remove guns from the equation, which might lower crimes committed with guns, but may not impact crime overall.

But they do cause deaths which will be impacted by regulation.
Also, if robbers don't dare to rob without having a gun it also impacts crime overall.

Because I'm sure a robber who goes out of their way to get a gun to possibly kill someone did so legally and has their name and everything tied to said gun.

[Ed Oscuro]

The thing is, guns don't cause crime.

They regularly cause more serious wounds than your average grudge holder can inflict with a knife. Guns are called the "great equalizers," but in most all cases they give somebody the ability to inflict severe wounds nearly instantaneously on whoever they see fit. Restricting angry people to whatever is lying around gives potential victims a better chance to fend off attacks.

I know that's the reverse of the usual "defending yourself from robbers" idea, but let's be smart about this: Without guns, the chances of severe injury are reduced. What robber is going to treat you calmly when you're waving around a pistol?

[Michaelm]

Because I'm sure a robber who goes out of their way to get a gun to possibly kill someone did so legally and has their name and everything tied to said gun.

I know it's hard to understand that getting things illegally becomes much more easier when you can get the things legally too.

[Acid King]

They regularly cause more serious wounds than your average grudge holder can inflict with a knife. Guns are called the "great equalizers," but in most all cases they give somebody the ability to inflict severe wounds nearly instantaneously on whoever they see fit. Restricting angry people to whatever is lying around gives potential victims a better chance to fend off attacks.

I know that's the reverse of the usual "defending yourself from robbers" idea, but let's be smart about this: Without guns, the chances of severe injury are reduced. What robber is going to treat you calmly when you're waving around a pistol?

But they don't cause crime. A gun ban may cut down fatalities, but it does absolutely nothing to address the underlying conditions that spawn the crime to begin with. Justice department statistics have firearms involved in 9% of violent crimes but two-thirds of murders. You may cut the number of deaths down, but if crime stays the same, all you have done is stripped law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves.

A balance has to be struck. That's how it works in a free society. Individual rights are dictated as being inalienable despite potential hazards. Banning abortions would cut down on the number of fetuses killed but infringe on an individuals reproductive rights and control of their body and won't affect behaviors that lead to unplanned pregnancies. Banning "hateful speech" may cut down on racist proselytizing, but have a chilling effect on legitimate political speech and not do much to quell racist sentiment. Banning guns may cut down on the number of firearm related fatalities, but removes an individuals right to self defense, from both criminals and potential government actors, and may not lower crime rates. I think all of those are important rights for individuals to have and all of the negative behavior associated with them can be effectively dealt with without violating them.

[jp]

Because I'm sure a robber who goes out of their way to get a gun to possibly kill someone did so legally and has their name and everything tied to said gun.

I know it's hard to understand that getting things illegally becomes much more easier when you can get the things legally too.

I know it's hard to understand that making things illegal after they've been legal for 200 years doesn't make them all disappear over night.

[Ed Oscuro]

Somehow I think jp and Michaelm are saying the same thing...am I the only one who thinks this?

A balance has to be struck. That's how it works in a free society.

Firearms inherently imbalance any situation they're introduced into - that's the problem.

Of course, I'm partly playing devil's advocate here; I think that the balance should be one which confers maximum security to its citizens. This includes taking intermediate steps towards limiting the reach of firearms.

Better instruction (including the psychological preparation to use a weapon) for the person who buys a handgun for personal protection would be an improvement over the status quo. Do I think it's the best improvement possible? No.

As I said earlier, part of the problem is that people feel (for some inscrutable reason) that the lessons of gun control overseas somehow don't apply here. Certain gun bans (such as the three decades-old ban in Washington, D.C.) have had their effectiveness undercut by the availability of firearms elsewhere in the States.

Justice department statistics have firearms involved in 9% of violent crimes but two-thirds of murders. You may cut the number of deaths down, but if crime stays the same, all you have done is stripped law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves.

Actually, a likely intermediate step towards a comprehensive firearms ban would be to make it illegal to carry firearms around town. Keeping a firearm at home is more justifiable than carrying one in the street, after all. Doodude's anecdote provides a good example of this.

The need for firearms for personal protection assumes that this country doesn't have working police protection or community organizations, which is an incorrect assumption throughout most of the country. Anybody who is in an area without police or community organization would be well advised to move out.

Incidentally, guns also pose a risk to their own owners - accidental discharge is one, but the main problem is they give an owner a quick and perceived guaranteed means of suicide. Somebody who has slashed their wrists will have time to consider getting help; somebody who has shot themselves may have inflicted an immediate fatal injury.

A final point worth keeping in mind is that high profile police shootings (i.e. the Bell shooting in New York) may have been inexcusable, but officers were under stress and working with the logical assumption that a situation in an area known for gun crime could cause them to need to defend themselves from potential shooters. By reducing gun ownership and confiscating firearms found on the streets, we start to reduce the number of situations of potential gun crime and reduce the feeling in officers that they are likely to be confronted with a firearm.

The main point is this: It's about taking the intermediate steps. Nobody should be naive enough to think that guns will magically disappear overnight, but thinking that intermediate steps cannot be taken is also plain wrong.

[Zebra Airforce]

actually it's more closely related to how stable a state's economy is

i really don't care about gun control but facts people

Recession! Coming soon, to a city near you! (Me)

[Acid King]

Firearms inherently imbalance any situation they're introduced into - that's the problem.

That wasn't what I was referring to but if that's what you think, you're essentially ceding the point an armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one since an armed citizen will always have the upper hand on a criminal if guns, as you say, imbalance every situation.

Actually, a likely intermediate step towards a comprehensive firearms ban would be to make it illegal to carry firearms around town. Keeping a firearm at home is more justifiable than carrying one in the street, after all. Doodude's anecdote provides a good example of this.

The need for firearms for personal protection assumes that this country doesn't have working police protection or community organizations, which is an incorrect assumption throughout most of the country. Anybody who is in an area without police or community organization would be well advised to move out.

This is like saying that people shouldn't have fire extinguishers in their homes because we have fire departments. Your relation to police shootings is incredibly flawed because criminals can, and will, still get guns. The only way to cut down on incidents like that would be to take guns away from the police. Because so much gun related violence is perpetrated with firearms obtained illegally, why would banning private gun ownership make police less likely to assume a criminal won't have one? Additionally, there are emergency situations where the police cannot be relied on. New Orleans after Katrina is a prime example.

[Michaelm]

I know it's hard to understand that making things illegal after they've been legal for 200 years doesn't make them all disappear over night.

Who ever said that ?
You have to start somewhere.

[Ed Oscuro]

That wasn't what I was referring to but if that's what you think, you're essentially ceding the point an armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one since an armed citizen will always have the upper hand on a criminal if guns, as you say, imbalance every situation.

Tough that it's not what you were commenting on; if I didn't swerve the topic towards my points you'd never even think of them. I suppose you'd be happy, but then it wouldn't be a discussion, now, would it?

Anyhow, a firearm unbalances any given situation towards greater wounds and (as noted by others in this thread) increases the likelihood of retribution then or later (as in Doodude's anecdote). This isn't really a debatable point; it's a proven fact. I think it is important to move the discussion towards the large body of evidence surrounding this topic. Purely logical arguments have their place, but logic divorced from statistics and evidence is likely to make incorrect assumptions.

Next point - Firearms increase violence:
I don't expect every person to be able to talk down an assailant, but a robber is more likely to ignore grandma if she's not pointing a pistol at him - a pistol makes the opposition ratchet up their game, which is part of the point I was making. The idea of international arms proliferation has a counterpart in personal interactions, in other words.

Policemen are more likely to draw their guns if there are more guns on the streets. Owners of firearms for personal defense are likely to do the same. Criminals are more likely to obtain a handgun if they think it likely they are going to run into a homeowner with one. Again, I'd rather have a criminal approach my house thinking there aren't any guns inside, because that lets them think more rationally.

This is like saying that people shouldn't have fire extinguishers in their homes because we have fire departments.

The intended and most effective application of fire extinguishers is benign, so your analogy fails on account of being imprecise and misleading. Please stop referring to largely benign household objects as if they are suicide and homicide facilitators. If you can point towards the helpful context of statistics that prove your point, let's see them - otherwise, you're just making things needlessly overcomplicated in an already complicated topic.

Your relation to police shootings is incredibly flawed because criminals can, and will, still get guns.

To employ one of those analogies you seem overly fond of (except in a precise and logical fashion), consider the effect criminalizing recreational drugs has had: Supply is limited, quality is degraded, and price goes up. This helps drug dealers (even people who grow marijuana) gain higher profits, but also drives up their risks and limits their market.

Limiting handgun sales will have all of those effects, except it will be positive. As was mentioned about swords earlier: When they're expensive, it's harder to get them.

Where will these guns come from when they're banned?

The one point you have right is that criminalizing handgun ownership will lead towards dangerous underground handgun sales. This will have a major effect in underground weapon trading activities, raising the stakes and presumably the violence. Note that a lot of the violence in high-stakes drug deals is targeted towards those who deal in them: the normal law-abiding citizen has no reason to obtain a black-market handgun and is unlikely to be unduly affected by violence in such a situation. The situation is actually helped because firearms aren't addictive (naturally, anyway).

Just as laws regulating highly addictive, dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine should not be repealed because of the sophistication of criminal operations, the underground weapons trading community does not outweigh the benefits of removing dangerous handguns from easy availability.

Under an intermediate step towards handgun control, this is what will happen:

A homeowner who purchases one weapon and registers it properly may need to put out a good amount of money, but they will not need to worry about hiding it from police or disposing of it. They can buy one weapon and never even need to use it against an assailant, reducing their costs.

On the other hand, a criminal (especially a person with a prior felony conviction) who cannot legally obtain a handgun or legally transport them in the streets has higher costs. Simple economics.

If you argue that this makes them more likely to commit petty crimes to obtain a handgun or enough cash for one, you're missing the point: Their costs of ownership have increased, period.

[Acid King]

Tough that it's not what you were commenting on; if I didn't swerve the topic towards my points you'd never even think of them. I suppose you'd be happy, but then it wouldn't be a discussion, now, would it?

The problem was you weren't addressing my point. I've already noted the danger of firearms and the likelihood that banning them would result in a decrease of death and fatalities. Saying they imbalance a situation toward greater harm is moot when I've already acknowledged they do. Glance up the ladder and you'll see the original point was whether or not gun bans affect violent crime. Your original inference was that gun control legislation in Britain and other places worked to lower rates of violent crime and I explained why it wouldn't. If you want to cut down on crime, banning guns isn't going to do anything except potentially lower the number of firearm related fatalities. That's not lowering crime. Switzerland has a higher rate of gun ownership and a lower homicide rate than the UK does.

The intended and most effective application of fire extinguishers is benign, so your analogy fails on account of being imprecise and misleading. Please stop referring to largely benign household objects as if they are suicide and homicide facilitators. If you can point towards the helpful context of statistics that prove your point, let's see them - otherwise, you're just making things needlessly overcomplicated in an already complicated topic.

Self defense isn't benign? Guns when employed in self defense are benign. For the vast VAST majority of gun owners, as shown by the fact that guns are used in the minority violent crime and the limited use of registered, legal firearms in criminal acts, private gun ownership IS benign. Talk about logic without facts here... Your logic here is flawed because both objects serve the purpose of defending oneself against a particular threat and both involve a public good.

Just as laws regulating highly addictive, dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine should not be repealed because of the sophistication of criminal operations, the underground weapons trading community does not outweigh the benefits of removing dangerous handguns from easy availability.

You're right. They should be repealed because criminalizing them doesn't address the underlying problems of drug abuse and only serves to create more problems than were they legal and undermines individual rights. Just as banning guns likely won't impact overall crime because it does nothing to address the causes of crime, banning drugs does nothing to address the causes of drug abuse. I made this point earlier or were you not paying attention?

[Ed Oscuro]

Your original inference was that gun control legislation in Britain and other places worked to lower rates of violent crime and I explained why it wouldn't.

I've explained why it will: guns provoke and also facilitate reactions. If you're facing a gun owner, you don't always go running. If you have a gun for defense, you'll be more likely to use it when the situation doesn't call for it.

If you want to cut down on crime, banning guns isn't going to do anything except potentially lower the number of firearm related fatalities.

And injuries all down the line. The point is that there's a greater harm to society.

Switzerland has a higher rate of gun ownership and a lower homicide rate than the UK does.

That doesn't apply to the states. This article explains why. Thank you for bringing up the point, however, because it was far from my mind. Cultural context matters.

Self defense isn't benign? Guns when employed in self defense are benign.

There is an obvious disconnect between definitions of "benign." Guns don't allow measured responses in force when deterring an assailant, which is why police officers often employ tasers, batons, sprays, CS gas, and rubber bullets (and even these can be misused).

In terms of pure inconvenience, compare these two scenarios of an attempted home invasion:

In one, the assailant is shot dead. The defender has to justify their use of deadly force, possibly in a court of law.

In the other, the defender lets themselves be robbed, but everybody walks away. The defender can pursue this with the police, and there is now a chance the robber can work through the criminal reform system (as sad as it is in this nation).

Broken laws on the matter that sometimes make it more expedient to kill an invader outright rather than incapacitate them don't help the matter.

Obviously that also doesn't account for instances of personal violence which you rightly bring up - but in those cases you need to seek police intervention when you know there's a personal conflict. As most homicides and violence are between people who know each other, this should be the case.

In the case of a physical assault or rape attempt, I'm not willing to say somebody is unjustified in killing their attacker (although I wouldn't likely want to do it myself, and I would seek help if I had an inkling it was coming, as noted before). I'm willing to say that should be their right.

You're right. They should be repealed because criminalizing them doesn't address the underlying problems of drug abuse and only serves to create more problems than were they legal and undermines individual rights.

No; at some level you need to put the foot down when the harm to society in letting something go free is worse than in regulating (notice I didn't say criminalizing) it.

[Specineff]

Wasn't just a ban of swords and knives passed in the UK? Sure, the gun ban has worked; but people were resorting to other means to hurt or kill other people. And then people will resort to pipes, or other things to commit crimes. Even if that reduces gun crimes, I doubt it will reduce crime at all since it can be commited by other means.

[xorthen]

If citizens shouldn't have a right to bear arms, then military,police or any other form of Government agency should not have the right either. It's only fair. Do we really want to give up fire arms all for the sake of "security"?

Underneath that badge or uniform, those cops are still humans. The illusion that because they are police officers, does not mean they will always be looking out for the best interests of the people. There are many cases where Police officers are corrupt, or even government officials or anybody. I think it's absurd to say "well it will make the world a better place" when in reality, it would only encourage people to be subservient.

[Ed Oscuro]

Sure, the gun ban has worked; but people were resorting to other means to hurt or kill other people.

Note: Less effective.

And then people will resort to pipes, or other things to commit crimes [boards with nails in them? I will get a board with the biggest nail of all!]. Even if that reduces gun crimes, I doubt it will reduce crime at all since it can be commited by other means.

We need to be worried about a statistic, rather than the fatalities caused by dangerous implements?

Reducing gun and sword crimes = reducing crimes.

If you mean "there will still be thefts," that's certainly reasonable, but reducing the potential for bodily harm in a theft seems like a positive to me.

If citizens shouldn't have a right to bear arms, then military,police or any other form of Government agency should not have the right either. It's only fair.

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't come down on one side of the argument or other with what I know, although I can come up with better arguments than "omg it's not fare"

- It's a funny sight seeing British cops try to take down motorcars with their batons (sometimes they succeed)!

- In some police departments in the U.S. officers are banned from firing on moving vehicles when on foot because it is thought guns won't stop the cars from moving and the potential for harming bystanders is increased