Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by maestro8

Make every bullet cost ~$1,000.

I'd vote for Chris Rock. His solution would probably be easier to implement than getting "everyone" to learn anything. Look how hard it is to teach people the bare-bones basics of how to drive? Fortunately driving is a privilege and *not* a right, so the training can be required. Now we just have to commit to training people a little better.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by maestro8

Chris Rock has the best solution to the problem.

Make every bullet cost ~$1,000.

Criminals won't be as quick to pull out a gun. And when they do, they'll make sure they hit what they intend to hit.

Those of us who know austrian economics know that wont work, because that'll just create an underground market for bullets.

[johnfoss]

Those of us that don't know who Chris Rock is, he's a comedian.

[mscalisi]

I don't think it's surprising that "more guns" = "more gun deaths". Taken to the extreme, zero guns MUST equal zero gun deaths.

..but is that the question? Why not apply the same to automobiles? One might argue that we'd have a safer society if everyone owned guns and cars were banned.

The question is, "Do we have the right to possess guns (arms)?" Interestingly, the constitution uses the word "arms", not "guns". As Harper points out, nukes are arms too. Where does the line get drawn? Where can I pick up my rail gun?

Something I find interesting about this argument, is that city folk tend to be anti-gun, and country folk tend to be pro-gun. I think there's something to this.

I certainly don't want people in Oakland to have an easier time obtaining guns, and if my nearest neighbor was miles away, I'd probably want to have one to protect myself.

Originally Posted by Naomi

That looks like a fairly "head in the sand" response. Had action been possible to reduce the level of gun ownership in the USA to match that in the UK, or even drop it to zero, I think it would have caused a much lower gun death total. But perhaps you disagree, and can support that disagreement?

It would have been reasonable, and undoubtedly accurate, to state that gun ownership levels may not be the only factor affecting gun death totals.

Nao

[kington99]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Look how hard it is to teach people the bare-bones basics of how to drive?

or even basic literacy and numeracy.


Unfortunately bullets really aren't all that hard to make, a blackmarket would no doubt evolve in a matter of days.

[uni57]

Originally Posted by kington99

Unfortunately bullets really aren't all that hard to make, a blackmarket would no doubt evolve in a matter of days.

Not necessary. The criminals would just steal the bullets. At gunpoint (they can bluff the first time).

[Naomi]

[QUOTE=maestro8]Fine, here, 15 seconds of googling and I find the BBC and Wikipedia (with citations) are saying quite the opposite of what you're implying. Quoting from the BBC article:

"despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising"
and
"there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession"


There are no high levels of LEGAL gun ownership in the UK. Legal privately held handguns have to be kept at the gun club. You cannot remove them from the club.
Now had you quoted rather less selectively from the BBC article, spent a little more than the 15 seconds on google, you would have noticed that it also said:
Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."
He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.
Notice the correlation he has made: more illegal guns LARGELY the cause of the rise!
And of course it is also true that if you make legal guns available some of them would add to those used by criminals.



If researchers are finding the UK's gun policies aren't achieving their effect, then why are you so quick to link those policies and gun death rates?

Read on...


Apples and oranges. You can't just look at a proportion between your statistics for the US and those for the UK and claim there is but one culprit.

I have already made the point that there is more than one factor. I did not say there was only one culprit. Please do not misquote me. However there is certainly a lot of similarity between the two countries, as well as some differences.

There are some fundamental differences here which seem to elude your mental grasp.

As I said before, there are a myriad of causes behind gun crime, but I don't want to open that can of worms. I'm only here to counter the "take their guns away" argument...


That's quite a naive statement to make there, Nao. Either that, or your generalization (the word "you") is quite misleading.

You are very easily misled: this is merely you being ridiculously pedantic. Had I used pedantry myself I would have said that there is more chance of an American citizen being shot than there is of a British citizen being shot. You chose to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal rates. I didn't. Without looking at the statistics it is almost certainly true that for both groups, if counted separately, the death rates would be higher in the US.

A great deal of gun crime happens here in the SF Bay Area, and most often the violence is criminal-on-criminal. That is, both the victim and the perpetrator are linked to gang activity, drug trafficking, or the like. This phenomenon isn't local... it's actually quite common across the US.

As in the UK: criminals shoot criminals here too. Moss Side near where I live is one such area with much drug and higher than average gun related incidents.

If you want numbers, visit the Bureau of Justice website and dig around for yourself.

In your generalization, it appears you claim "Average Bob" walking down the street is just as likely to be shot as "Coke-dealer Joe". This just isn't the case... your numbers group together random shootings, gang-related shootings, family-related shootings, accidental, etc.

Of course that is not the case, and I think it is quite rude of you to imply that I made any such generalization and claim. Picky attempts to score points based on actual words rather than the quite obvious meaning is not aiding your argument.



Instead you really need to apply some realism to your arguments. As before, you are burying your head in the sand quite deeply. I am not American, and it is not my place to campaign for, or against the amendment, and I am not doing so. However those that do see it is their place, should be able to look reasonably at what happens elsewhere. You are not doing that at all. You are quite deliberately avoiding any real consideration of the facts. Stop wriggling and face it: if there are guns, people get killed: more guns, more people killed by them. If zero guns were a possible scenario, then no-one would get shot, anywhere! It is a correlation that is quite inescapable.

Cutting out the UK/US differences for you:

If there were more guns freely available in the UK, more people would get shot.
If there were less guns in the hands of US citizens, then the death rate would fall.
Regardless of any other contributing factors!!!

How that affects the right to bear arms in the US is your problem, not mine.


Nao

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by Naomi

If there were less guns in the hands of US citizens, then the death rate would fall.

Not necessarily. Other methods would become more common. Further, you're saying less guns, but criminals would still have guns so the less guns comes by those who use it for defense not having them, so the death rate could actually rise.

In the US there are some cities that have strict gun controls that have much more murders than other cities that even require each household to have a gun.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Naomi

BLAAARGHHH!

The only sense I can make of your ramblings is that you're convinced there's a direct correlation between A and B, where A is the number of guns that are owned by a population and B are the number of deaths caused by guns... if this isn't the point you're trying to make, then you've completely lost me... it seems you've become too rabid to convey your ideas logically.

Either way, I see there's no way to explain to you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, or that reducing gun ownership is a good idea.

Originally Posted by Gilby

you're saying less guns, but criminals would still have guns so the less guns comes by those who use it for defense not having them, so the death rate could actually rise.

I think I said that earlier in this thread, but that contradicts Nao's "guns = deaths" formula, so obviously it must be wrong.

In the US there are some cities that have strict gun controls that have much more murders than other cities that even require each household to have a gun.

I've read stories about a town that did just that: required every household to own and maintain a firearm. It made sense to me that crime rates plummeted in that city, dunno why it's so hard for others to comprehend that outcome... makes even less sense to me that some cities would even consider an outright ban.

[digigal1]

A few pages back someone said why would civilians even need handguns. First, a rifle isn't as easy to manipulate: a person is coming after you and you have to swing up and aim at them and suddenly they're on top of you. Or you're in your house, someone breaks in, you hear the guy in the hallway, you grab your rifle and come around the corner and you try to aim but you knock the barrel into your wall instead. It's also about ease of carry and concealed carry. I don't want the criminals to ambush me to steal my gun, they're going to have to guess if I'm carrying and take their chances.

Another post said something about distrust of government, i.e., the police won't be there when you need them. I think it is naive to think the police will EVER be there to protect you in ANY situation where you're faced with a criminal. How can the police possibly be there in time to prevent the crime, whether it be a bad guy with a gun holding up the convenience store, let alone a criminal breaking into your house to steal from you, rape or kill you. Unless the police car is right outside at the time, how could that possibly happen? I once read an article about stupid crooks where a guy had to step around a police car to enter the gun store he attempted to rob. But come on.

[monkeyman]

I think a gun store would be the last place I would ever want to try to rob.

[kington99]

Would those of you who advocate guns for protecting the home intend to fire them?

i.e. you hear a noise, you go downstairs, there's a guy climbing out your window with your TV. He's in no position to attack you, he's halfway through a window and both his hands are full. You pull your gun and tell him to freeze. He continues climbing out the window with your telly, do you shoot him?

The point I'm driving at is that obviously if your personal safety is being seriously attacked then shooting the other person is reasonable. But if they're trying to take you wallet/bag/car, are you really going to take a human life over that? I would think that the vast majority of house break-ins are for theft rather than rape/murder. In the previously cited example of 300lb assailant versus woman, if he was only robbing her bag then is getting in to a gunfight in which either party could get killed really justifiable?

[wobbling bear]

happened here: a high school student was often a victim of jokes by fellows ... so he decided to emulate the Columbine event.... unable to find a gun a used a knife: result 3 woundeds + himself. For sure he lives in a country a bit short on fundamental freedoms.
happened there: in Somalia a disgusted African peace-keeper bitterly complained that since everybody owned guns there was no way to keep peace. May be he came from a country with a different vision .... An interesting remark: Somalia is so free that entreprenarial spirit flourishes: the per capita income is higher than in neighbouring Ethiopia (not a parangon of democracy)! Some politicians should use Somalia as an example of lean governement: they will make a killing!

[cathwood]

I'm going to have to agree with the guns=death formula. Besides experiments by psychologists support this argument (in that if you have got a gun you are far more likely to use it that if you haven't got one).

I was also wondering Maesto8, what other variables you think would impact upon this regarding our two countries?

From my perspective, what you pro gunners seem to be saying is that the USA is a country full of dangerous, murderous, gun totting criminals that you are all at danger from if you don't carry your own guns. Is that what it's really like? Or is there a touch of paranoia around?

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by cathwood

From my perspective, what you pro gunners seem to be saying is that the USA is a country full of dangerous, murderous, gun totting criminals that you are all at danger from if you don't carry your own guns. Is that what it's really like? Or is there a touch of paranoia around?

My overall impression is that both hypothesis are not exact: except from very special places the US looks like a peaceful place; the inhabitants are no more paranoïd than "us" (old europeans). So why this need for arms which looks extremely strange to "us" ?