Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow

[Neoteny]

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

The hunting of any animal which in theory could in a wounded state rip you to shreads (bear is a good example, even the back bear is nasty when it's wounded) requires the use of a semi-automatic weapon. Note that semi-automatic hunting rifles tend to have limited size cartridges, so the the advantage is to be able to fire a few rounds quickly at a charging animal.

Automatic rifles have no good purpose in hunting. They are cool for blasting a thing to pices and some people find that as fascinating as hunting. They tend to be more closely regulated, especially in the Untied States where you need a federal permit to do that and only in certain places designed to blow things up with automatic fire.

Hunting bears is dangerous business, business that may in desperation call for something of that sort. Yet should we really allow the entire citizenry semi-automatic weapons for the sake of a sport that is dangerous no matter what weapons are used(short of full auto weapons, something 100% unacceptable in the hands of your average person)?

And, really, how many people actually go bear hunting?

[Frigidus]

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

The hunting of any animal which in theory could in a wounded state rip you to shreads (bear is a good example, even the back bear is nasty when it's wounded) requires the use of a semi-automatic weapon. Note that semi-automatic hunting rifles tend to have limited size cartridges, so the the advantage is to be able to fire a few rounds quickly at a charging animal.

Automatic rifles have no good purpose in hunting. They are cool for blasting a thing to pices and some people find that as fascinating as hunting. They tend to be more closely regulated, especially in the Untied States where you need a federal permit to do that and only in certain places designed to blow things up with automatic fire.

Hunting bears is dangerous business, business that may in desperation call for something of that sort. Yet should we really allow the entire citizenry semi-automatic weapons for the sake of a sport that is dangerous no matter what weapons are used(short of full auto weapons, something 100% unacceptable in the hands of your average person)?

And, really, how many people actually go bear hunting?

My uncle does...so I know 1!

[Neoteny]

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

The hunting of any animal which in theory could in a wounded state rip you to shreads (bear is a good example, even the back bear is nasty when it's wounded) requires the use of a semi-automatic weapon. Note that semi-automatic hunting rifles tend to have limited size cartridges, so the the advantage is to be able to fire a few rounds quickly at a charging animal.

Automatic rifles have no good purpose in hunting. They are cool for blasting a thing to pices and some people find that as fascinating as hunting. They tend to be more closely regulated, especially in the Untied States where you need a federal permit to do that and only in certain places designed to blow things up with automatic fire.

Hunting bears is dangerous business, business that may in desperation call for something of that sort. Yet should we really allow the entire citizenry semi-automatic weapons for the sake of a sport that is dangerous no matter what weapons are used(short of full auto weapons, something 100% unacceptable in the hands of your average person)?

And, really, how many people actually go bear hunting?

My uncle does...so I know 1!

Well there you go.

[dewey316]

Pointing out Switzerland and claiming that it's safe because they all have guns is rather silly. They have none of the social factors that lead to crime, so there is little crime.
However, when you compare the large and poor urban areas in the UK and the US, you will see that there are less gundeaths in the UK. There is not neccesarily less crime, but there are certainly less people dying from it.

That is my point. It isn't the guns presence that makes it a problem. It is the social climate, the justice system, heck, maybe even the water. . You can't fairly compare stats from the UK straight across to the US. That is a bad way of looking at this, and doesn't really tell us anything. What we need to be looking at, is changes in policy within those country, that are working.

The right to carry laws in the US really started changing in 1987, starting with Florida. If we look at the national murder rate, you can see that starting in the late 80's, the murder rate in the US has been dropping.


(Source: US DOJ)

Making a straight accross comparison with England is not telling us anything. Prior to the banning of handguns, the murder rate there was already much lower than in the US. Not because of lack of guns, but because of a lot of other factors.

You can keep saying that "less guns = less death" and you are more than welcome to beleive it, and practice it in your own country. However, the numbers that I see in the US, do not indicate that there is a link between gun laws, and the actual murder rate. If anything, the numbers might say that with deregulation, the murder rate goes down (I am not saying that, I think what is effecting the murder rate along with other crime rates is a whole slew of other factors)

[Snorri1234]

That is my point. It isn't the guns presence that makes it a problem. It is the social climate, the justice system, heck, maybe even the water. . You can't fairly compare stats from the UK straight across to the US. That is a bad way of looking at this, and doesn't really tell us anything. What we need to be looking at, is changes in policy within those country, that are working.

Naturally you can't compare them directly. But larger urban areas in the UK and US are pretty similiar. They are not entirely alike, but when compared to Switzerland (which doesn't have any of the factors) they are much closer.

And the thing is: If you can't compare countries with each other then how can you ever determine if guns have a relation to homicide? Comparing the US-records with eachother is silly because the one thing you're wanting to find out is something which is constant. It's not like you've had a sufficiently long period where handguns were banned which you can use.

The right to carry laws in the US really started changing in 1987, starting with Florida. If we look at the national murder rate, you can see that starting in the late 80's, the murder rate in the US has been dropping.

That can be attributed to a number of things like less young criminals, better police-involvement and stuff like that. I can see your point though.
Right to carry and right to own are two different things though.


Also, I am certainly not advocating banning all firearms. Long guns are fine, but handguns (and certainly automatic/semi-automatic guns) are vastly more dangerous. They are lethal, fast and easy to hide. And seeing as they are neccesary for self-defense (a shotgun can do the trick just as good) and not used in hunting I can not think of a good reason to have them. They were used in 75% of the firearm-related homicides in the US. They're designed to kill people.

[dewey316]

Snorri, I am not saying it is a great way to look at it. The issue is, that there is no good set of numbers to compare. Before the firearms ban in England, their murder rate was already much different that that of the US. So, comparing their numbers after the ban, is not going to be accurate to what might happen in the US. I raised the Switzerland argument to show how crazy it is to try to compare one countries numbers to anothers in this situation. The number of guns in Switzerland is very high, yet the murder rate is very low. There are a whole list of reasons for this, the major one being that they require Males of a certain age to posses a military type rifle. IMHO, the comparison is about as fair as comparing England to the US.

As to what type of guns people want banned, long guns and shot guns have HUGE ammounts of lethal power compared to a handgun. I saw a statistic a few years back (i don't recall the source), that something like only 20% of handgun shots result in death, were as 80% or 90% of long gun shots are fatal. All guns are lethal, that is their purpose. The first things everyone wants banned are high capacity "assult" rifles, although the AR-15 is quickly turning into one of the hunters favorite choices for gun. Almost all of the hunters I know, also carry a side arm when hunting, as a back up in case of wildlife. There are reasons for people to own and use hand guns, beyond just thugery.

I honestly don't see the solution being banning (at least given the US polictical/social climate), what we in the US need to do, is a better job of enforcing the laws we have, such as very stiff penalties for straw-man purchases, etc. We also need to move to a system that really punishes criminals who choose to illegaly obtain a firearm and commit a crime. We are not going to keep guns away from ciminals. Prohibition of has not worked in a wide range of things, I for one, am not willing to give away the freedom to choose to own a gun, for the illusion of safety. The police are not going to protect me or my family, that leaves their/my protection up to me/us. The option to choose the best tool for the job, should be on the table for the good people of this country, to be able to access that tool.

[tzor]

Hunting bears is dangerous business, business that may in desperation call for something of that sort. Yet should we really allow the entire citizenry semi-automatic weapons for the sake of a sport that is dangerous no matter what weapons are used(short of full auto weapons, something 100% unacceptable in the hands of your average person)?

If I had to chose between a semi-automatic rifle with four bullets in the cartridge or a bolt action rifle with 8 bulets in the cartridge I would say the later is more "dangerous" in the hands of a person who wants to do harm to people. Honestly, even a bolt action rifle can be fired in a relatively rapid manner.

In fact I would then consider the type of bullet as something more important as well. Where I live I can't go hunting with a rifle at all, shotgun only. (Excluding the bow season and the musket season ... yes they actually hunt with old fashioned dry powder guns.) Some bullets, epecially in urban environments, can miss a target, through through the wall behind a target and kill someone behind that wall. Then you have those odd bullets like the teflon coated "cop killers" which only a rabid NRA supporter would insist on. (As a mild NRA supporter I tend to strongly opposed those types of ammunition in the hands of average people.)

[dewey316]

Tzor,

Hollow point handgun rounds have about the least wall penetrating power of any gun, they are also very well suited for home defense. This is the stuff that people want banned though.

A .308 rifle round, or a 30-06 round, or 7x62.54 rounds, etc fired from a bolt action rifle, have ranges of 1000 yards plus, and impart enough energy to travel through a person and then several walls and still be lethal. I sure as heck would not want people firing hunting type cartridges in areas with people, that is asking for trouble. Even if you hit your target, that round is going to still be moving with a lot of energy. This is part of why handguns make a logical home-defense type of firearm, they are easy to use to stop an intruder, but don't have nearly the ability to travel through walls as a long-gun. Shotguns are also a good choice, but realy only when you get down to short barrel lenghts (18" is the legal limit here) otherwise they are not really usable in the confines of a home.

[Dancing Mustard]

Hollow point handgun rounds have about the least wall penetrating power of any gun, they are also very well suited for home defense.

For 'very well suited', please read: Do most damage to a living target from a single hit.

Apparently 'home defence' isn't about just stopping or scaring-off an intruder; but is actually about killing them as quickly as physically possilbe and ensuring that they have the lowest chances of survival that you can manage.
Sure, your bullet won't get into your neighbour's home or be able to shoot your 'intruder' through a solid-wall, but it's bound to kill whatever you hit with it where normal rounds would have failed. After all, isn't that what 'defence' is all about?

home-defense type of firearm... Shotguns are also a good choice, but realy only when you get down to short barrel lenghts (18" is the legal limit here) otherwise they are not really usable in the confines of a home

Overkill? No, I've never heard of that word. What does it mean exactly?

Anyway, as I was saying. Why use a normal handgun to incapacitate or frighten-off an intruder; when you could just use a sawn-off shotgun and ensure that you kill him first-time? After all, nothing but the most lethal weapon I can possibly carry is good enough for my family.

Getting into the hands of others you say? Oh no, clearly that's not a problem. After all, everybody who isn't a felon will just have equally lethal death-dealing implements (nothing else would be good enough) to fight back with. It's a certain recipe for a safe and crime-free nation... didn't you people learn anything from the Cold-War? The only way to ensure we all live is to tool us all up with the most lethal weapons known to man. M.A.D, it's the way of the future.

Now stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

[Snorri1234]

As to what type of guns people want banned, long guns and shot guns have HUGE ammounts of lethal power compared to a handgun.

Well ofcourse, it's a very big gun.
However, the thing is that it's really not usefull for crime. You can't conceal it, you can't just pull it out and people will see you coming a mile away if you have it. They are not handy, even though they can kill you easier.

There are reasons for people to own and use hand guns, beyond just thugery.

I think hunting is silly to begin with and if you want to go into the forrest to shoot a bunch of animals it's shit luck for you if you get mauled by bears.

Why does "I need handguns because I am going to do something completely unneccesary and silly which involves going in the forrest and shooting at dangerous animals." justify letting guns into the hands of criminals and other people who have no need for it? If you're going to use the self-defense argument then you're missing the point because criminals aren't going to have guns either if they don't need them. (I mean, the difference between armed robbery and robbery is a few years more in prison so why risk it?)

I honestly don't see the solution being banning (at least given the US polictical/social climate),

No obviously banning isn't going to happen anyway, Americans love their guns and I'm fine with letting them. This does not mean I can't debate the issue but I just don't see it ever happening.

what we in the US need to do, is a better job of enforcing the laws we have, such as very stiff penalties for straw-man purchases, etc. We also need to move to a system that really punishes criminals who choose to illegaly obtain a firearm and commit a crime.

But allowing them to legally obtain a firearm is okay?

Anyway, I'm just messing with you, I agree with what you said and I think it's very sensible. However, I think obtaining firearms should also be much more difficult. I know getting one is already pretty annoying, but making it more difficult shouldn't stop anyone with noble meanings. I mean, if you're going to buy a gun to hunt you can easily wait some time and be checked thoroughly.

Prohibition of has not worked in a wide range of things, I for one, am not willing to give away the freedom to choose to own a gun, for the illusion of safety. The police are not going to protect me or my family, that leaves their/my protection up to me/us. The option to choose the best tool for the job, should be on the table for the good people of this country, to be able to access that tool.

But this is just something I can't wrap my mind around. Prohibition certainly seems to have worked in europe where people don't have guns. Criminals are far less likely to own a gun here, especially the minor ones. (I know a few drugdealers who certainly don't have a gun and wouldn't know what to use it for anyway.) You cannot completely eradicate guns, but you sure can lower the number of them.
This is not prohibition of something like drugs, which are in high demand by honest citizens too, but specifically something which is for criminals.

You also seem to have an astonishing distrust for the police.

The number of guns in Switzerland is very high, yet the murder rate is very low. There are a whole list of reasons for this, the major one being that they require Males of a certain age to posses a military type rifle.

No the major one is that they have almost no poor people

[tzor]

Apparently 'home defence' isn't about just stopping or scaring-off an intruder; but is actually about killing them as quickly as physically possilbe and ensuring that they have the lowest chances of survival that you can manage.

Sad but true, this is correct. There is a saying, "Dead men can't sue." A wounded person on the other hand, even though he was breaking into your house and possibly would have killed you if given the chance can ironically sue you in civil court and do you more financial harm than his initial attempt at robbery.

Also dead people can't testify against you so it is your word against ... well it's just your word.

[Dancing Mustard]

Apparently 'home defence' isn't about just stopping or scaring-off an intruder; but is actually about killing them as quickly as physically possilbe and ensuring that they have the lowest chances of survival that you can manage.

Sad but true, this is correct. There is a saying, "Dead men can't sue." A wounded person on the other hand, even though he was breaking into your house and possibly would have killed you if given the chance can ironically sue you in civil court and do you more financial harm than his initial attempt at robbery.

All very well and good... but that isn't an argument for gun ownership, or for the ownership of the most lethal man-killing guns you can deeam up. It's an argument for a more sensible system of tort law and/or a statutory codification of the legal meaning of the the term 'self-defence'.

[tzor]

All very well and good... but that isn't an argument for gun ownership, or for the ownership of the most lethal man-killing guns you can deeam up. It's an argument for a more sensible system of tort law and/or a statutory codification of the legal meaning of the the term 'self-defence'.

You have a good point. But those nutcases of lawyers who have criminals for clients will never allow a more sensible system to be put in place. They are worse than those NRA nuts.

[Dancing Mustard]

those nutcases of lawyers who have criminals for clients will never allow a more sensible system to be put in place. They are worse than those NRA nuts.

Fun though idle generalisations and baseless insults are; they don't actually take this debate any where.

Even if what you were saying was true, there's a lawyer who loses a case because of 'self-defence' for every one that wins one. As such your assertion is void... lawyers have as much incentive to support change as to oppose it, there really isn't some army of morally-twisted lawyers who are going to march on the Capitol and stomp down the wishes of sane homeowners everywhere (indeed, some Lawyers may even be homeowners with familys themselves).

As such, "Oh I must kill or I'll be sued, pass me a bigger gun with some extra-lethal ammunition", is in no way an argument for more guns. It's just an indication of how twisted some citizens of an allegedly civilised nation's logic has become.

[suggs]

I'm a bit of an Yankeeophile, as you might have guessed.
But along with guns, the justice system is the USA's big weak point. Jay and co should be more worried at the possibiltiy of the Fed suing itself into non existence than th elizardmen.

So good call Mustard for bringing the two absurdities together.
So: 1) ban guns
2) Sort out the justcie system.

2) looks a bit daunting, but one is just an amendment repeal (prohibtion).

[dewey316]

Wow, there is a lot here... Snorri, I am going to get to your post after this one...

Hollow point handgun rounds have about the least wall penetrating power of any gun, they are also very well suited for home defense.

For 'very well suited', please read: Do most damage to a living target from a single hit.

Apparently 'home defence' isn't about just stopping or scaring-off an intruder; but is actually about killing them as quickly as physically possilbe and ensuring that they have the lowest chances of survival that you can manage.
Sure, your bullet won't get into your neighbour's home or be able to shoot your 'intruder' through a solid-wall, but it's bound to kill whatever you hit with it where normal rounds would have failed. After all, isn't that what 'defence' is all about?

Home defense isn't about killing. Home defense is about stopping the threat to you and yours. There are several reasons why a hand-gun, in either a DA revolver or a semi-automatic pistol make sense for this. They are easy to use, and more importantly they are easy to use under stress. Very ffew people in the world are used to dealing with the type of life and death stress that our bodies go through in a situation where you might be forced to shoot another human. Lets look at the type of situation where someone would be justified in the US for shooting another person. You must be in immediate fear for your life, or threat of grave bodily harm. The CAN NOT have escalated the situation at all. The other person must have 1) Ability 2) opportunity 3) Jeopardy. So in for the type of situation were a person might be shooting to defend themself, the other person has the ability to infilct death, IE. this isn't a 70 year old man, with no weapon. The person has to have opportunity, if someone is waving a knife at you, but you are 30 yards away, and there is a fence between you, they don't have this. And jeopardy, you life must be in immediate jeopardy. Someone else with a gun may not be jeopardy, but if they point it at you, or threaten you, then it is jeopardy.

People in these situation due to the stress lose almost any fine motor skills they have, and rely on major muscle groupings. Statisticly at an average of 7 yards distance, 11% of civilians shots are on target (police officers, this number is only 25%) (Source: study by Lesce, 1984). that is pretty low. That means if you have a 10 round capacity handgun, 1 will hit. The other 9 are going to go somewhere. This is why have a bullet without a lot of penatrating ability through walls is important. It is also why stopping the threat quickly is important.

Scaring off an intruder is not the intent here. If the intruder can be scared off, you don't need to fire. If the intruder instead of running away, jumps at you, then you want to stop that person.

The other reason for a hollow point, is handgun rounds don't really impart that much energy. You standard 9mmx19 round, has bout 350 lbs/ft of muzzle energy. That is about HALF of what a centerfire .22 rifle round has (740 lb/ft). The hollow point makes it so this energy is used in a way that can actualy stop a threat. That is what it is all about.

Anyway, as I was saying. Why use a normal handgun to incapacitate or frighten-off an intruder; when you could just use a sawn-off shotgun and ensure that you kill him first-time? After all, nothing but the most lethal weapon I can possibly carry is good enough for my family.

See above. It is about picking the best tool for protecting your family. If scaring the intruder off is an option, then you shouldn't be shooting. Incapacitate shouldn't be the goal. If that intruder has a gun, even if you shoot both legs, he can still shoot you. If you are in a situation where someone has entered your house, with the intention of causing you bodily harm, or death, you want to keep that person from doing that. An easy to use, easy to shoot, pistol tends to do this the best. A short barreled shot gun is another choice, because aim isn't a huge issue, and a shorter barrel allows you to manuver it in your hallway.

Getting into the hands of others you say? Oh no, clearly that's not a problem. After all, everybody who isn't a felon will just have equally lethal death-dealing implements (nothing else would be good enough) to fight back with. It's a certain recipe for a safe and crime-free nation... didn't you people learn anything from the Cold-War? The only way to ensure we all live is to tool us all up with the most lethal weapons known to man. M.A.D, it's the way of the future.

Now stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

This is were the responsability of the gun owner comes in. When you choose to purchase and train with a weapon such as a firearm, you need to be prepared to keep it in a safe manner, and take care of it. This includes a good safe and security measure to help keep it out of the hands of someone who might steel it, or of a child. I am not saying that gun ownership isn't a right to be taken lightly. It just isn't a right that should be taken away. It is mearly a tool, and it is only as good as the person using it. Training and practice come with this, being responsible comes with this, etc. It isn't just an arms race with the bad guys it isn't about one upping someone. it is about letting the HONEST people have a fighting chance, shoudl the worst of circumstances come their way, and they are left with the choice of either rolling over and dying, or fighting for their life.

[dewey316]

As to what type of guns people want banned, long guns and shot guns have HUGE ammounts of lethal power compared to a handgun.

Well ofcourse, it's a very big gun.
However, the thing is that it's really not usefull for crime. You can't conceal it, you can't just pull it out and people will see you coming a mile away if you have it. They are not handy, even though they can kill you easier.

So what is the criteria that people are going by when they pick and choose weapons to try to ban? First the argument was they are so deadly, but ones for hunting are ok. Then it is that they are concealable. If we want to talk about banning things, we better be having a real talk about what it is we are going to try to ban. Instead we get, we need to ban this, or that. Like earlier in the conversation, someone pointed out we ban handguns, because a rifle is perfectly suitable for home defense. I beleive I dealt with that in the last post.

There are reasons for people to own and use hand guns, beyond just thugery.

I think hunting is silly to begin with and if you want to go into the forrest to shoot a bunch of animals it's shit luck for you if you get mauled by bears.

Why does "I need handguns because I am going to do something completely unneccesary and silly which involves going in the forrest and shooting at dangerous animals." justify letting guns into the hands of criminals and other people who have no need for it? If you're going to use the self-defense argument then you're missing the point because criminals aren't going to have guns either if they don't need them. (I mean, the difference between armed robbery and robbery is a few years more in prison so why risk it?)

I am not a hunter, and I have no desire to go kill bambi, but I know people who are hunters, the ones I know, go to stock their frezer full of meat, and many of them (maybe valid, maybe not) are convinced that it is much healthier than store bought meat. Who am I to judge the merits of if someone is willing to go find their own meat, instead of going ot the store. It is not justification for letting guns into the hands of crimals, but I hardly doubt the ciminals are getting their guns from hunters. Again, I think it isn't realistic to assume that ban the purchase of all guns, is really going to keep the guns out of the hands of the people who really want them for illegal purposes. As I said, I think what we need to do here, is instead of writing new laws to keep the honest people honest, we need to enforce the laws we already have. We need to do a better job of the background checks, to keep people who shouldn't have them from getting them. We need to do a better job punishing the shops who knowingly sell guns to people that are doing straw-purchases. We need to do a better job of keeping black-market guns out, so that the guns that are here, are bought legaly, and the proper checks have been done.

I honestly don't see the solution being banning (at least given the US polictical/social climate),

No obviously banning isn't going to happen anyway, Americans love their guns and I'm fine with letting them. This does not mean I can't debate the issue but I just don't see it ever happening. [/quote]

Exactly, I am only discussing this, because it has been a civil and useful discussion. At least this way, people get to see both sides of the argument. Getting valid information is the key. I think at the end of the day, we are all on the same side, we are all trying to protect people. We just have a differing opinion on the means. I feel that allowing people who are responsible honest citizens, to choose a firearm for that job, should be their choice.

But allowing them to legally obtain a firearm is okay?

Absolutly. Statisticly CCW permit holders about 1/8 as likely to commit any sort of crime, let along murder. (source: Texas Department of Public Safety CCW holders 639/100,000 vs 5,212/100,000 for the rest of the state). The people willing to go through the background checks, finger printing, and training to qualify for CCW, are not the kind of people we need to worry about.

Anyway, I'm just messing with you, I agree with what you said and I think it's very sensible. However, I think obtaining firearms should also be much more difficult. I know getting one is already pretty annoying, but making it more difficult shouldn't stop anyone with noble meanings. I mean, if you're going to buy a gun to hunt you can easily wait some time and be checked thoroughly.

I am voicing a pretty strong opinion on it too. I would much rather have a real discussion over a pint of beer with someone about it, but this is the interweb, what else can you do but argue.

But this is just something I can't wrap my mind around. Prohibition certainly seems to have worked in europe where people don't have guns. Criminals are far less likely to own a gun here, especially the minor ones. (I know a few drugdealers who certainly don't have a gun and wouldn't know what to use it for anyway.) You cannot completely eradicate guns, but you sure can lower the number of them.
This is not prohibition of something like drugs, which are in high demand by honest citizens too, but specifically something which is for criminals.

How well has it really worked, really. Has it worked out so much better? Englands violent crime rate has risen in all but (i believe) the last 2 years? (someone from England look this up please, I had a suprisinly hard time finding any hard numbers, just lots of stuff with BBC interviews, about rising rates, but no numbers.) Has their murder rate really dropped a significant ammount? There are a lot of other countries in Europe where guns are still legal. As I have said, I think this whole problem has more to do with a lot of factors, not just the guns.

You also seem to have an astonishing distrust for the police.

I don't think ti is a distrust, I just realise that their purpose isn't to protect me, it is to find whoever does something to me, after it has happened.

Here are police response times for violent crime on average. The chances of the police being there when something happens, is pretty slim to none. No matter how hard they try, they just can't be there to protect people. People need to protect themselfs, and not assume that they can just call 911 if something bad happens.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets ... v05107.csv

(I tried to post the numbers, it got all screwed up, it is in the link, only 24% of violent crimes called in to the police, got a response time of under 5 minutes.

The number of guns in Switzerland is very high, yet the murder rate is very low. There are a whole list of reasons for this, the major one being that they require Males of a certain age to posses a military type rifle.

No the major one is that they have almost no poor people

Ahh, maybe that is our solution. Ban the poor people! (I kid, I kid). Again, I am not suggesting anything like switzerland, I was mearly using it to show how comparing one country to antoher is not valid.

[Snorri1234]

Wow, there is a lot here... Snorri, I am going to get to your post after this one...

Hollow point handgun rounds have about the least wall penetrating power of any gun, they are also very well suited for home defense.

For 'very well suited', please read: Do most damage to a living target from a single hit.

Apparently 'home defence' isn't about just stopping or scaring-off an intruder; but is actually about killing them as quickly as physically possilbe and ensuring that they have the lowest chances of survival that you can manage.
Sure, your bullet won't get into your neighbour's home or be able to shoot your 'intruder' through a solid-wall, but it's bound to kill whatever you hit with it where normal rounds would have failed. After all, isn't that what 'defence' is all about?

Home defense isn't about killing. Home defense is about stopping the threat to you and yours. There are several reasons why a hand-gun, in either a DA revolver or a semi-automatic pistol make sense for this. They are easy to use, and more importantly they are easy to use under stress. Very ffew people in the world are used to dealing with the type of life and death stress that our bodies go through in a situation where you might be forced to shoot another human. Lets look at the type of situation where someone would be justified in the US for shooting another person. You must be in immediate fear for your life, or threat of grave bodily harm. The CAN NOT have escalated the situation at all. The other person must have 1) Ability 2) opportunity 3) Jeopardy. So in for the type of situation were a person might be shooting to defend themself, the other person has the ability to infilct death, IE. this isn't a 70 year old man, with no weapon. The person has to have opportunity, if someone is waving a knife at you, but you are 30 yards away, and there is a fence between you, they don't have this. And jeopardy, you life must be in immediate jeopardy. Someone else with a gun may not be jeopardy, but if they point it at you, or threaten you, then it is jeopardy.

People in these situation due to the stress lose almost any fine motor skills they have, and rely on major muscle groupings. Statisticly at an average of 7 yards distance, 11% of civilians shots are on target (police officers, this number is only 25%) (Source: study by Lesce, 1984). that is pretty low. That means if you have a 10 round capacity handgun, 1 will hit. The other 9 are going to go somewhere. This is why have a bullet without a lot of penatrating ability through walls is important. It is also why stopping the threat quickly is important.

Scaring off an intruder is not the intent here. If the intruder can be scared off, you don't need to fire. If the intruder instead of running away, jumps at you, then you want to stop that person.

The other reason for a hollow point, is handgun rounds don't really impart that much energy. You standard 9mmx19 round, has bout 350 lbs/ft of muzzle energy. That is about HALF of what a centerfire .22 rifle round has (740 lb/ft). The hollow point makes it so this energy is used in a way that can actualy stop a threat. That is what it is all about.

Hollow points do kill much better though. If you get a body-hit with one it will probably kill the intruder. Shit, a normal bullet in the body will probably kill the intruder.

To advocate using a more deadly type of ammunation because it kills people more efficiently is pretty evil dude.

[Dancing Mustard]

Home defense isn't about killing. Home defense is about stopping the threat to you and yours. There are several reasons why a hand-gun, in either a DA revolver or a semi-automatic pistol make sense for this... and on and on in a similar vein for a long time, including a short excursion into some fairly irrelevant law, a brief diatrive on crisis physiology, and some pretty descriptions of what shooting guns might be like

You kind of missied my point there really mate.

I wasn't arguing with you about gun ownership (though let me state for the record that I think household guns are complete madness) and about how good handguns are at killing people. I was pointing out the fact that you were touting 'hollow points' as being great for 'home defence'. I was pointing out, that to your mind, a simple handgun to shoot with was not enough, but that so far as you were concerned 'home defence' required ammunition designed to inflict the maximum possible soft-tissue damage.

What I was trying to say was that your concept of 'defence' is mental. You've gone from the usual (and slighly crazy) pro-gun position of insisting 'I need a weapon that can easily kill, because that is what I need for defence', to an even more extreme and gun-loving position of saying 'I need a weapon that is designed for nothing but killing other humans, and that is nearly guaranteed to kill or maim whatever it hits. Simple lethal isn't enough, deadly is what I must have... for 'defence'.'

The point is simple: You don't 'need' hollow points for defence. Arming yourself with more and more deadly weapons only fuels a culture in which everybody else is carrying bigger and better guns, it's cyclical. You buy hollow points, your neighbours buy hollow points, suddenly you don't feel so safe, so you buy an automatic weapon... and on the cycle goes. I appreciate that you've grown up in such a culture, and that it must be hard to imagine a different one, but breaking it is the only route to safety... continuing to feed it will just deliver you a society of lethal killers.

It isn't just an arms race with the bad guys it isn't about one upping someone. it is about letting the HONEST people have a fighting chance, shoudl the worst of circumstances come their way, and they are left with the choice of either rolling over and dying, or fighting for their life.

How charmingly you paint the picture. What a shame that it's based on complete fallacies.

It's a simple truth, in a society where nobody has guns, then people don't need guns to defend themselves. No matter how HONEST all your happy little innocent citizens are, letting them purchase guns is inevitably going to lead precisely the kind of arms-race with criminals that you fervently deny.
If guns are available in shops, then criminals are going to buy them.
If homeowners have guns, then burglars are going to need them.
If everybody is running around with lethal weapons, then everybody is going to buy bigger lethal weapons to 'defend' themselves.
Behold, for the arms-race cometh.

Simple truth I'm afraid... if you all didn't have them, then you all wouldn't need them.

Sure, when everybody can stroll into Wal-Mart and pick up a lethal-weapon, then you feel like you need one to defend yourself. But if guns weren't legally and freely available, then suddenly the number of lethal threats to your personal safety drop dramatically... meaning that only the paranoid need weapons.

Gun culture is a vicious circle, and it's all built on this fallacy that lethal-weapons and deadly-force are the only ways you can possibly 'protect your family' (the usual tear-jerking example that's wheeled out as the media-friendly face of gun-ownership).
Get the guns out of society, and society will suddenly find that it has no need for them.

When you're not living in fear of your neighbours kicking down your door with an AK, then you'll find you don't need an AK yourself.

[dewey316]

Mustard,

I think you also missed my point. I am not a raving gun crazed person. The only gun I own, is an antique rifle of my grandfathers, I have no ammo for it. If we are going to allow people a weapon for home defense. They should have the best tool for the job. You may view that, as un-needed, maybe it is. But, if we are talking about stopping someone else who is trying to kill you, would you not want the best resource available to you to stop it?

The hollow point / hand gun / rifle stuff came up, from the conversation by the person who advicated that a rifle was suffient for home defense. I was countering that, using wall penetration, and the chance that you accidently kill an innocent neighbor, as a reason why a smaller energy gun like a handgun, with a bullet that is also capable of stopping someone, would be a better choice.

I really think what we are seeing here, is the differing views of what is a good chunk (I think it is likely a majority, but at least a very significant ammount) of people in the US think vs. what a significant chunk of Europe thinks. What it comes down to, is I am not willing to lay down my right to own a gun if I wanted, for the unproven notion that it will make all of society safer. I tried to bring some stats to the table (I didn't see any stats from the other side). I have tried to do a good job of posting the sources of all the information I brought.

What I don't want the US to do, is resort to knee-jerk reactions that don't do anything. I think the best course of action, is to really study the numbers, and determine what course of action will be most benificial. I just am not yet willing to make a trade of freedom, on the hope that the ciminals will stop getting ahold of and using guns.

[Snorri1234]

As to what type of guns people want banned, long guns and shot guns have HUGE ammounts of lethal power compared to a handgun.

Well ofcourse, it's a very big gun.
However, the thing is that it's really not usefull for crime. You can't conceal it, you can't just pull it out and people will see you coming a mile away if you have it. They are not handy, even though they can kill you easier.

So what is the criteria that people are going by when they pick and choose weapons to try to ban? First the argument was they are so deadly, but ones for hunting are ok. Then it is that they are concealable. If we want to talk about banning things, we better be having a real talk about what it is we are going to try to ban. Instead we get, we need to ban this, or that. Like earlier in the conversation, someone pointed out we ban handguns, because a rifle is perfectly suitable for home defense. I beleive I dealt with that in the last post.

They are all deadly, but the ones used for hunting generally don't work for doing crime. Shit, hunting-rifles are legal here, though they could really only kill you if you get shot in the face or don't receive medical attention after being shot.

Even your own country makes a distinction between different types of firearms. They are not equal.

I am not a hunter, and I have no desire to go kill bambi, but I know people who are hunters, the ones I know, go to stock their frezer full of meat, and many of them (maybe valid, maybe not) are convinced that it is much healthier than store bought meat. Who am I to judge the merits of if someone is willing to go find their own meat, instead of going ot the store. It is not justification for letting guns into the hands of crimals, but I hardly doubt the ciminals are getting their guns from hunters.

I was talking about handguns. Honestly, if you are bringing a handgun to be safer when hunting, you really just need to stop and think what it is you are actually doing.

And no, criminals aren't getting their guns from hunters. They are getting them from illegal shops which get their supplies from the same damn manufacturer which shells out the handguns for hunters. It's not like hunters are carefully crafting their guns in the comfort of their own home, they are buying them at the store and from the company where the criminals get their guns.

Again, I think it isn't realistic to assume that ban the purchase of all guns, is really going to keep the guns out of the hands of the people who really want them for illegal purposes. As I said, I think what we need to do here, is instead of writing new laws to keep the honest people honest, we need to enforce the laws we already have. We need to do a better job of the background checks, to keep people who shouldn't have them from getting them. We need to do a better job punishing the shops who knowingly sell guns to people that are doing straw-purchases. We need to do a better job of keeping black-market guns out, so that the guns that are here, are bought legaly, and the proper checks have been done.

While I agree that that is the course that should be taken, I think actually banning the manufacturing of handguns is a much better way in the end. In Europe there are no legal guns and none are being manufactured, so the illegal market is entirely dependent on foreign supplies and as such is much smaller. Plenty of criminals don't have a gun because they don't need one and can't get one.

But allowing them to legally obtain a firearm is okay?

Absolutly. Statisticly CCW permit holders about 1/8 as likely to commit any sort of crime, let along murder. (source: Texas Department of Public Safety CCW holders 639/100,000 vs 5,212/100,000 for the rest of the state). The people willing to go through the background checks, finger printing, and training to qualify for CCW, are not the kind of people we need to worry about.

I agree. However, the problem is that with any legal market is that it creates an illegal market.
The illegal market, especially where guns are bought/stolen pre-shop-fase is what needs to be more heavily regulated.

Anyway, I'm just messing with you, I agree with what you said and I think it's very sensible. However, I think obtaining firearms should also be much more difficult. I know getting one is already pretty annoying, but making it more difficult shouldn't stop anyone with noble meanings. I mean, if you're going to buy a gun to hunt you can easily wait some time and be checked thoroughly.

I am voicing a pretty strong opinion on it too. I would much rather have a real discussion over a pint of beer with someone about it, but this is the interweb, what else can you do but argue.

Well I'm having a pint of beer anyway.

How well has it really worked, really. Has it worked out so much better? Englands violent crime rate has risen in all but (i believe) the last 2 years? (someone from England look this up please, I had a suprisinly hard time finding any hard numbers, just lots of stuff with BBC interviews, about rising rates, but no numbers.) Has their murder rate really dropped a significant ammount? There are a lot of other countries in Europe where guns are still legal. As I have said, I think this whole problem has more to do with a lot of factors, not just the guns.

Murder has dropped I believe but not by a very large amount, mostly because of the increasing crime-rates in the urban areas. It's really hard to actually say something usefull about it, due to numbers being hard to find or misleading.

I agree guns are not the only factor though. Cultures are vastly different in every country, crime-culture is no different.

I don't think ti is a distrust, I just realise that their purpose isn't to protect me, it is to find whoever does something to me, after it has happened.

While that is also true, they do have a duty to protect the citizens themselves. Their main purpose is preventing shit from escalating, mostly by prevention.

Here are police response times for violent crime on average. The chances of the police being there when something happens, is pretty slim to none. No matter how hard they try, they just can't be there to protect people. People need to protect themselfs, and not assume that they can just call 911 if something bad happens.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets ... v05107.csv

(I tried to post the numbers, it got all screwed up, it is in the link, only 24% of violent crimes called in to the police, got a response time of under 5 minutes.

I think this is a problem with the understaffing of the police and not so much with the police themselves.

The number of guns in Switzerland is very high, yet the murder rate is very low. There are a whole list of reasons for this, the major one being that they require Males of a certain age to posses a military type rifle.

No the major one is that they have almost no poor people

Ahh, maybe that is our solution. Ban the poor people! (I kid, I kid). Again, I am not suggesting anything like switzerland, I was mearly using it to show how comparing one country to antoher is not valid.

Yes but Switzerland is just so vastly different from most other countries. Something like a ghetto doesn't exist there. Shit, racial tension is even unheard of there. Not to mention the population is way more spread out than most other countries.

This is why I said England is more easily comparable (though not entirely accurately) with the UK than Switzerland, the more I read about it the more I begin to think it's just some iddylic community where everybody knows eachother and try to get with Smurfette.

[dewey316]

How well has it really worked, really. Has it worked out so much better? Englands violent crime rate has risen in all but (i believe) the last 2 years? (someone from England look this up please, I had a suprisinly hard time finding any hard numbers, just lots of stuff with BBC interviews, about rising rates, but no numbers.) Has their murder rate really dropped a significant ammount? There are a lot of other countries in Europe where guns are still legal. As I have said, I think this whole problem has more to do with a lot of factors, not just the guns.

Murder has dropped I believe but not by a very large amount, mostly because of the increasing crime-rates in the urban areas. It's really hard to actually say something usefull about it, due to numbers being hard to find or misleading.

This is my whole point. The people of England were denied a right, in the name of safety and security. It doesn't seem to have happened. "If we take away all the guns, no one will get killed". Its a line we are fed over and over. Did it happen? Is England safer today, then it was in 1996? The muder rate doesn't seem to have dropped much, and the violent-crime rate is on the rise (Rape, assualt, etc), along with non-violent crime.

In the US, we have started giving people back the right to carry concealed, we sunsetted the assault weapons ban. Murder should have gone up, right? Crime should have gone up. right? Because more guns = less safe. It didn't happen. Crime rates have fallen, along with murder rates.

So we have one of two things happening here. Either A) more guns = more safe. Even I am not really willing to say that, I am just not willing to give up the right. or B) Other factors such as the Justice system, and social factors, and law enforcement, have a larger effect on murder and crime rates.

I am a little more apt to go with option B, and explore that. Maybe it could be, that we can do a better job of keeping people safe AND protecting honest peoples rights by that route. Instead of taking away rights, and then not delivering on the saftey aspect.

(on that note, I need to go get some sleep (and a beer), I work nights, so I have been up for a good many hours now)

[Snorri1234]

"If we take away all the guns, no one will get killed".

I don't think anyone in this world reasons that way.

[dewey316]

"If we take away all the guns, no one will get killed".

I don't think anyone in this world reasons that way.

Then what is the goal of getting rid of guns? Maybe I am over simplistic, but this is the message I see. To quote Mustard...

if you all didn't have them, then you all wouldn't need them.

Maybe I am missing the whole point of the wanting to get rid of guns, its to save lifes right? Too many people are getting killed by guns. If that isn't the rational behind it, then I am really missing the whole point of the topic.

(lol, I am under half a beer, so this may very well be the last post, for real, lol)

[demon7896]

if you ban all the weapons in the world, what happens when the terrosists get hold of them?