The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
Oh come now. When you cross the street, you're trusting that the drivers nearby won't suddenly accelerate and slam right into you.
When you drive, you're trusting that the fellow behind you will brake when you brake. You're trusting that people won't suddenly swerve right into your car. And so on and so forth.
Should you not be able to drive unless you go through a battery of psychological tests and have been determined by a therapist that you don't have an anger issue and won't commit road rage?
What about drivers? Why the hell do we let so many people who are clearly piss-poor drivers drive? Do we trust that they can drive competently simply because they passed the test? That's bull***** right?
I mean, gun owners need to take a couple courses in gun safety and jump through a bunch of hoops in most states to get the license to own a gun. Yet y'all seem to think that people will become trigger-happy maniacs who'll break the law at the slightest provocation.
Wha? Gun license? Jump through a bunch of hoops? Wtf state do you live in? Cuz pretty much the only requirement is filling out a questionaire confirming you are not a felon, insane or buying it for someone else.
Stop misrepresenting facts, high gun ownership because all men are conscripted to the military and required to keep their guns at home during their period of service, remove that and the per capita number is cut in half. Low gun crime because they are not given ammunition.
Someone is still dead who didn't have to die and stopping stuff like that is the reason I argue about guns.
You are presuming the person would not have sought another means of suicide.
The suicide problem is not the same as the homicide problem. It makes little sense to lump them together.
So why bring it up if it's not a relevant comparison.
You're saying less guns means less gun crime. It's clearly not that simple. You're rather demonstrating the point, actually.
Indeed, you demonstrate it here as well:
People: we know that guns being less common makes western-democratic societies safer because countries like Britain, New Zealand and Australia exist and they've had a relative minimum of mass shootings.
Why specifically limit it to Western societies?
Is it because when you start looking at the world at large, the US gun homicide rate is dwarfed by other countries with much less guns per capita? No longer becomes a simple matter of positive correlation, does it?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Lets regulate that militia.
First draft of Article V of the Bill of Rights (what would become the Second Amendment):
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Obviously, the last clause was cut, and American citizens can be compelled into military service, but the textual history here still kind of explodes the notion that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms only in the context of militia service. It protects the right to bear arms for everybody, with the idea being that when you have a well-armed population you can easily draw a volunteer militia from them.
Also remember that the framers of the Constitution saw a militia as "necessary to the security of a free State" through the lens of the War of Independence: militias, in their mind, are there to fight the forces of the national government if required. Politically speaking, the Second Amendment exists to counterbalance the power bestowed to Congress in Article I, Section 8 to raise a standing federal army, a power which the Anti-Federalists particularly dreaded.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because I've lived in a series of western (and offshoot) societies so that's where my arguments come from and because the main topic of discussion here is gun rights advocates in the USA.
Is it because when you start looking at the world at large, the US gun homicide rate is dwarfed by other countries with much less guns per capita? No longer becomes a simple matter of positive correlation, does it?
You sound like you're trying to imply that's a conspiracy and I'm not sure if that's your implication or if I argue online too much (seriously the amount of people who still think Gamergate helped anything is worrying). Once you step out of western-style nations issues of poverty and (probably less important) cultural differences become more dramatic.
Obviously more people are going die violently in societies where there isn't enough food to go around or some prick with a hard-on for genocide is trying to incite mayhem or the government is collapsing because it can't afford to wage a drug-war against the local mafia equivalent or something.
You are presuming the person would not have sought another means of suicide.
Suicide generally occurs at a low ebb of depression and after one attempt there's usually a period where the individual doesn't attempt suicide again. The more reliably lethal the first attempt is, the more people end up dead from suicide, while the more obstacles are in a suicidal person's way, the less likely they are to get to the physical act of killing themselves before the ebb passes. It's why carbon monoxide poisoning used to be the primary method of suicide until coal gas stopped being the main cooking and heating method (seriously the UK got a reputation as suicide capital of Europe for a while, which has since been lost), and why putting a fence on a high bridge can cut suicide rates dramatically.
It protects the right to bear arms for everybody, with the idea being that when you have a well-armed population you can easily draw a volunteer militia from them. Also remember that the framers of the Constitution saw a militia as "necessary to the security of a free State" through the lens of the War of Independence: militias, in their mind, are there to fight the forces of the national government if required.
Huh. I figure you need to get some Predator drones if you're actually planning to fight the US Govt tho.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Because I've lived in a series of western (and offshoot) societies so that's where my arguments come from and because the main topic of discussion here is gun rights advocates in the USA.
Ok, but the problem with that is the attempt at a correlation breaks down once yous tep outside of that.
Once you step out of western-style nations issues of poverty and (probably less important) cultural differences become more dramatic.
Which throws a monkey wrench into the simple "more guns, more gun crime" is my point.
The more reliably lethal the first attempt is, the more people end up dead from suicide, while the more obstacles are in a suicidal person's way, the less likely they are to get to the physical act of killing themselves before the ebb passes.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but it's quite tangential to any discussion regarding gun homicides and attempting to curb them, as the two are VERY different phenomena.
Huh. I figure you need to get some Predator drones if you're actually planning to fight the US Govt tho.
It'd be nice to have, but it's not as though the US Army hasn't had difficulty dealing with forces that didn't have Predator drones.
Guns aren't a causal factor of any crime, but they ARE a force multiplier. In gun deaths, I would feel safe calling them a comorbidity to the root causal factor of crime.
Would those crimes happen anyway? Probably, although federal policy and legislation has made it hard to do any kind of real study in decades. So none of us can really say for certain.
What is certainly is that those violent encounters would be a lot less fatal.
People: we know that guns being less common makes western-democratic societies safer because countries like Britain, New Zealand and Australia exist and they've had a relative minimum of mass shootings. Presumably removal of cars would stop car deaths also, but we've collectively decided that cars are more reliably useful/worth the cost than guns are.
Australia's kind of an interesting example, actually. Gun ownership of course plummeted dramatically immediately after the post-Port-Arthur reforms. But it's been steadily climbing since and is now almost back to the pre-Port-Arthur level... without a corresponding return to the pre-Port-Arthur level of gun violence. I suspect what's happening is that the new laws remain effective at keeping guns out of the hands of violent crazies, and that as long as they do that, the number of guns in the hands of regular people is simply irrelevant.
Of course, the United States constitutionally cannot do what Australia did.
Of course it can. American has *every* right to regulate gun ownership (it even says "A well regulated..." which could trivially be interperated as allowing, well, regulations).
Additionally, it is wildly disingenuous to suggest australia has the same level of gun ownership and the same type of guns as in 96.
1) We have the same number of physical guns, but guns per hundred people is down from around 17 to around 13 (as there are another 5 million people)
2) There are essentially zero semi automatic or fully automatic guns (as opposed to roughly 1 in 3 guns in 96)
Of course it can. American has *every* right to regulate gun ownership (it even says "A well regulated..." which could trivially be interperated as allowing, well, regulations).
When you go for flippancy you tend to lose sight of nuance. I'm not denying the possibility of regulations. We have regulations. But it also says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Requiring prospective gun buyers to provide a valid reason for owning a gun, and not accepting self-defense as a valid reason, is an infringement of that right. This is not just me saying that -- it's the U.S. Supreme Court. It is settled case law that America constitutionally cannot do this thing.
1) We have the same number of physical guns, but guns per hundred people is down from around 17 to around 13 (as there are another 5 million people)
My source was an Economist article that I'm not finding online right now, but its numbers were 16.something and 15.something. You'll have to take the figures up with them. (And before you toss around words like "disingenuous", keep in mind that the Economist's editorial stance is strongly pro-gun-control.) But I do notice that Crikey's numbers are disputed even in the comments section of their own article, so maybe things are not as clear-cut as you might prefer?
And even if we assume that Economist's numbers are bogus and Crikey's numbers are the correct ones, does that refute the point? Has gun violence in Australia been proportional to gun ownership? Is it now 13/17ths (76%) the level it was before the Port Arthur massacre? No, it's a lot less. Thirteen guns per hundred people is still a lot closer to seventeen than it is to zero. The dramatic reduction in shootings can't be attributed to a dramatic reduction in the number of guns, because the reduction hasn't been that dramatic.
2) There are essentially zero semi automatic or fully automatic guns (as opposed to roughly 1 in 3 guns in 96)
Which might be reasonably expected to prevent mass shootings. The vast majority of gun crime, however, is single-victim, as, of course, is suicide. You need more to explain the drop in those rates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
2) There are essentially zero semi automatic or fully automatic guns (as opposed to roughly 1 in 3 guns in 96)
Which might be reasonably expected to prevent mass shootings. The vast majority of gun crime, however, is single-victim, as, of course, is suicide. You need more to explain the drop in those rates.
Single victim is not single shot, though. Lots of gunshot victims are shot multiple times, so the lack of semi-automatic weapons helps there significantly.
Also, there aren't very many non-semi-auto pistols. I'm not sure we want to lump revolvers in there (which as I've noted in the past is all the self-defense anyone needs), but for the most part restricting semi-auto weapons will ensure fewer bullets are fired per shooting. And because most non-semi auto firearms are rifles or shotguns, it makes their crime potential a lot more challenging. It's hard to rob someone with a hunting rifle, at least from a surprise point of view.
It's also more challenge to kill yourself with a rifle or shotgun that with a handgun.
Obviously, this is all speculation, but in general when you're talking about firearm statistics the types of guns are really important.
Wha? Gun license? Jump through a bunch of hoops? Wtf state do you live in? Cuz pretty much the only requirement is filling out a questionaire confirming you are not a felon, insane or buying it for someone else.
Fair point. I shouldn't have taken the gun laws in CA to mean anything when it comes to the U.S. in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Someone is still dead who didn't have to die and stopping stuff like that is the reason I argue about guns.
So why bring it up if it's not a relevant comparison.
Art is life itself.
Wha? Gun license? Jump through a bunch of hoops? Wtf state do you live in? Cuz pretty much the only requirement is filling out a questionaire confirming you are not a felon, insane or buying it for someone else.
Stop misrepresenting facts, high gun ownership because all men are conscripted to the military and required to keep their guns at home during their period of service, remove that and the per capita number is cut in half. Low gun crime because they are not given ammunition.
The suicide problem is not the same as the homicide problem. It makes little sense to lump them together.
You're saying less guns means less gun crime. It's clearly not that simple. You're rather demonstrating the point, actually.
Indeed, you demonstrate it here as well:
Why specifically limit it to Western societies?
Is it because when you start looking at the world at large, the US gun homicide rate is dwarfed by other countries with much less guns per capita? No longer becomes a simple matter of positive correlation, does it?
First draft of Article V of the Bill of Rights (what would become the Second Amendment): Obviously, the last clause was cut, and American citizens can be compelled into military service, but the textual history here still kind of explodes the notion that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms only in the context of militia service. It protects the right to bear arms for everybody, with the idea being that when you have a well-armed population you can easily draw a volunteer militia from them.
Also remember that the framers of the Constitution saw a militia as "necessary to the security of a free State" through the lens of the War of Independence: militias, in their mind, are there to fight the forces of the national government if required. Politically speaking, the Second Amendment exists to counterbalance the power bestowed to Congress in Article I, Section 8 to raise a standing federal army, a power which the Anti-Federalists particularly dreaded.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You sound like you're trying to imply that's a conspiracy and I'm not sure if that's your implication or if I argue online too much (seriously the amount of people who still think Gamergate helped anything is worrying). Once you step out of western-style nations issues of poverty and (probably less important) cultural differences become more dramatic.
Obviously more people are going die violently in societies where there isn't enough food to go around or some prick with a hard-on for genocide is trying to incite mayhem or the government is collapsing because it can't afford to wage a drug-war against the local mafia equivalent or something.
Suicide generally occurs at a low ebb of depression and after one attempt there's usually a period where the individual doesn't attempt suicide again. The more reliably lethal the first attempt is, the more people end up dead from suicide, while the more obstacles are in a suicidal person's way, the less likely they are to get to the physical act of killing themselves before the ebb passes. It's why carbon monoxide poisoning used to be the primary method of suicide until coal gas stopped being the main cooking and heating method (seriously the UK got a reputation as suicide capital of Europe for a while, which has since been lost), and why putting a fence on a high bridge can cut suicide rates dramatically.
Huh. I figure you need to get some Predator drones if you're actually planning to fight the US Govt tho.
Art is life itself.
Which throws a monkey wrench into the simple "more guns, more gun crime" is my point.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but it's quite tangential to any discussion regarding gun homicides and attempting to curb them, as the two are VERY different phenomena.
It'd be nice to have, but it's not as though the US Army hasn't had difficulty dealing with forces that didn't have Predator drones.
Would those crimes happen anyway? Probably, although federal policy and legislation has made it hard to do any kind of real study in decades. So none of us can really say for certain.
What is certainly is that those violent encounters would be a lot less fatal.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Of course it can. American has *every* right to regulate gun ownership (it even says "A well regulated..." which could trivially be interperated as allowing, well, regulations).
Additionally, it is wildly disingenuous to suggest australia has the same level of gun ownership and the same type of guns as in 96.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/cause-for-alarm-australia-has-more-guns-but-theyre-less-dangerous/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
Key facts:
1) We have the same number of physical guns, but guns per hundred people is down from around 17 to around 13 (as there are another 5 million people)
2) There are essentially zero semi automatic or fully automatic guns (as opposed to roughly 1 in 3 guns in 96)
On the subject of switzeland being remotely a relevant comparison: http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexlee/you-lovely-man#.kroGyZYR4
My source was an Economist article that I'm not finding online right now, but its numbers were 16.something and 15.something. You'll have to take the figures up with them. (And before you toss around words like "disingenuous", keep in mind that the Economist's editorial stance is strongly pro-gun-control.) But I do notice that Crikey's numbers are disputed even in the comments section of their own article, so maybe things are not as clear-cut as you might prefer?
And even if we assume that Economist's numbers are bogus and Crikey's numbers are the correct ones, does that refute the point? Has gun violence in Australia been proportional to gun ownership? Is it now 13/17ths (76%) the level it was before the Port Arthur massacre? No, it's a lot less. Thirteen guns per hundred people is still a lot closer to seventeen than it is to zero. The dramatic reduction in shootings can't be attributed to a dramatic reduction in the number of guns, because the reduction hasn't been that dramatic.
Which might be reasonably expected to prevent mass shootings. The vast majority of gun crime, however, is single-victim, as, of course, is suicide. You need more to explain the drop in those rates.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also, there aren't very many non-semi-auto pistols. I'm not sure we want to lump revolvers in there (which as I've noted in the past is all the self-defense anyone needs), but for the most part restricting semi-auto weapons will ensure fewer bullets are fired per shooting. And because most non-semi auto firearms are rifles or shotguns, it makes their crime potential a lot more challenging. It's hard to rob someone with a hunting rifle, at least from a surprise point of view.
It's also more challenge to kill yourself with a rifle or shotgun that with a handgun.
Obviously, this is all speculation, but in general when you're talking about firearm statistics the types of guns are really important.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
On topic: this seems like an invitation for disaster. It feels not dissimilar to shouting fire in a crowded theater; odds seem high of injury.
Fair point. I shouldn't have taken the gun laws in CA to mean anything when it comes to the U.S. in general.