Gun Issues page 72

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

I wasn’t going to reply because this thread is filled with circular arguments, but…

We know that humans are the problem, and that they can be careless if not trained. Just because a few people can handle guns responsibly, and are fortunate enough to handle guns safely—locking them up, and putting them in secure locations—where it would make it near impossible for the irresponsible to get guns—children/teenagers looking for fun, as well as criminals, and the nervous. Doesn’t mean that we should allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to own a gun. This is where the mistake comes in. We are marketing guns to everyone, and all types of guns, as well, to make more people skew their viewpoints to become gun aficionados where they would like them for display purposes to show off to those around them.
But for safety, they have to secure these items, which, very few people do. Especially, the poor and lower middle class say: “F*** it, why store it, when I can just leave it in my closet,” or what have you. This is how accidents happen and this what the majority of gun owners are like. They are not all like you, jhco. Just because you might be responsible does not make the larger sum of people as responsible as you. Only a few of you actually follow the safety guidelines. That’s why, at the very least, we need government to impose as many good regulations, now, for the safe handling of guns, and the enjoyment factor will follow. Since you don’t want to go to a safer society then you choose to live in limbo between random mass shooting massacres, and fun in the sun while you go to gun events or shooting ranges. Your representatives, by the way, only follow the money, and exploiting peoples fears and ignorance is great business for us, the wealthy.
Just saying…

But what fraction of people are responsible? What if 95% of the word is responsible? What if-
WHAT. IF.
We can’t determine responsibility. It is a variable thing, and such opinions can’t be measured.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thecartm:

But what fraction of people are responsible? What if 95% of the word is responsible? What if-
WHAT. IF.

And we can never know, yadda yadda nihilism.

We can’t determine responsibility.

Is leaving your arsenal out in the open with unsupervised, curious children responsible?

Is driving in the dark without headlights a responsible thing to do?

It is a variable thing, and such opinions can’t be measured.

Responsibility isn’t an opinion here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

You aligned me with the moderates and not the fringe right for once! I’m… I’m… I’m so happy!

Yes! Don’t you just love it when people finally pay attention and “get it”? It’s rare but so refreshing.

 
Flag Post

Jhco fails to realize that just as the government has shown to have the right to impose limits on speech, so too do they have the right to impose limits on firearms.

I’m not convinced they’ve proven the right to impose limits on freedom of speech, they’ve certainly shown they have the means though. As for firearm’s I still have to agree with Jhco that, ultimately, I am uncomfortable allowing the government a monopoly on firearms. But, I’m also uncomfortable with every Tom, Dick and Harry, sporting one. (huh, reading later, Draco used that exact phrasing) My biggest problem is in reconciling the two. Ultimately, I look at it, as ‘who gets to own a gun, why them?’. I’m not against licensing and Federal Lists, licensing in the case that competency is proven. I also think we should ramp up the liability for stolen/missing firearms, and especially the criminal charges for trafficking and really crack down on the grey market of sales. As for carrying? Sheesh, I have a hard time finding a resolution I am happy with. The idea of other people carrying these weapons about on their person, I find spooky. I believe there is a wide swathe who are more then capable of doing it responsibly, but the good people are never the problem, there’s just as many ignorant, aggressive folk who make me cringe. Ultimately, I feel I’d be okay with carrying given a free (violent) criminal record and brutal sentencing.

I still feel the strongest assurance of public safety from criminal elements and government abuse remains culture, culture, culture. Far beyond any law the solution lies in how we view one another, and the state of the common man.

Karma,

This point is demonstrated by the philospher Epicurus: The laws exist FOR the sake of the wise, not that THEY may not do wrong, but that they may not suffer it.

Hooboy! A lovely notion, but do you really think that is true?

Jhco,

Of course it wouldn’t bother you to get rid of our 2nd Amendment. It wouldn’t affect you since you don’t live here. You want to tell me to grow up but I might ask the same of you if you think I am stupid enough to listen to an armchair outside do-gooder, with nothing to lose, tell me how I should live in my own country.

Come on now, this is a discussion. We’re all presenting viewpoints, opinions, ‘what-if’s’. Do you really have no opinion on other countries? And assuming you do, do you really think they are totally invalid? There’s something to be said for familiarity. But I do not think the English speaking (and beyond) world exists in total alterity to one another.

TheCartM

Guns don’t make people murderers.

Takes motive and means, guns remain a hell of a means. They empower, they enable. They allow a whole list of stupid, hostile decisions to be readily executed. They are a most capable tool, and will always bear some consideration in that regard. Skyscrapers don’t exactly self assemble, some things are only possible at the right time with the right tools.

If you had a gun, would you try and murder someone with it?

There was a time in my life when honestly yes, quite likely. Spooky huh?

Without guns, the government would be more than able to become a dictatorship.

Internal non violent resistance can topple any would be autocrats. Most cultures don’t have the nerve however.

 
Flag Post
I’m not convinced they’ve proven the right to impose limits on freedom of speech, they’ve certainly shown they have the means though.

They have. Fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, libel, slander, perjury, incitement, time, place and manner restrictions on when and where you speak, etc. are all limits/prohibitions on types of speech, many of which have been upheld by the Supremes.

 
Flag Post
Takes motive and means, guns remain a hell of a means. They empower, they enable. They allow a whole list of stupid, hostile decisions to be readily executed. They are a most capable tool, and will always bear some consideration in that regard. Skyscrapers don’t exactly self assemble, some things are only possible at the right time with the right tools.

Aye, but motives are important and guns don’t provide such. If every legal gun owner just locked up their crap like they should, and I’m not sure if they don’t, this would be over.

There was a time in my life when honestly yes, quite likely. Spooky huh?

Ah, yes. And that’s why people are limited and have to pass for permits.
Internal non violent resistance can topple any would be autocrats. Most cultures don’t have the nerve however.

LOL… The average US citizen who plays COD all day and uses a wrench for a weapon times 30,000 VS 1,000 armed soliders… <sarcasm> Obviously the first would win, right? </sarcasm>

 
Flag Post

Love that sarcasm.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thecartm:
LOL… The average US citizen who plays COD all day and uses a wrench for a weapon times 30,000 VS 1,000 armed soliders… <sarcasm> Obviously the first would win, right? </sarcasm>

You missed the part where he said “nonviolent.”

Originally posted by thecartm:

The fault is in humanity, not firearms. People will always be a danger to themselves. Guns don’t make people murderers. A bad childhood or a knock to the head the wrong way does. No matter what we do, people will kill each other. Why take down firearms? Many people enjoy not killing people with them. If you had a gun, would you try and murder someone with it?
Guns are also the boundary of power between the government’s military and the people. Without guns, the government would be more than able to become a dictatorship. Anyone would be willing to climb up to power, even I. The strong grip, made up of manipulation and lack of resistance can be trained into society. One can easily just force a nation under their feet with a military. And honestly, who here could put up a resistance without?

So, what, we should start regulating people instead of guns?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Karma,

This point is demonstrated by the philosopher Epicurus: The laws exist FOR the sake of the wise, not that THEY may not do wrong, but that they may not suffer it.

Hooboy! A lovely notion, but do you really think that is true?

I’m not at all sure what ya’re driving at on this? Maybe your understanding of the quote isn’t the same as mine. I’ll attempt to “unpoetryize” it: Laws are for the sake of good ppl. They aren’t intended to keep THEM from doing wrong. But rather to keep bad ppl from doing harm to them. OR: If a person is already behaving “in a lawful manner”, a truly good law doesn’t really apply to them & basically need not exist….as far as they are concerned. The concern part comes in when these ppl are threatened by those who would exhibit bad behavior.

OF COURSE I believe it to be true.
Any other purpose for law is nothing less than sham represented by a finery of cloth disguising the ugly brutality of a dictatorial iron fist. That is IF there were to be a situation where,, AT THE VERY LEAST,, such a form of “organization” existed. Otherwise, it would be some form of anarchy…where the weak were preyed upon by the strong….the law of survival of the “fittest”.

Am I saying that ALL laws are “good”….?
Of course NOT.
But, on the flip side….
would NO laws be “better”?

From the link: 1. The Harm Principle
Laws created under the Harm Principle are written to protect people from being harmed by others. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic Harm Principle laws, a society ultimately degenerates into despotism—the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent. Harm Principle laws are essential, and every government on Earth has them.

If humans were of a truly “lovely notion” socially…..then we wouldn’t have any need for laws.
In some ways, I guess one could compare SOME “laws” to be like cheap padlocks…the only real purpose they serve is to help keep an honest man honest. But, the intent of MOST laws definitely is for the protection of the good, honest ppl by being aimed at stopping those who would do some form of harm to them.

Ppl make laws.
Ppl aren’t perfect.
Laws probably won’t be perfect, either,,,
esp. if those who make the laws (or administer them) have a lot of “imperfection” in them.

In thinking on “laws”….I’m reminded of what Ben Franklin said: There was never a good war or a bad peace.
And, another thought on law he reminds me of: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If you had a gun, would you try and murder someone with it?

There was a time in my life when honestly yes, quite likely. Spooky huh?

I’m guessing I’m supposed to see some specific reason for a person desiring to murder someone essentially BECAUSE they have a gun?…that they wouldn’t have that desire if they DID NOT HAVE a gun?…that it is the “gun” that “enables” one to do murder?

But, a gun really isn’t all that necessary. I can do it in a great number of ways. I thought we had already established that a gun is merely a tool that has specific advantageous properties.
I’m constantly meeting ppl whom I believe the world would probably be a lot better off WITHOUT them in it. And, were I to see the “need” to make it so….a gun is merely an option dictated by circumstances. So, not really all the “spooky”….at least for me. I’m quite sure the same can be said for a lot of other ppl. But, thankfully, it isn’t the lack of availability to a gun that usually stops them from acting on this “urge”. LOL

Originally posted by issendorf:
I’m not convinced they’ve proven the right to impose limits on freedom of speech, they’ve certainly shown they have the means though.

They have. Fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, libel, slander, perjury, incitement, time, place and manner restrictions on when and where you speak, etc. are all limits/prohibitions on types of speech, many of which have been upheld by the Supremes.

I’m not at all sure who Ung’s “they” are.
I’m guessing it is aimed at the authority of govt.,,,,that entity which establishes a definition of what rights are and how they will be exercised by the society it governs.
If that is it….then, issen covers that w/ his SOCTUS.

The real trick to this problem about “rights” is this: EVERYONE HAS THEM.
And, everyone is different and will see (esp. theirs) rights as being different, too.
When there exists such conflicting parameters….some form of “operation rules” will need to be laid down or all that will be generated is quarreling. These “operation rules” will obviously need to establish some LIMITATIONS on behavior that cause the greatest contentions that also greatly retard progress.

All the “Founding Fathers” & their Constitution did was to put down on paper some very obvious rights & a system by which these rights could be utilized to their fullest potential by EACH & EVERYONE TOGETHER…AT THE SAME TIME. Common sense can easily think of hundreds of areas where ABSOLUTE freedom//right to “speak” would totally screw things up….because the right of one person doesn’t automatically trump the rights of others.

The same is what is going on w/ this “gun issue”.
The 2nd can establish some concept of sacramentality regarding “guns”,,,
but this doesn’t mean that—just as other “freedoms & right” mentioned in the Const.—it won’t have all those “devil-in-the-details” loopholes addressed…esp when the NEED arises so greatly. One can’t cover the whole of scocial living in a page or two.

No one wants to see freedoms & rights tampered w/ when there is little-2-NO good reason to do so. Well, I take that back…there are some assholes that love CONTROL,,, and greatly enjoy having & using it. But, to spend time & money TRYING to bring BAD “gun controls” into law really is working very hard at doing absolutely NOTHING…..at least as has already been established in this thread over&over&over.

There certainly DOES NEED TO BE some things thought up & tried which will address what is a very problematic issue for Americans who have a lot of guns. BUT, before we start trying to jump all the way to “making-a-law”….let’s do a lot of COOPERATIVE talking, some experimenting, some more talking, more efforts. THEN, we might come up w/ some answers that a huge majority of Americans can get behind.

 
Flag Post

A gun is simply a tool. And an impressive one, too. They look cool.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Hmm, how many shootings have there been in New Zealand, where gun ownership is restricted? Literally 0 this entire millennium.

How many in Sweden? 0 this entire millennium.

Iceland? Finland? Denmark? Australia? Not many, if any.

UK? Germany? France? Italy? About a dozen or so, sometimes less.

America? Oh, a couple of hundred this millennium. Seriously America, it is your time to progress. Do you want progress or people dead? For many right-wingers it seems people dead is the priority here. What a disgust that is.

</blockquote
and how many times have guns in private ownership stopped shootings? mainstream media tends to highlight the bad things in life, just to get more people to turn in. and i’m sure we can agree the best bad guy is a dead bad guy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wepole:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Hmm, how many shootings have there been in New Zealand, where gun ownership is restricted? Literally 0 this entire millennium.

How many in Sweden? 0 this entire millennium.

Iceland? Finland? Denmark? Australia? Not many, if any.

UK? Germany? France? Italy? About a dozen or so, sometimes less.

America? Oh, a couple of hundred this millennium. Seriously America, it is your time to progress. Do you want progress or people dead? For many right-wingers it seems people dead is the priority here. What a disgust that is.


and how many times have guns in private ownership stopped shootings? mainstream media tends to highlight the bad things in life, just to get more people to turn in. and i’m sure we can agree the best bad guy is a dead bad guy.
Define “bad guy”?
Where do ya draw the line on when it is “appropriate” for a “civilian” to shoot & KILL a person doing “bad”?
Do ya NOT understand the concept of DEGREES?
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wepole:
and how many times have guns in private ownership stopped shootings?

So are you saying this to hypothesize a counter-argument against him, or do you actually have some statistic showing that a significant number of mass shootings were stopped? Because if you do have something, why the hell aren’t you using it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by wepole:
and how many times have guns in private ownership stopped shootings?

So are you saying this to hypothesize a counter-argument against him, or do you actually have some statistic showing that a significant number of mass shootings were stopped? Because if you do have something, why the hell aren’t you using it?

Nah, what he is (probably?) doing is what I call “reverse-slippery-slopism”.
Ppl typically see the “slope” as being a rapidly increasing slipping into negativity.

The “up-slope” situation is greased w/ a lot of: might’s, maybe’s, (very likely?) could happen’s, it-ovbiously-would-follow’s, PROBABLY;s which allow the highly questionable, subjective positive effects of an initial premise to go to extreme distances.

 
Flag Post

Hello, I am bobneson. a lot of you already know me. let’s look at the liberal view first; they want to lower crime, and for home defense belive that there are alternatives to using a gun. now the republican view; we just want to preserve the second amendment, and we also believe that firearms are the best tool for defense. no one is right, no one view is better than the other, just different out comes. liberal point of view might lower crime, republican point of view, you preserve the second amendment, deter other countries from invading, can also lower crime, perhaps more than the liberal side and also preserve history. choose your side.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wepole:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Hmm, how many shootings have there been in New Zealand, where gun ownership is restricted? Literally 0 this entire millennium.

How many in Sweden? 0 this entire millennium.

Iceland? Finland? Denmark? Australia? Not many, if any.

UK? Germany? France? Italy? About a dozen or so, sometimes less.

America? Oh, a couple of hundred this millennium. Seriously America, it is your time to progress. Do you want progress or people dead? For many right-wingers it seems people dead is the priority here. What a disgust that is.

</blockquote
and how many times have guns in private ownership stopped shootings? mainstream media tends to highlight the bad things in life, just to get more people to turn in. and i’m sure we can agree the best bad guy is a dead bad guy.

Please add statistics for other crimes as well.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Hello, I am bobneson. a lot of you already know me.

Yes, I also remember that you used to not put a space after the end of a sentence, good on you for getting better at English.

let’s look at the liberal view first; they want to lower crime, and for home defense belive that there are alternatives to using a gun.

You’re making it sound like guns are the only thing one could use for home defense. Probably the most lethal, yes, but even (or especially) a dog adds a layer of security.

now the republican view;

When did “liberal” become a political party?

we just want to preserve the second amendment,

Screw the first, though.

and we also believe that firearms are the best tool for defense.

And offense, which is why we aren’t arguing over home defense any-more, it’s become a non-issue.

no one is right, no one view is better than the other, just different out comes. liberal point of view might lower crime, republican point of view, you preserve the second amendment,

Thou shalt not touch the hold second amendment.

deter other countries from invading,

How in the blue fuck doe expanded background checks make the U.S more likely to be invaded?

can also lower crime,

Yeah, by killing the criminals before they commit a crime.

perhaps more than the liberal side

I’ll bite, why?

and also preserve history.

Part of the reason why we learn about history is to see what does what and what works best, it’s partly why we don’t have many royal families (who in-bred) in positions of power.

Point is, status quo isn’t always best quo.

choose your side.

I feel like you’re embellishing a little.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Hello, I am bobneson. a lot of you already know me. let’s look at the liberal view first; they want to lower crime, and for home defense belive that there are alternatives to using a gun. now the republican view; we just want to preserve the second amendment, and we also believe that firearms are the best tool for defense. no one is right, no one view is better than the other, just different out comes. liberal point of view might lower crime, republican point of view, you preserve the second amendment, deter other countries from invading, can also lower crime, perhaps more than the liberal side and also preserve history. choose your side.

Ya see, Bob….that right there is the REAL PROBLEM: thinking there is “two sides” to this issue.
It is an extremely over-simplistic viewpoint.
Far too many ppl have//use this viewpoint to “guide” their actions//emotions in dealing w/ our “gun problems” in the U.S.

It is a very, VERY complex issue that has so many parameters involved which are so deeply imbued into the very fabric of our society where both the problem AND the solution are so muddled together that one hardly really knows what would be of any real use in getting ANYWHERE at all towards making ANYONE happy w/ anything that is done about the issue.

Think of it as gridlock
No one is going anywhere.
All we are doing is honking our horns and telling everyone else they gotta “go”,,,,gotta “move” from their position.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by wepole:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Hmm, how many shootings have there been in New Zealand, where gun ownership is restricted? Literally 0 this entire millennium.

How many in Sweden? 0 this entire millennium.

Iceland? Finland? Denmark? Australia? Not many, if any.

UK? Germany? France? Italy? About a dozen or so, sometimes less.

America? Oh, a couple of hundred this millennium. Seriously America, it is your time to progress. Do you want progress or people dead? For many right-wingers it seems people dead is the priority here. What a disgust that is.


and how many times have guns in private ownership stopped shootings? mainstream media tends to highlight the bad things in life, just to get more people to turn in. and i’m sure we can agree the best bad guy is a dead bad guy.
Define “bad guy”?
Where do ya draw the line on when it is “appropriate” for a “civilian” to shoot & KILL a person doing “bad”?
Do ya NOT understand the concept of DEGREES?

A bad guy, is any one who wishes to do me or my family harm. and i didn’t realize that criminals only use guns. that’s some shocking news right there, god forbid they find knives, cars, bats, fire, sharp sticks, and every thing else that can do more damage than a fist or a boot can.
Originally posted by thecartm:
Originally posted by wepole:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Hmm, how many shootings have there been in New Zealand, where gun ownership is restricted? Literally 0 this entire millennium.

How many in Sweden? 0 this entire millennium.

Iceland? Finland? Denmark? Australia? Not many, if any.

UK? Germany? France? Italy? About a dozen or so, sometimes less.

America? Oh, a couple of hundred this millennium. Seriously America, it is your time to progress. Do you want progress or people dead? For many right-wingers it seems people dead is the priority here. What a disgust that is.

</blockquote
and how many times have guns in private ownership stopped shootings? mainstream media tends to highlight the bad things in life, just to get more people to turn in. and i’m sure we can agree the best bad guy is a dead bad guy.


Please add statistics for other crimes as well.


sure

According to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,” a book used by many in the gun debate, 800,000-2,500,000 crimes are stopped by guns each year. The numbers are from different studies.

Interesting Statistics:

There were over 19,000 deaths by accidental drug overdose in 2004. The majority of these deaths were from prescription drugs, not illegal drugs. Banning prescription drugs makes as much sense as banning guns.

Regarding accidental shooting deaths per year, that number is in the 14,000-17,000 range. Over 100,000,000 guns are owned in America.

now i got that from wiki answers now before you start bitching about that to here’s this;

Policy analysts seeking to assess the relative costs and benefits of gun control sometimes simplify their task by assuming that gun ownership has no significant benefits, beyond the relatively minor ones of recreational enjoyment of shooting sports like hunting. Under this assumption, it is unnecessary to show that a given law produces a large reduction in violence, since even one life saved would surely outweigh the supposedly negligible benefits of gun ownership. This simplification, however, is unrealistic, because it erroneously assumes that gun ownership and use has no defensive or deterrent value, and thus no potential for preventing deaths or injuries.

Each year about 1500-2800 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding American civilians in justifiable or excusable homicides, far more than are killed by police officers. There are perhaps 600,000-1 million defensive uses of guns each year, about the same as the number of crimes committed with guns. These astounding totals may be less surprising in light of the following facts. About a third of U.S. households keep a gun at least partially for defensive reasons; at any one time nearly a third of gun owners have a firearm in their home (usually a handgun) which is loaded; about a quarter of retail businesses have a gun on the premises; and perhaps 5% of U.S. adults regularly carry a gun for self-defense.

Keeping a gun for home defense makes most defensive gun owners feel safer, and most also believe they are safer because they have a gun. The belief is not necessarily a delusion. People who use guns for self-protection in robberies and assaults are less likely to have the crime completed against them (in a robbery, this means losing their property), and, contrary to widespread belief, are less likely to be injured, compared to either victims who use other forms of resistance or to victims who do nothing to resist. (Criminals take the gun away from the victim in less than 1% of these incidents.) The evidence does not support the idea that nonresistance is safer than resisting with a gun.

Defensive uses of guns most often occur in circumstances where the victims are likely to have access to their guns, mostly in their homes or places of business. Thus, defensive gun uses are most commonly linked with assaults in the home (presumably mostly domestic violence), commercial robberies, and residential burglaries.

The fact that armed victims can effectively disrupt crimes suggests that widespread civilian gun ownership might also deter some criminals from attempting crimes in the first place. There probably will never be definitive evidence on this deterrence question, since it revolves around the issue of how many crimes do not occur because of victim gun ownership. However, scattered evidence is consistent with a deterrence hypothesis. In prison surveys criminals report that they have refrained from committing crimes because they thought a victim might have a gun. “Natural experiments” indicate that rates of “gun deterrable” crimes have declined after various highly publicized incidents related to victim gun use, including gun training programs, incidents of defensive gun use, and passage of a law which required household gun ownership. Widespread gun ownership may also deter burglars from entering occupied homes, reducing confrontations with residents, and thereby reducing deaths and injuries. U.S. burglars are far less likely to enter occupied premises than burglars in nations with lower gun ownership.

Gun use by private citizens against violent criminals and burglars is common and about as frequent as legal actions like arrests, is a more prompt negative consequence of crime than legal punishment, and is more severe, at its most serious, than legal system punishments. On the other hand, only a small percentage of criminal victimizations transpire in a way that results in defensive gun use; guns certainly are not usable in all crime situations. Victim gun use is associated with lower rates of assault or robbery victim injury and lower rates of robbery completion than any other defensive action or doing nothing to resist. Serious predatory criminals perceive a risk from victim gun use which is roughly comparable to that of criminal justice system actions, and this perception may influence their criminal behavior in socially desirable ways.

The most parsimonious way of linking these previously uncon- nected and unknown or obscure facts is to tentatively conclude that civilian ownership and defensive use of guns deters violent crime and reduces burglar-linked injuries.

Rates of commercial robbery, residential burglary injury, and rape might be still higher than their already high levels were it not for the dangerousness of the prospective victim population. Gun ownership among prospective victims may well have as large a crime-inhibiting effect as any crime-generating effects of gun possession among prospective criminals. This could account for the failure of researchers to find a significant net relationship between rates of crime like homicide and robbery, and measures of general gun ownership – the two effects may roughly cancel each other out. Guns are potentially lethal weapons whether wielded by criminals or victims. They are frightening and intimidating to those they are pointed at, whether these be predators or the preyed upon. Guns thereby empower both those who would use them to victimize and those who would use them to prevent their victimi- zation. Consequently, they are a source of both social order and disorder, depending on who uses them, just as is true of the use of force in general.

The failure to fully acknowledge this reality can lead to grave errors in devising public policy to minimize violence through gun control. While some gun laws are intended to reduce gun possession only among relatively limited “high-risk” groups such as convicted felons, through such measures as laws licensing gun owners or requiring permits to purchase guns, other laws are aimed at reducing gun possession in all segments of the civilian population, both criminal and noncriminal. Examples would be the Morton Grove, Illinois handgun possession ban, near approximations of such bans (as in New York City and Washington, D.C.), prohibitions of handgun sales (such as those in Chicago), and restrictive variants of laws regulating the carrying of concealed weapons. By definition, laws are most likely to be obeyed by the law-abiding, and gun laws are no different. Therefore, measures applying equally to criminals and noncriminals are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among the latter than the former. Because very little serious violent crime is committed by persons without previous records of serious violence (Chapter 5), there are at best only modest direct crime control benefits to be gained by reductions in gun possession among noncriminals, although even marginal reductions in gun possession among criminals might have crime-inhibiting effects. Consequently, one has to take seriously the possibility that “across-the-board” gun control measures could decrease the crime-control effects of noncriminal gun ownership more than they would decrease the crime-causing effects of criminal gun ownership. For this reason, more narrowly targeted gun control measures like gun owner licensing and permit-topurchase systems seem preferable.

People skeptical about the value of gun control sometimes argue that while a world in which there were no guns would be desirable, it is also unachievable. The evidence summarized here raises a more radical possibility – that a world in which no one had guns might actually be less safe than one in which nonaggressors had guns and aggressors somehow did not. As a practical matter, the latter world is no more achievable than the former, but the point is worth raising as a way of clarifying what the goals of rational gun control policy should be. If gun possession among prospective victims tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not, in and of itself, a social good. Instead, the best policy goal to pursue may be to shift the distribution of gun possession as far as practical in the direction of likely aggressors being disarmed and likely nonaggressors being armed. To disarm noncriminals in the hope this might indirectly help reduce access to guns among criminals is not a cost-free policy.
Gary Kleck
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32312
Prepared for delivery at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, The Washington Hilton, August 29 through September 1, 1991. Copyright by the American Political Science Association.

and come on people, don’t start making fun of people due to the fact they spelled something wrong on the internet, yes , i realize how important it is to the rest of the world, but please grow up.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wepole:
[snip]

now i got that from wiki answers now before you start bitching about that to here’s this;

What, you can’t copy-paste the link while you’re at it?

[other snip]

Okay, I didn’t see you specify, so could you say where you go this, because it looks like something from two decades ago.

and come on people, don’t start making fun of people due to the fact they spelled something wrong on the internet, yes , i realize how important it is to the rest of the world, but please grow up.

Who spelled what wrong? I don’t see anything.

Originally posted by wepole:
A bad guy, is any one who wishes to do me or my family harm.

Oh, so it’s just your family, huh?

and i didn’t realize that criminals only use guns.

Where’d this come from? All Karma suggested was that maybe not all criminals deserve death, where did he bring up them using (or not using) guns?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wepole:
and i’m sure we can agree the best bad guy is a dead bad guy.
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Define “bad guy”?
Where do ya draw the line on when it is “appropriate” for a “civilian” to shoot & KILL a person doing “bad”?
Do ya NOT understand the concept of DEGREES?


A bad guy, is any one who wishes to do me or my family harm. and i didn’t realize that criminals only use guns. that’s some shocking news right there, god forbid they find knives, cars, bats, fire, sharp sticks, and every thing else that can do more damage than a fist or a boot can.


Define “harm”?
A CEO of a Fortune 500 company can do just as much “harm” (possiblly even MORE…depending on how ya wanna “measure”) as some thug doing something “upclose&personal”.
AND, is a guy NOT bad who merely steals your $600 bicycle from your porch in the night?
Should we make him DEAD?

Seriously, are we going to regress to the days of: The only injun is a dead injun.?
THAT certainly seems to be the mentality of a few around this forum.
Well….only a couple.

Plus, ya didn’t answer my question about DEGREES,,,,
or about where YOU draw the line on how bad = shoot to kill.

 
Flag Post

I’m not at all sure what ya’re driving at on this? Maybe your understanding of the quote isn’t the same as mine. I’ll attempt to “unpoetryize” it: Laws are for the sake of good ppl. They aren’t intended to keep THEM from doing wrong. But rather to keep bad ppl from doing harm to them. OR: If a person is already behaving “in a lawful manner”, a truly good law doesn’t really apply to them & basically need not exist….as far as they are concerned. The concern part comes in when these ppl are threatened by those who would exhibit bad behavior.

Pretty much on the same board regarding that. I just find the notion of ‘harm’ and ‘protecting society’ so mangled, so warped that many laws have little to do with protection and far more with preserving a cultural hegemony. Further we’ve privatized the legal and political system to such a degree that the protection of wealth is as integrally important as the protection of the good or wise.

I’m guessing I’m supposed to see some specific reason for a person desiring to murder someone essentially BECAUSE they have a gun?…that they wouldn’t have that desire if they DID NOT HAVE a gun?…that it is the “gun” that “enables” one to do murder?

Less about desire, more about means. Does the gun itself generate motive? No, no of course not. But it broadens options.

bw. But, a gun really isn’t all that necessary. I can do it in a great number of ways. I thought we had already established that a gun is merely a tool that has specific advantageous properties.
I’m constantly meeting ppl whom I believe the world would probably be a lot better off WITHOUT them in it. And, were I to see the “need” to make it so….a gun is merely an option dictated by circumstances. So, not really all the “spooky”….at least for me. I’m quite sure the same can be said for a lot of other ppl. But, thankfully, it isn’t the lack of availability to a gun that usually stops them from acting on this “urge”. LOL

No not necessary, but generally advantageous as you suggest. I would agree that in small scale matters, under premeditation of some sort of plan, it is largely superfluous. But there is also the effect upon immediate decision making too.

Common sense can easily think of hundreds of areas where ABSOLUTE freedom//right to “speak” would totally screw things up….because the right of one person doesn’t automatically trump the rights of others.

And I would suggest the rights of the majority does not automatically trump that of the minority. I am fine with obscenity, fictitious child pornography, libel, slander, perjury (which, is well, a joke), as listed by Issen. Incitement is a pretty fine line between Attempting and Conspiring, I’m willing to let that one go. Time and Place I see as non issues short of intrusion upon private property, which is really more a question of Volume as Presence.

 
Flag Post

I think that they should make a secret gun camera in the gun so if someone kills someone and gets away we can find his or her hideout and then find him or her and arrest him or her

 
Flag Post

Whelp, its pretty clear that my opinions aren’t really that welcome here, but opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, but what ever, like this will change any ones mind on the subject. Peace y’all

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wepole:

Whelp, its pretty clear that my opinions aren’t really that welcome here,but opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, but what ever, like this will change any ones mind on the subject. Peace y’all

What, why? Is it because you’re getting some (and I should note it’s very little) friction because people don’t agree with you.

Boo-hoo, people disagree with you. Yeah, it’s not encouraging I know that, but should you really give up like this and cry over it when you’ve barely done anything at all?