Guns

  • Thread starter Talentless
  • 5,167 comments
  • 248,194 views

Which position on firearms is closest to your own?

  • I support complete illegality of civilian ownership

    Votes: 120 15.5%
  • I support strict control.

    Votes: 244 31.5%
  • I support moderate control.

    Votes: 164 21.2%
  • I support loose control.

    Votes: 81 10.5%
  • I oppose control.

    Votes: 139 17.9%
  • I am undecided.

    Votes: 27 3.5%

  • Total voters
    775
If statistics would clearly show, that more gun possession leads to a lot more victims (and i think they do), then whose rights are we trying to protect?

The problem is that statistics don't show that at all.

The following piece is quite long, but well worth a read.

In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths." In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world's highest murder rate.

To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia's extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.

More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian."

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced." As the authors note, "strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world."

Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States." In America, on the other hand, "despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s."

Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that "the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world," where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society.

Therefore, "banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates." According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive."
Source - http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

And thsi for me is one of the most important parts of the piece....

"The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society."



Strict legal gun ownership laws don't stop people killing others with guns, because the people most likely to commit these acts do not obtain guns by legal means in the majority of cases (your own chart proved as much - 15% through retail outlets).

Regards

Scaff
 
Darn,

I just wrote quite a piece, but i can barely argue with that Harvard piece.
Why didn't i find that before :)
 
I am for minimal gun control laws for a lot of reason that have already been listed. If more Americans were properly trained gun owners I bet crime would decline, as it has in numerous examples, like in Florida. There is no reason a man should be afraid in his own home and if someone breaks into your house, what are you gonna do, play along? Bring a knife to a gun fight?

To me, there are three must-haves in life: a car, a woman, and a gun.
 
So what that guy on there is trying to say is that the new laws these states have just passed are meaningless?
 
It really depends on how much of a (figurative) bloodbath it turns into. Each state technically controls a standing army, so it could become quite messy politically if the Feds say screw it and try and force the issue. Federal agents being thrown in jail and whatnot.
Honestly, I did not see Tennessee following this after Montana. Well, I assume in the long run, sure, but I really had pegged Texas to be second.
 
So what that guy on there is trying to say is that the new laws these states have just passed are meaningless?
The Federal Government and the Obama Administration would like to think so, but they will have a hard time arguing against the Constitution in court.
 
I've got a little question for you Americans on guns.

As I was browsing through a thread on a comparison of shotguns, I read that some members had multiple shotguns at home. They had multiple as a hobby, multiple for hunting, and one or more for their own protection.

Am I completely idiotic when I think some people own too many guns? As in, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns just to shoot a bird? Or, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns to shoot the same criminal that tries to bust a cap in your butt?

Hunting is not related to the gun law though I guess in this thread. But what I really wanted to ask is; Do some American people use the gun law in their favor to collect firearms? As in; Thanks to a loose gun law in America, people are able to collect old and classic firearms?
 
I've got a little question for you Americans on guns.

As I was browsing through a thread on a comparison of shotguns, I read that some members had multiple shotguns at home. They had multiple as a hobby, multiple for hunting, and one or more for their own protection.

Am I completely idiotic when I think some people own too many guns? As in, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns just to shoot a bird? Or, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns to shoot the same criminal that tries to bust a cap in your butt?

Why would you have 3 different cars just to drive about?
 
Am I completely idiotic when I think some people own too many guns? As in, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns just to shoot a bird? Or, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns to shoot the same criminal that tries to bust a cap in your butt?

Perhaps the same kind of gun that is good for shooting birds is not necessarily the same kind that is good for self defense?

And people collect old cars, old motorcycles, heck, even old farm equipment. Why wouldn't you collect old guns if you were interested in them?
 
Am I completely idiotic when I think some people own too many guns? As in, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns just to shoot a bird? Or, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns to shoot the same criminal that tries to bust a cap in your butt?
My mom has two cars for one person. I have a PS3, a Wii, and an Xbox, and hopeful will get a 360 sometime soon. I have a desktop PC and a laptop. Some guys have like 12 wives.

Do some American people use the gun law in their favor to collect firearms? As in; Thanks to a loose gun law in America, people are able to collect old and classic firearms?
My dad collects Coca-Cola cans. I collect pint glasses from breweries.

Weapons in general are a large part of human civilization over time, and as such have great historical value in showing time periods and advancement over time. From a collectors standpoint weapons have the same historical merit as modes of transportation, forms of communication, and art. All of these things have distinctive cues from their time periods that identify them and the people who used them. Now, you may wonder why we won't just be happy with them in a museum, but the same could be said for art or cars. Why do people collect those? I cannot look at much art work and see the technical prowess of it, but I know those who can. However, I can look at old automobiles and look at what went into them. Similarly, I see old locomotives as a symbol of man's mind rising up into an industrial age, where men overcame nature with their minds.

Guns have the same symbolism. Weapons in general do, but before firearms we were taking simple concepts and using them to our advantage (blades, spears, arrows). The introduction of firearms represents a time similar to the locomotive. Man's mind overcame the limits of nature. Our ability to hunt and kill was no longer limited by our physical ability.


When you step back and realize that firearms mean much more than "guns kill people" you can see that their historical significance is very great, and those who collect them, including newer models, are admiring that fact and the workmanship required to make such a thing.
 
Good lord, excuse for asking what seems to be a stupid question, I feel lynched by those three points alone :scared:

I'm not saying I'm against collecting guys, I was just curious on how the american gun law worked out with gun collection for you guys...
 
Good lord, excuse for asking what seems to be a stupid question, I feel lynched by those three points alone :scared:

I'm not saying I'm against collecting guys, I was just curious on how the american gun law worked out with gun collection for you guys...
No one was attacking, just trying to point out that collecting or owning a gun is like collecting or owning anything else.


I do believe that there are a different subset of rules regarding collecting, but as I am not sure I can't answer that precisely.
 
And I don't even own a gun. If I did, I'd be put in prison.
 
I've got a little question for you Americans on guns.

As I was browsing through a thread on a comparison of shotguns, I read that some members had multiple shotguns at home. They had multiple as a hobby, multiple for hunting, and one or more for their own protection.

Am I completely idiotic when I think some people own too many guns? As in, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns just to shoot a bird? Or, why would you own 3 different types of shotguns to shoot the same criminal that tries to bust a cap in your butt?

Hunting is not related to the gun law though I guess in this thread. But what I really wanted to ask is; Do some American people use the gun law in their favor to collect firearms? As in; Thanks to a loose gun law in America, people are able to collect old and classic firearms?

I have... lemme think... 6 guns at home. 2 handguns, one "assault" rifle, one shotgun, one musket, and a rifle. Also, keep in mind when you read this, I do not consider myself a gun enthusiast or hobbyist.

The handguns are for self defense - there are two adults in the house and I wanted us both to be able to have weapons if need be. The assault rifle is an heirloom, as is the shotgun, musket, and other rifle. I have been considering getting an additional shotgun for self-defense.

I have a friend who has two handguns at home for self defense. Each of which has multiple magazines. Allow me to explain why this might be useful.

1) Different self-defense circumstances require different guns as a response. The need to conceal a weapon during a confrontation, or the anticipation of close-quarters assault leads to the need for handguns (preferably one for each adult). The anticipation of longer range confrontation, or the need for a warning shot, or even warning "pump" leads to the desire for a shotgun. Shotguns are great for self-defense but cannot be concealed (in case you think you can talk the situation down but want to be prepared if you can't) and are easily thwarted in close-quarters. A self-defense assault rifle is really more for a riot situation. If you've stockpiled food or have solar panels on your home and you're concerned that people might descend on your property in an emergency situation, you might want an assault rifle to defend your property from multiple attackers from farther away. Katrina would be a good example where one might have wanted an assault rifle for defense. For me it's more likely to be an earthquake scenario - but I don't really foresee this being a problem, so I don't have an assault rifle for self-defense. The assault rifle I do has no ammunition for it and I never intend to fire it.

2) Many guns can jam. It might be good to have a backup handy in case you're having problems with your primary gun.

3) Multiple locations in the house can be a good thing. If you're in the kitchen and someone breaks into your bedroom (where you gun is) that gun may suddenly be useless to you.

4) Multiple magazines for the same gun ensure that you can make the magazines springs last longer by alternating which one you keep loaded at all times. You're also more likely to be able to find a magazine that works. Storing a magazine with ammunition in it (as mine is currently) over long periods of time (mine has been that way for years) is likely to relax the spring and lead to a jam.

5) Guns for hunting may not be good for self-defense, and vice versa. I've touched on some of the reasons this might be the case.

6) A gun that has been used a great deal for hunting or target practice may not hold up well to (plus-p) self-defense ammunition. I have had a gun break on me upon firing - I would not want that to happen in a self-defense scenario.

7) You may want your wife to have a gun available while you're away on a hunting trip. Likewise, your wife may want you to have a gun available while she's away on a hunting trip.

8) Some people like to collect guns.

I'm sure I could go on, but you get the picture at this point. When our handgun broke, and we were waiting for weeks to get the replacement, we realized very quickly that one handgun was just not enough. I consider myself a sensible person, and currently have 6 guns in my possession (2 of which are always loaded with self-defense ammunition) and am looking to acquire a 7th.

Feel free to ask if you have any more questions.
 
Who the hell said you only get to have one type of shotgun to shoot a bird?

You know what different types of birds that are out in the wild we in the USA can legally shoot? Are you even aware what their different sizes are or how they move around? Shotguns can be made down to the specific animal you're hunting and if you hunt that particular bird a lot, why wouldn't it make sense to purchase or own a shotgun that was made specifically for that particular bird?

You CANNOT take a dove/pheasant shotgun (28 gauge) and shoot ducks and geese (10-12 gauge). Period. Now, you could take a duck/goose shotgun turkey hunting, but I got one for specifically for duck/geese and one for turkey. Just like I play my Stratocaster for blues, jazz and country and my Ernie Ball for hard rock. I could use just one guitar, but I chose not to and it makes complete sense.

Shotguns have choke systems. I like to find the best choke system setup for a hunting shotgun for a particular animal, and then leave it in place. I never alter it or change it out.

The right tool, for the right job. Ever heard of that?

Plus, I don't understand why you would be against owning so many different types of firearms? I can only shoot one at a time, so why so scared at 'how many' firearms a person owns? It's silly.

Oh, and yes, we can purchase old firearms. They're called 'Curio Relic' firearms and you can get a special FFL to purchase them from the net and have them delivered to your house. How's that grab 'ya?
 
I think what he meant was, what would be the point of dove hunting if you use a 12 gauge, because all you will be taking home is feathers.:D


Oh, OK. That's not true. You can easily hunt dove with a 12 gauge. It's just no 'sport' in it. Too easy. 28 gauge means less pellets which means a smaller pellet spread to hit the bird. It really doesn't mean less pellets in the bird, though. Well it does, if you don't hit it good enough.
 
I voted "undecided".

If there was a way for the U.S. Government to effectively enforce gun ban, I'd actually support that. But here's the rub: They can't.

So, I'd support gun rights. If the crazies will have guns, I want one as well(it's coming!). But I have no idea how much government control is needed. Maybe "moderate"?
 
I think what he meant was, what would be the point of dove hunting if you use a 12 gauge, because all you will be taking home is feathers.:D

I've hunted Wood Pigeon (slightly bigger than a dove) many times with a 12 bore (sorry had to go all English for a moment then) on many occations and can assure you that you take home a lot more than feathers.

Unless you are manageing to sneak right up behind them, then you will be shoot at a moving bird, at a distance and end up removing around a dozen pellets from the bird.


Regards

Scaff
 
I really had no idea on what a 12 gauge would do to a dove, as I have never been dove hunting, so I guess you can take my comment as an uneducated joke.:sly: Me and my 12 do hunt pigeons though, but they are made of clay.
 
I actually wrote an essay in school on this subject. I remember being asked "what are you doing your essay on?" I said gun control. The other kid say, oh you mean like banning guns and stuff? I replied "yes, but i don't support banning guns". his response was WHY? LESS GUNS = LESS PEOPLE GEt SHOT!!!!!!!!!!! And i said, do you honestly think that the gangster down the street has a legally acquired berreta 92? Because that guy definitely took a non-restricted gun course and passed with a mark of 80% or better on the final exam, then he FOR SURE took a restricted firearms course passing with an 80 or higher grade, he then communicated with the local police that he would be transporting the gun, and kept it securely locked at all times. For sure.

(By the way i'm talking Canadian Gun Laws)
 
I believe some of our gun laws should be removed.
1. Legally, (ahem, Danoff) you may not keep them fully loaded, at which point, 90% of the time, self-defense is no longer an option, cause the criminals gun has been loaded since before he spotted you.
2. That's absurd.
3. If you have kids in the house, they must be locked up, and not with your ammo.
4. So now, I have a 10 month old son, and if someone breaks in, i have to go to the gun cabinet, unlock it, pull a gun out, take off the trigger lock, go to the ammo, which I was forced to store away from the gun, and load it.
5. I sure hope if I get robbed at night the criminal is in a wheelchair!
6. If the criminals deaf it'd be nice too, cause uncle Sam says I gotta make this self-defense take 2.5 minutes, and I must make as much noise as possible doing it, so he has a chance to shoot me and my family first.

Ain't America great?

7. Many criminals already don't get their guns legally, so why would I favor disarming the innocent?

It's amazing the things fear leads people to do and say...
 
6. If the criminals deaf it'd be nice too, cause uncle Sam says I gotta make this self-defense take 2.5 minutes, and I must make as much noise as possible doing it, so he has a chance to shoot me and my family first.

IF someone breaks into my house, (in the middle of the night) I might give them 2.5 seconds, hence time enough to rack my 12 gauge. As for noise, have you ever heard a shotgun go off, it makes a lot of noise. I know your going say "but the neighbors might hear the commotion, and rat you out, but remember my neighbors aren't that close, and I live in Tennessee, as Bob Lee Swagger put it, the patriot state of shooting stuff, so they're used to gunfire, and probably never even wake up. My doors are locked for a reason, you bypass the locks, you bypass your rights. So, if the criminal is dead, and there are no witnesses, how would the police know if he's been there for 2.5 minutes?

An old friend (retired deputy) told me something wise once, "One story is better than two" meaning "kill the prep," don't just wound them. I have also heard that if you had the time to aim at the robbers, say, knee then you could be charged with attempted murder, no longer being able to hide behind self defense.

Just so you know, I never want to hurt or kill anyone, as I am a peaceful person, but I hold protection of my family, including my dog, in high regard.
 
Last edited:
Back