Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: Mitch on April 17, 2007, 12:56:28 AM
-
It was a horrible story coming out of Virginia today. It always makes me wonder how our gun laws can be so perverse to allow individuals to accumulate so many weapons of mass destruction. I fully believe every American should be allowed to have guns if they need it for hunting, or protection, hell even recreational sport. But, how many is too many? Also, limits on the amount of ammo one can purchase would also seem prudent. Thoughts?
-
I doubt you can avoid accumulation once guns are allowed at will. Permits that are necessary will not serve their purpose when there are so many guns in private hands.
-
Live by the gun, die by the gun.
-
Gun crime is apparently on the up here in the UK. A few years ago in a place called Hungerford, a bloke went mad in a school with a gun, which was absolutly tragic. The govement paniced and banned firarms compleatly. Now, people who legitamately owned firearms for sport are not allowed them anymore. The criminals (who never had firearm licences anyway) still have their guns and will always continue to have then, whereas the normal people who owned guns legitimately are no longer allowed them. STUPID DUMB ~#@er's.
-
Gun crime may be up in the UK but it very rarely impacts innocent people the way it does in the USA. Gun crime in the UK tends to be mainly criminals on criminals, especially inner city drug dealers killing their rivals. Guns are available in the UK but not like they are in the USA.
After Hungerford the Goverment banned handguns and pump action shotguns.
Rifles and std shotguns are still legal, with a licence, and a number of my friends and family have them for shooting rabbits and clay pigeons etc. There is no need to have a guns for personal protection in a country like the UK and long may that continue.
The USA with its stupid outdated pigheaded insistance on the right to bear arms has got itself in a postion that has no good solution.
In 2002 there were 81 deaths by guns in the UK compared with 30242 in the USA.
Thats 77 times as many in the USA than UK per head of population. You reap what you sow.
-
I agree with your post DrCMS, but why ban the hobbyist from his toys when the criminals will get their guns anyway. I don't want it be like the US, but why can't an enthusiast have these things legally when the crims will be getting them regardless of whether they are legal or not? As you said - the crims will shoot each other anyway.
-
If legal handguns are available you end up with the American situation.
-
You can argue up one side and down the other with statistics, and you can use the VT shootings to push whatever political envelope you want. The gun deaths in the UK are skewed anyway--look at the number of people in the UK vs the number of people in the US, the number of guns in each, and the number of violent deaths by other means. Over half the gun deaths in the US are suicides. Take a look at the number of suicides in the UK by something other than a gun. You can draw conclusions about how we have a more efficient way to commit suicide--it really is just BS statistics. Besides, without citing sources, you're just full of hot air.
Honestly, I wouldn't live in the UK, because the police over there are shooting your own people and the govenment spies on their own citizens even more than we do, which is bad enough. Guns aren't the problem, nor are they the answer--education is the answer all around. We need to educate our people about firearms.
I love the US, and for all our civil rights, not just the 2nd amendment. One of the strengths of this country is the plethora of civil liberties we enjoy.
The only real piece of legislation that needs to be changed concerning guns (IMHO), is that we should completely ban foreigners from owning and/or purchasing firearms here in the US. It won't stop them, but it will make it harder to obtain firearms for them. [Edit: Please note replies below]
Live by the gun, die by the gun. Give me liberty or give me death.
Many, many more people own firearms legally here in the US and never use them for criminal purposes; while I agree it is a tragedy that some people do use them for criminal purposes, that is the price that you pay for having the civil liberties that we do. I've talked to a number of foreigners that believe they will be shot when the get here to the US. Guess what? The world media hypes up the gun deaths here like crazy--it's all hype. What is your chance of actually getting shot here? Infintessimally small. And whoever said that most of the gun violence in the UK is criminal vs criminal in the inner city--IT'S THE SAME HERE IN THE US. I suspect it's the same across the world in general.
You look at some sensationalistic media hype like is being done now, and you freak out over 30 people dying. You fail to realize that we have sent over 3,000 of our own people to their deaths in Iraq, and killed tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Seriously, we need to get our priorities straight. The crimes at VT are henious, and they are tragic, absolutely, but they are nothing compared to the world-wide destruction we're causing abroad.
For that matter, though I may sound like an anti-patriot for saying it, all the casualties of September 11th are a drop in the bucket for our population as well. Look at all the knee-jerk reactions to that which are still creating problems for us at home and for those of you abroad.
This post, of course, will do nothing to persuade you, as you have already made it abundantly clear that you have your opinion formed already.
There are no simple solutions. Gun control, anti-gun control--none of the simple solutions posed by either side are useful. Let's teach our children how to get along, let's treat them with attention and respect, and maybe we'll have a little better world to live in.
-
I know you are on the second side - ie you love your guns - so I am not surprised by your post. I was ready to agree to disagree, but at least once you have moved too far.
The only real piece of legislation that needs to be changed concerning guns (IMHO), is that we should completely ban foreigners from owning and/or purchasing firearms here in the US. It won't stop them, but it will make it harder to obtain firearms for them.
IMHO this is racist comment. Brenda Ann Spencer, Richard Farley, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Charles Carl Roberts. Are they really better than Seung-hui Cho?
There are no simple solutions. Gun control, anti-gun control--none of the simple solutions posed by either side are useful.
That's were we meet. However - do you obey speed limits? They serve the same propose as gun control can. And - just like gun control - they can limit your rights for the sake of community.
-
Borek, let me explain a bit. I wrote this fairly quickly, and I can see how this could be seen in a bad light:
The only real piece of legislation that needs to be changed concerning guns (IMHO), is that we should completely ban foreigners from owning and/or purchasing firearms here in the US. It won't stop them, but it will make it harder to obtain firearms for them.
IMHO this is racist comment. Brenda Ann Spencer, Richard Farley, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Charles Carl Roberts. Are they really better than Seung-hui Cho?
The comment wasn't meant to be directed at any race or nationality. None of the aforementioned assholes are any better than the other. I didn't mean this to be a 'ban foreigners from owning guns because it will prevent things like this'. Actually, I know a few foreigners here who aren't planning on becoming US citizens and are perfectly responsible gun owners. However, as far as I'm concerned, unless you're a US citizen, our constitution doesn't protect you; therefore, we should not sell guns to foreigners--it's more of a constituational philosophy issue. The last part of it was meant to answer the question 'will they still be able to get guns?' Yes, of course, anyone, citizen or not, can get a gun--anywhere in the world in fact--if they are willing to do things illegally.
I apologize to anyone out there who believed this was a bigoted/racist/etc. comment.
The USA with its stupid outdated pigheaded insistance on the right to bear arms has got itself in a postion that has no good solution.
And this isn't a racist/nationalist comment? That's blatant name-calling. DrCMS is getting into some serious USA-bashing.
BTW, as far as I can tell, it wasn't a racist comment--it was a nationalist comment. ;) (This is meant to be humorous...)
As for speed limits, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. But you have to look at the penalty, too. If it were just a ticket that no one really cared about and could easily be fixed by the court system, I bet a lot more people would be buying guns illegally. There's a VERY large difference in penalty for breaking gun laws and breaking the speed limit.
Also, to respond to Mitch's original question (which I skipped over in lieu of the USA-bashing), the shooter only used two firearms, one of which was a .22, the most common and least-powered firearm on the market. There are plenty of people out there with more firearms which have never been used in a crime.
Ah, well, I think I've just fanned the fires of a flame war. Perhaps I should have posted in the somethingawful.com FYAD forums...
-
Wow, since when was referring to someone as a foreigner the same as being racist? That is the real leap in this thread. Had the poster said ban all gun sales to black people I might be inclined to agree with you Borek. That isn't what he said.
Guns aren't the problem, people are the problem. The man had two guns, hardly a stash of weapons of mass destruction as it was described. Weapons of destruction? Surely, but that is only because the young man decided to use them to kill people.
The situation is quite sad, but I guess you all expressed just as much disgust and anguish over Darfur... right?
Joe
-
Joe, I enjoy reading your dialog. I have registered just to read it. Thank you! (I am a female in the process of single-handedly taking the color pink back from those of us who cannot think)
-
Earthdowser: It is quite hard to read your comments. Red colour might be easier for the eyes.
Why not make bullets more expensive? If the sale price of bullets is $500/round, the person shot dead really deserves to die.
It is okay to have guns. The US Constitution gives every American the right to own a gun. Regulate the supply of bullets instead.
-
People would just make their own bullets anyways...
-
Not to be insensitive here, however, I have a hard time believing that one person (even with unlimited and pre-loaded clips) could wipe out 32 people. Doesn't anybody fight anymore? Why wasn't this guy tackled and beat up after one round (i.e 10-13 shots depending on the state)? Part of the problem in the U.S. is everyone assuming that "someone else" will solve their problems. I guess it's a generational thing. I can't remember a week going by without getting into a fight between the age of 10 and 20. I guess the war-time studies from Vietnam are true. For every one person firing a gun on the battlefield, there are 5 people cowering for cover and ineffective.
In terms of guns, I see absolutely no need for handguns. They have poor accuracy and are easily concealed. Unfortunately, I would not like to see them regulated because of the precedent it would set for other guns.
By the way, the "American situation" isn't as bad as some. On the day that Philadelphia, PA, USA "celebrated" their 100th murder, Rio de Janiero, Brazil celebrated their 1,000th murder. Even with population adjustments, this is a significantly higher value.
-
Dude: Perhaps life is a bit different than a cowboy movie...
-
It is illegal to make a bomb at home, why not a bullet?
-
It is illegal to make a bomb at home, why not a bullet?
It's still not very easy to regulate what one does at home. Plenty of people make explosives (whether for sinister use, interest in chemistry, or just an affinity for things that go boom) even though its illegal. It's a pain for law enforcers to track down all the meth-labs as well. Why would creation of bullets be any easier to prevent?
Dude's comment is slightly harder to pick apart. Do you really think the levels of belligerence brought about by fighting every week throughout your teen years is good? Sure, people should stick up for themselves, but in the case of an unarmed person going against an armed person there's obvious danger, especially when a person hasn't experienced something like that before. Hell, even you can't be sure you'd tackle down a guy if he pointed a gun at you.
-
I just realized the subject reads "Vermont Tech- School Massacre".
Am I missing something and the title is intended to be Vermont Tech or is it truly supposed to be Virginia Tech. I haven't heard of any massacres at Vermont Tech, and it neighbors my state.
-
I agree with that part of Dude's sentiment.
I have no clue how he managed to kill 32 people.
It would be one thing if this was 1 person at a time ala sniper style.
But I know for a fact that if I am in a room of crowded people and some crazy person just starts shooting everybody, I would risk my life to stop him. He is just going to kill me anyway. Sure if 10 people all charge them he might kill even 8 of them, but they were going to die anyway and those other 2 could have stopped him from killing the other 24 people that died (or whatever the situation, the bulk in this case was in 2 rooms I believe with some stragglers in the halls).
I just do not get the "hide" mentality during something like that. If he was going by finding select people, or just trying to rob everybody, hell yes, do not risk yours or anybodies life. But if somebody is killing everybody at random, and you are likely to be killed, I think you are a jackhole and horrible disgusting person if you are not willing to risk your life to save not only your life but multiple others.
That is just my opinion though. I however have also been through lots of training and know how to handle a situation like that and remain calm, and have had a jackhole in real life point a loaded gun on me with bad intentions. I can see how somebody would crap their pants and freak out in a situation like that. I just can not fathom not doing anything when somebody or a group of people are just killing lots of people at random.
There is a difference between being a "cowboy"/"hero" and being willing to give up your life to save numerous others in extreme situations.
-
Enahs,
Well said - my point exactly. Responding to an emergency is a trained response. I recall as a kid walking through adjacent bad neighborhoods with other kids. When trouble came, I ran away as often as I could. After my father and grandfather berated the hell out of me for being a coward after they found out about one incident, I decided that it would be better to take whatever beating was going to come and inflict as much pain as I could on the attackers rather than face the wrath of my father. I suppose after the first 5 or 10 episodes, fighting becomes somewhat addictive and I was just as much to blame (i.e. just don't walk through certain neighborhoods).
I completely understand and sympathize with the University of Texas massacre (1960's I believe) that was reported on CNN. The report indicated that a sniper in a bell tower was picking off people with a long rifle. Those people didn't have a chance. They probably didn't even know where the shots were coming from. A person with a 22 pistol? Hell, it takes 3-6 shots to kill off a 50 lb dog with a .22 pistol.
As bakegaku indicated, I very well may have cowered and run when it was time to knock on wood. However, I would have expected at least one person at Virginia Tech to not give the jackass who shot everybody the luxury of killing himelf (i.e. quick and painless). Make him hurt a little before he passes. Or better yet, make him hurt a whole lot by dealing with courts, lawyers and prison the rest of his life (i.e. that would be much more pain than death for me).
-
as for the fact that no one stood up to the gunman, i present one proof that i hope that would have eased your hearts;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/vatechshootings/victims/Liviu_Librescu.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042000480.html
plus a clipping from my local newspaper:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/xiankai/misc/liviulibrescu.jpg
-
Note that Librescu was not an American and not 20 years old as most of stdents. No idea if it is accidental or symptomatic, but hardly a proof against Dude and Shane POV.
-
I agree with Borek; not only was Librescu from a different generation, he didn't grow up in American culture, thus making the point kind of moot. He was certainly a hero, though.
On one hand, you can sit back and say 'why didn't anyone fight back?' Unfortunately, it's easy to sit back and say that from the comfort of your chair. You don't know how you're going to respond to that kind of emergency situation until you're in it. I wouldn't doubt the 1 in 5 actually fighting like in Vietnam. I think that much of that has to do with generational culture in the US, but that's a very difficult and complicated topic.
That being said, for those of us who have been in crisis-type situations where fight or flight was unavoidabe, it is a valid point to wonder why so many people were gunned down without much resistance. With the number of people that were in harm's way, I'm surprised there weren't more who did fight back. Personally, I'd have been throwing desks or books or whatever at the guy, but that's me and I have had experience in my life to know how I would react to a life-threatening situation (I'm not going to claim that I've had a school shooter come at me, as I doubt anyone on these forums has).
Interestingly, from what I've been able to find online, he only had 9rnd capacity in his magazines--which means he either had a lot of magazines or reloaded really quickly.
This whole situation is very sad. One thing that needs to be addressed is why he was adjucated mentally defective and still able to purchase a firearm legally. From what I've seen of this kid, he probably would have obtained one illegally, or made bombs or whatever if he hadn't been able to buy a gun, but to sell him one given his prior mental history run-ins with the law is pretty bad.
BTW, we're not the only country with shootings like this:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=687602007
That's from the UK--where guns have been illegal for a long time and the control laws are very strict.
-
The thing that pissed me off, is that after this, the newspapers started spouting off about how the shooter was diagnosed autistic, and implying that was more or less the cause for his violence (hah, how wrong, he was just a psychopath)
Not to mention the tidal wave of similar articles it triggered off.
I am ashamed to think this sonofabitch has anything to do with me (and normally, I HAVE no shame, according to some ;D), as are the rest of the autie community, gives me and the rest a bad name, the way the reporting of it was handled, which nobody needs.
-
One thing I dislike about the media is the way they sensationalize everything. They milked the VT shooting for all it's worth and I was appauled when the broadcast the shooter's videotaped diatribe. They'll hype up the fact that the shooter in the UK was autistic. If someone went berzerk and killed 5 people in a shopping mall with a chainsaw, they'd fawn over the fact that he had Slayer posters in his room. The two main problems of sensationalistic media:
1. They promote copycat work since it definitely gains attention
2. They usually generate a lot of heuristics/stereotypes about some insignificant or irrelevant fact that then becomes somehow linked to the crime comitted.
We need some good old-fashioned sex scandals to hit the news soon. At least copycat crimes of those aren't as big of a problem. ;)
-
I wouldn't doubt it HMX, at least the paper I get, the daily mail would, heh wouldn't they have a field day with me, weed posters on my walls, autistic, and a large collection of the kind of music the previous couple of generations would have considered to be the direct creation of Satan himself ;D
Then again, I have been in the papers twice, neither of which was too complimentary an article, and they haven't mentioned autism or black metal yet :P
-
In 2002 there were 81 deaths by guns in the UK compared with 30242 in the USA.
Thats 77 times as many in the USA than UK per head of population. You reap what you sow.
Really I can't see beyond this statistic. If you allow people to have guns, it is ridiculously more likely that such events will happen. You'd have to go back to mid 90s and Dunblaine in Scotland to find a similar event in the UK whereas it seems the same event happens year after year or at most a couple of years in the US.
Afterall, if the vast majority of fully fledged democratic countries can ban guns because of the dangers and still manage to function fairly and more safely, why can't the US? What is it that must be unique to the American psyche that can't deal with the loss of guns?
-
I have no problems with a gun ban.
-
That's the spirit ;) but what I'm on about is what appears as an outsider to be a reluctance to broach the subject, never mind actually try to implement it..
For all the rightful horror at the time, it's gone all quiet again..waiting for the next one
-
I am not sure where the poster got the statistics from for the UK. The US stats seem about right from what I've read on the BJS (Buereau of Justice Statistics) website. The comparitive statistics sound really bad, but I'm not sure they're correct. They may also have reporting differences, too. I don't want to really start getting into an argument based on unreferenced statistics. If you want to make irrelevant anecdotal arguments, there are plenty of reponsible gun owners out there who have never shot anyone or misused their weapons in any way, myself included.
Perhaps part of the problem is that the US was built on violence. Let's face it: we're a violent nation. We were born in revolution, we've fought in every major war since our country was founded, and we're the only nation in the world to use a nuclear weapon against another country. The violence, both firearm and non-firearm related, is high here. I'm not sure that it has to do with firearms. Look at Norway, Sweeden, Switzerland, Austria and several other European countries where you can either buy guns or the government ISSUES you a weapon. A few countries (e.g., Switzerland, Sweeden) will issue you a fully automatic weapon (i.e., a machinegun) once you have done your compulsory military service. Besides the fact that after being in military service one probably looks at a firearm as a tool and something that's a pain in the rear that has to be cleaned all the time, etc., there's the underlying culture that doesn't proclaim violence the way ours does.
Of course, there is no simple explanation or solution; this is just another take on the whole reasons behind it all. Of course, you get arguments on why you should be able to own guns to defend yourself, and why you shoul ban all guns.
Personally, I think the 2nd amendment does guarantee the right for US citizens to personally own firearms, but only to the extent that the weapons are able to be used to form an organized militia at the need of the government. The original intent was for the average citizen to be armed so that in time of need the government could call upon them for defense of the homeland. This eliminates the need for a large standing army, and as far as I'm concerned, would be ideal for us today. In that light, the 2nd amendment would not at all guarantee the right to own handguns--as they are useless for warfare. It would, however, guarantee the right to own military weaponry (M-16s, etc.), strange as it may sound. Of course, we won't be disbanding our army anytime soon, so perhaps all of this point is moot.
One of the more interesting arguments for firearms rights is that the 2nd amendment was originally put into the constitution as a 'doomsday' clause. The argument goes that the founding fathers wanted the populace to be armed so that if the government got too bad, the people could rise up against it and overthrow it. While it is true that most dictatorships disarm the people before the commit genocide, etc., I'm not sure that the architects of the constitution had this in mind. This is also me speculating on what men over 200 years ago were thinking, so take it for what it's worth.
The stupidest argument for gun rights is the idea that the 2nd amendment was written so that we could 'defend ourselves' against criminals (particularly this argument carries for handguns). I very seriously doubt that was the intent behind it at all. I personally believe that handguns are not protected by the 2nd amendment. Interestingly, they are one of the most popular types of firearm to purchase here in the US.
Anyway, that's my 2c.
-
I don't mean to reply to my post, but I did have one final thought after I posted:
To at least partially answer the question "What is it that must be unique to the American psyche that can't deal with the loss of guns?", one must consider our heritage and something that is usually overlooked: a large part of the US is still very rural. These rural areas have grown up with hunting as their heritage. Many of these people are dirt poor, but are able to go hunting on their own land for deer, waterfowl, whatever is in season. This is a tradition that has been passed down since the founding of the United States. Looking at England at the time, only the nobility could go hunting, both because of land ownership and because of firearms. In the US, even the common man could go hunting, due to the large amount of open space and the availability of firearms.
What does this mean today? The rural areas of this nation are very protective of their hunting heritage; part of that is owning firearms to do the hunting. If firearms are banned, part of their heritage disappears as well. The rural culture is very, very different than that in the cities or even the suburbs in the US. It is something that one really has to experience in order to understand it. We have so much open space here in the US that it has created its own culture in a way.
Sadly, some political organizations of late have been exploiting the fear of the people in the rural areas that if any laws or restrictions are placed on guns, their heritage will be gone. Back in 2000, I remember seeing ads on TV at our friends' house in a very rural area where they actually said 'Al Gore wants to take away your heritage and your rights'. I am not kidding. It is a commercial that I would have NEVER seen had I not been in a rural area--because they didn't show it back home in the suburbs, and they didn't show it in the small town where I went to school, only in the very rural areas.
So, I hope that this sheds a bit of light on your question, though this issue is so charged that there are probably a large number of people that are simply glossing over most of this and I am thus probably wasting most of my time in writing it.
-
I posted the stats on gun deaths for 2002 and I got the death figures from the BBC website.
The USA has a population of just under 300 million while the UK's is just over 60 million.
Hunting with a rifle is one thing but going on a killing spree with a pistol is a very different thing. To my mind a handgun is useful only for killing another human being at close range they have no place in hunting and neither does a machine gun. But they are readily available for anyone to walk into a gunshop and buy.
The UK has a very violent past but we don't have the same current violent gun culture the US has, which is not based on hunting in my view.
My father in law recently went to the USA to visit some American friends and he was amazed to see his friend taking a handgun out with him to go for a dayout. How bad is it in America that carrying a gun seems a good idea?
There is a mindset in America that problems can be solved with a gun. If you can not change that or limit the availability of handguns that these incident will continue.
-
So, I hope that this sheds a bit of light on your question, though this issue is so charged that there are probably a large number of people that are simply glossing over most of this and I am thus probably wasting most of my time in writing it.
It does indeed help explain it and being born and bred in one of two countries worldwide that have even a policeforce that are not allowed firearms (something I'm proud of), I'm sure it is something that has to be experienced.
It doesn't excuse the apparent lack of interest to alter the unacceptable, abhorrent status quo, but it does help explain it.
Is it a case where if school shootings are becoming relative commonplace, how much misery has to be suffered to break the mental barriers you mention?
Is heritage really worth all that?
-
I think the 2nd amendment was formed mainly for the purpose of a militia and hunting (back to rural America), but that's just my opinion.
Another thing about America is that it was partly formed on freedom. Your free to buy what you want, work where you want, practice whatever religion you want, say/write what you want (one of America's past times seams to be president bashing), own a gun, live where you want, business isn't that highly restricted (compared to other countries), etc. Now of course other countries have the things I listed. Part of it I think is most (if not all) Americans don't want the government telling them what they can and can't own/do.
I live in New Hampshire. Our state motto is "Live Free or Die." People will get extremely defensive whenever the state government wants to pass a ban on something. We are one of the only states that doesn't require a seatbelt after 18. You're only required to wear eye protection (as simple as sunglasses) when you ride a motorcycle.
People just don't want the government making decisions for them, and that includes on whether or not to own a gun. Guns do need to be kept out of people who are "dangerous" and/or have psychological problems that affect their judgement.
-
I posted the stats on gun deaths for 2002 and I got the death figures from the BBC website. The USA has a population of just under 300 million while the UK's is just over 60 million.
Links? I'm not saying your statistics are wrong, but I don't see any links. Interestingly, I was reading on the BBC website that the UK government doesn't report crime statistics. This is different than the US, where our government reports it (look up the bureau of justice statistics). The details on the reporting are very relevant, because it defines what is counted. For instance, gun deaths in the US statistics include suicides (half of the gund deaths). In the UK? I don't know, because I can't look at the website. I don't trust statistics reported by pro- or anti- gun organizations, which includes media such as the BBC. Where did they get their statistics? I'd be curious. Even the BBC has strangely pro-gun articles sometimes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
I would be interested to see the numbers for the % of gun owners in each country compared with the gun deaths per capita. What I'm driving at here is that while we definitely have more incidents, even per capita, a smaller % of our gun owners may commit homicide. I don't know, because I haven't seen any statistics on this anywhere.
To my mind a handgun is useful only for killing another human being at close range they have no place in hunting and neither does a machine gun. But they are readily available for anyone to walk into a gunshop and buy.
A handgun is made for killing another person at close range; there is no argument there. While there is a niche market for handgun hunters, it is not the ideal weapon for hunting, so we can ignore it for the sake of argument here. A machine gun also has no place in hunting, and is actually illegal to use for hunting in all states. I would like to point out, though, that you cannot walk into a store and buy a machinegun here--though you probably didn't intend that through your post, I don't want anyone to get that impression. Handguns have much more stringent requirements than long guns in general, but it is true that many shops sell them here.
The UK has a very violent past but we don't have the same current violent gun culture the US has, which is not based on hunting in my view.
It is true; we have cultural differences. I hope that I didn't imply that the US's violent culture is based on hunting, as it isn't. The wish for gun ownership is based (at least partially) on hunting. The violent culture here is from a montage of different things too numerous to list here, probably little to none of which has to do with hunting.
My father in law recently went to the USA to visit some American friends and he was amazed to see his friend taking a handgun out with him to go for a dayout. How bad is it in America that carrying a gun seems a good idea?
This is ridiculous. If you live in an area where you need to carry a handgun to feel safe, you need to move. I have never had to carry a gun with me 'for a day out'. Your father's friend is paranoid. That is NOT commonplace here in the US. The media hypes everything up and would make you believe that it is commonplace, but it isn't. This isn't the wild west. The only places I've ever carried guns are out in the sticks (rural areas) where we were hunting or on one or two occasions when we were going into an area with a lot of poisonous snakes.
There is a mindset in America that problems can be solved with a gun. If you can not change that or limit the availability of handguns that these incident will continue.
This view is exaggerated by the media. While the media pervades our lives here and fewer and fewer people can think for themselves (thus this is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy), it is incorrect to assume that the general mindset in the US is that problems can be solved with a gun. You then assert that this mindset needs to change, even though it may not exist anywhere besides Hollywood, the media and a few nuts out there.
School shootings with handguns may decrease if the availability of handguns decreases, but other things may take their place, like bombings. In the US, only about 13% of the murders are comitted with knives (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm#weapons), but in the UK, about 30% are comitted with knives, most likely because guns are illegal (http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-ban-offensive-weapons-0307?view=Binary) Interestingly, gun crime in general has been going down over the past 10 years or so in the US (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm#weapons). So, say what you want, but statistics can prove just about anything.
Is it a case where if school shootings are becoming relative commonplace, how much misery has to be suffered to break the mental barriers you mention?
I wouldn't say that school shootings are commonplace. They are certainly recieving more media attention now, and they may be becoming more common, but they are not commonplace. This society would be in anarchy if that were true. School shootings are still very rare, even here in the US, where the occurrance rate is higher than in other countries. I don't know how much misery has to be suffered to break the barriers; at the same time, I also don't know what price we're willing to pay as a society for the freedom to own a firearm. Constant Thinker is correct when he says that people here can be rabid about not letting the government tell us what we can or can't do, which includes owning firearms. If we as a society are willing to shoulder the burden of the tragedies our freedoms afford us, then I would argue that it is our society's right to keep them.
I don't mean to slam England, but I consider it too much of a police state to live there. The fact that swords and other 'combat' knives are illegal (see above report) seems odd to me. Humans are always going to find a way to kill each other, and we're silly to think that we can outlaw the means to do so. The fact that London and other major cities take pictures of cars' license plates, feed the data into a computer system and track the movements of automobiles to 'detect terrorist activity' is ludicrous (http://www.video-surveillance-guide.com/video-surveillance-revolution.htm) (my opinion on the subject is well reflected by the author here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/10/automatic_licen.html). The fact that the common citizen can't carry anything for their own personal defense or even legally fight back is difficult for me to swallow. I believe that is a cultural difference, too. I, like many of my fellow Americans, do not wish to relinquish my personal power to the police and the government. The UK police have greater power than the US police, and though they don't daily carry guns, they certainly have the capability (just look at the murder of the Brazilian man in the subway after the July bombings). I want to live under a government that fears the citizen, not the other way around. I would warrant that Limpet Chicken would have an earful to say on that subject. ;)
-
I don't mean to slam England, but I consider it too much of a police state to live there. The fact that swords and other 'combat' knives are illegal (see above report) seems odd to me.
How does it differ from the lab glass being prohibited in Texas?
The fact that London and other major cities take pictures of cars' license plates, feed the data into a computer system and track the movements of automobiles to 'detect terrorist activity' is ludicrous
How does it differ from the idea of anti-terrorist phone tapping proposed by Bush administration?
What I am aiming at is that every country tries to defend itself and it always means stealing some of its citizens freedom. Sometimes effects are just plain stupid. Still, Joe Average from US when moved to UK will be not arrested, as Joe Average rarely have a firearm or combat knife with him. At least I have not yet meet anyone that could be considered normal and will carry such things with him ;)
-
I don't mean to slam England, but I consider it too much of a police state to live there. The fact that swords and other 'combat' knives are illegal (see above report) seems odd to me.
Really it seems perfectly normal to me. Apart from hurting another person what good are they?
-
1. It does not differ from owning lab glass in Texas, and the fact that lab glass is prohibited in Texas is a major violation of our rights.
2. It does not differ from the anti-terrorist phone tapping proposed by the Bush administration, and I vehemently oppose their unconstitutional and illegal warrantless wiretaps, as do most Americans with half a brain. (Yeah, I know, you can argue that most of us don't have half a brain...)
Every country does have its own brand of freedom and its limitations; guns don't make a country safer--I never claimed they did, as a matter of fact. They may make the place more dangerous in point of fact. However, that is something that we, as a country, are free to choose if we so want.
But that's exactly my point - could be I was not expressing it clearly, perhaps because of - believe it or not - lanugage limitations. Could be irony was lost... Sorry if my message was not clear and/or abusive.
I just wanted to show constant thinker that his generalization (about freedom) is faulty. In US - just like in any other country - you are free as long as you don't try to cross border line set as a limit to your freedom.
EOT.
-
It is obvious we all agree to a common standard - the freedom of an individual has to be balanced with public security. Different countries have different approach and prioritise security and freedom differently. There is no global unified standard and there will never be one. This is what makes this issue so complex.
Does this topic has to do with people being over-zealous with their freedom in America or the possiibility that there might be a greater proportion of youth lacking the sense of responsibility, yet having access to firearms?
Freedom is not the reason or cause for anything detrimental to happen. Irresponsibility is.
-
With all due respect, Borek, we don't live in anarchy. What constant thinker was most likely expressing was that here in the US we enjoy more freedoms than many other places in the world. In ANY society that's not total anarchy, there will always be limits, but we are less limited here than in many or perhaps most other countries in the world as to what we can buy, where we can live, where we can work, what religion we practice, what we say, and what kind of busines we run, and not just related to firearms. There are many other countries in the world where one has the same freedoms in part, and some in which they have all. Looking at places like China, though, one is not free to do hardly any of these things. Looking at places that are much less restrictive, like perhaps Poland or Germany, they are much closer to what the US is like in terms of freedom, but even there you may not be allowed to pursue certain interests such as fireworks or hunting with the relative ease of the US. That is what I would wager he was getting at, and in that respect, it is not faulty at all.
I agree with geodome that irresponsibility is the cause of bad things that happen. I would disagree with his sentiment, though, that others' freedom cannot compromise the security of others--I would say it backward: others' security cannot compromise the freedom of others. I think this is where a major difference in the US culture lies--we value our freedom above our security. Comparing things, if you look at the US, there's more crime than the UK, and a lot more crime than Singapore. However, if you look at the relative power of the police force, Singapore is a police state, the UK is less, and the US is less than that (though our government is trying hard to catch up). I'm not saying that a police state is bad, but it is a difference in philosophy of how one wants to live; I doubt geodome would be happy with the police force here, as I doubtlessly would be happy with the police force in Singapore.
Geodome also has a good point, though, which is that we've gotten off topic. The whole topic was originally devoted to Mitch's request for comments on limitations on firearm ownership. There definitely is a generational gap in firearm owner responsibility. The older generations had a different approach to guns, and those people still in rural areas have a very different approach to guns--they treat them as tools and not as weapons. That's a big value difference.
-
As the moderator for the "Politics, Philosophy, Oddities" board, I have moved most of the off-topic posts to a new thread called "Balancing Individual Freedom & Public Security (http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17390.0)". Freedom is not the reason or cause for anything detrimental to happen. Irresponsibility is.
Please focus on the abuse of firearms here. Please be less confrontational too.
-
Why I support private firearm ownership:
The common conception seems to be that Americans will not give up their right to bear arms simply because it is written in the Constitution, handed down from our forefathers, and therefore has some sacred importance to us; that is an ignorant oversimplification which demeans the importance of the entire Bill of Rights and insults the American people. Americans believe in equality of opportunity, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of action. These beliefs are embodied in the Constitution, a “living” changing document that, through adaptation (26 amendments and counting), continues to serve us well. We believe in what my fellow Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, described as “inalienable rights”. For any living organism, I would argue that self-defense is a “Natural” or “Inalienable” Right and that my right to bear arms is a direct consequence.
The essential supposition underlying the second amendment, is that human beings, being inherently good and trustworthy with the stewardship of their future, deserve the opportunity to defend themselves with the best means they can afford. One can safely assume that those criminals who are willing to murder for their own good are also willing to violate firearms regulations and WILL be armed regardless of the law. The right to bear arms was intended to create a level playing field for the many who obey the law, to counter the few who defy it. The adage “Live by the gun, Die by the gun” has been condescendingly quoted by some, but this saying perfectly underscores the idea that by assuming the power of firearm ownership one must also accept the responsibility that entails. Our Founding Fathers wisely wanted that power distributed to the people because they conceived of America as a Democracy in every sense of the term, a sharing of decision-making and power.
The opposite of democracy is totalitarianism, founded on the basis that human beings are inherently evil and that their words and actions (and thoughts if possible) need to be strictly controlled by the government. It should be of no surprise that one of the strongest early proponents of gun control was Adolf Hitler, who manipulated the draconian gun control laws passed by the Nazi’s in 1938 to systematically disarm Jewish firearm owners in the aftermath of Kristallnacht. I believe that placing so much trust and power in the hands of a few self-aggrandizing politicians is an inherently dangerous proposition. However destructive random violent crime might be, the systematic killing of citizens by authoritarian governments is a far more terrifying possibility. Nazi Germany did achieve very low crime rates after all (except for the murder of those 6 million Jews). I believe the underpinnings of totalitarianism are a deranged lunacy; you must have faith in humanity in order to believe in the future of the human race. There is no sense in believing that a politician or an officer of the law is any better, or has any greater rights or sensibility, than the common man.
Crime in America is undeniable. There is great pressure in our society to succeed physically and monetarily and those who can not do so through legal means occasionally resort to violence – but not often. Out of 300 million Americans with an equal number of guns and an estimated 40 million gun owners, yearly firearms deaths average 30 thousand per year. What I find far more significant is that more than half of those are suicides. Americans are statistically more likely to take their own life than kill another human being, that should tell you something about the desperation of those who do kill. The unspoken truth of firearms victimization is that most of those victims are poor and uneducated people who were not born with the opportunity to achieve conventional success. The answer to this situation parroted around political circles is “gun control”. You know you are in dire straits when you have to blame an inanimate object for your problems! Guns are simply the messenger of our problems and these problems persist because people are unwilling to accept responsibility and fix them.
Here are some simple truths that you must come to terms with, like it or not:
1) YOU are responsible for your own security. If you do not have the means to defend yourself you are shirking your responsibility – this is Nature’s law. Men, parenthetically, do not write laws, we make rules. Gravity is a law, the First Law of Thermodynamics is a law, gun control statutes are rules because they can be broken and will be broken if it suits the breaker.
2) Unless you have a magic wand that can transport all firearms into outer space and stop any new ones from being made you may as well give up on gun control.
3) The police are NOT responsible for your safety, you can’t sue them if they don’t protect you, you’re on your own!
Even if I could have a cop walking by my side every minute I wouldn’t want it – I value my freedom above my life. I will not submit to living in a gilded cage.
You may choose not to believe these truths. You may prefer to abandon your rights and your responsibilities and rely on other people to take care of you instead of preparing to take care of others. However, may I humbly ask that you do so somewhere else? I have visited many fine countries in Europe with friendly people who have long since abandoned the way of the gun.
Leave this one place where Brave men may still be Free.
My life is a small fleeting gift of fate, it is inconsequential compared to the enduring gift of Freedom and Democracy that we have bequeathed to our children and to the world. My greatest hope as an American is that the latter shall far outlive the former. This nation was born in a struggle against tyranny, whether foreign or domestic, tyranny, the dominion of the many by the few, is a relentless adversary. But we have prospered from our conviction in our beliefs and we will prevail because they are right and good.
- Philip William Leonard
-
Wow.
-
3 good points have been raised through out this thread. They are:
There definitely is a generational gap in firearm owner responsibility. The older generations had a different approach to guns, and those people still in rural areas have a very different approach to guns--they treat them as tools and not as weapons. That's a big value difference.
Freedom is not the reason or cause for anything detrimental to happen. Irresponsibility is.
The unspoken truth of firearms victimization is that most of those victims are poor and uneducated people who were not born with the opportunity to achieve conventional success. The answer to this situation parroted around political circles is ?gun control?. You know you are in dire straits when you have to blame an inanimate object for your problems! Guns are simply the messenger of our problems and these problems persist because people are unwilling to accept responsibility and fix them.
I admit it is easy to jump on the bandwagon of banning guns. It seems like the most ideal solution to gun problems. However, a secondary analysis suggests that banning access to firearms is not the solution. The solution lies in reducing the need for illegitimate access to firearms and encouraging a culture in responsible use of firearms.
-
I agree with you, Geodome. I think that the real key to the firearms problem is education. I grew up in Missouri, and in 6th grade, Missouri has a hunter's education/firearms safety class that is MANDATORY for all students at public schools. Not only does Missouri have the highest rate of new hunters in the land, we have a low overall firearm incident rate (I can't find the website at the moment, but I shall look). That seems to speak volumes about the value of education.
-
Here are some simple truths that you must come to terms with, like it or not:
1) YOU are responsible for your own security. If you do not have the means to defend yourself you are shirking your responsibility – this is Nature’s law. Men, parenthetically, do not write laws, we make rules. Gravity is a law, the First Law of Thermodynamics is a law, gun control statutes are rules because they can be broken and will be broken if it suits the breaker.
2) Unless you have a magic wand that can transport all firearms into outer space and stop any new ones from being made you may as well give up on gun control.
3) The police are NOT responsible for your safety, you can’t sue them if they don’t protect you, you’re on your own!
You may choose not to believe these truths.
I certainly do not.
1. I am responsible for my own security...if my only means of defending myself is the gun, then I am not secure.
2. You may not completely control guns (probably impossible in the case of the US), but if you restrict the accepted normality of the personal gun, you can restrict the commonplace of the gun which restricts easier access...which helps prevent at least one or two of these massacres that keep propping their ugly head. Decrease its frequency of occurrence. Isn't that worth the effort?
3. What exactly are the police responsible for except that of public and therefore your safety?
Leave this one place where Brave men may still be Free.
You don't seriously believe that the advocation/adoption of personal gun use sets the US (as opposed to the countries in Europe that you visited who have abandoned the gun) out as the one place where brave men are free? Seriously? Please tell me I've read that wrong.
-
1. I am responsible for my own security...if my only means of defending myself is the gun, then I am not secure.
Even in the United States where firearms are not banned, firearms aren't the only means of defense.
2. You may not completely control guns (probably impossible in the case of the US), but if you restrict the accepted normality of the personal gun, you can restrict the commonplace of the gun which restricts easier access...which helps prevent at least one or two of these massacres that keep propping their ugly head. Decrease its frequency of occurrence. Isn't that worth the effort?
I don't exactly see how prohibiting law-abiding citizens from owning firearms would prevent criminals from obtaining firearms illegally.
3. What exactly are the police responsible for except that of public and therefore your safety?
Are you suggesting that an individual is not responsible for his own safety as long as the responsibility of his safety lies in the jurisidication of the police? The police is not the undersigned in the insurance contract of an individual.
You don't seriously believe that the advocation/adoption of personal gun use sets the US (as opposed to the countries in Europe that you visited who have abandoned the gun) out as the one place where brave men are free? Seriously? Please tell me I've read that wrong.
Entropy did not suggest that firearms represent freedom. Freedom is not characterised by adoption of personal firearms. It is characterised by the variation of activities permitted under the rule of law. Does the consumption of "soft" drugs in Netherlands make it a less free country than the USA where citizens own personal firearms? No.
The unspoken truth of firearms victimization is that most of those victims are poor and uneducated people who were not born with the opportunity to achieve conventional success. The answer to this situation parroted around political circles is ?gun control?. You know you are in dire straits when you have to blame an inanimate object for your problems! Guns are simply the messenger of our problems and these problems persist because people are unwilling to accept responsibility and fix them.
dfx: Do you not see that firearms abuse is the siren call for underlying social and economic issues?
-
It's not that the gun is the only means of defending myself, but if it is such that I have to resort to using a gun, then I am simply not secure - it's a mindset that a gun = security.
How many crimes are carried out by "people you wouldn't think" or "those who live amongst us"? You can't stop criminals from getting guns anywhere in the world, but you can help stop psychopaths with no or little indicative criminal history from a murderous rage. Stop the "he got his weapon from his dad" type killings because his law abiding dad wouldn't have had the ability to have the gun in the first place. It's often harder to kill without a gun. Would the VT perpetraitor be able to kill 32 people without using a gun?
Are you suggesting that an individual is not responsible for his own safety as long as the responsibility of his safety lies in the jurisidication of the police? The police is not the undersigned in the insurance contract of an individual.
Freedom is not characterised by adoption of personal firearms. It is characterised by the variation of activities permitted under the rule of law. Does the consumption of "soft" drugs in Netherlands make it a less free country than the USA where citizens own personal firearms? No.
dfx: Do you not see that firearms abuse is the siren call for underlying social and economic issues?
What I'm saying is that the police are responsible for public safety and therefore anything they do within the law from preventing dangerous driving to ensuring as few people as possible get killed is not a restriction of freedom or 'living in a cage', as Entropy puts it.
Freedom is not characterised by adoption of personal firearms. It is characterised by the variation of activities permitted under the rule of law. Does the consumption of "soft" drugs in Netherlands make it a less free country than the USA where citizens own personal firearms? No.
I agree it is no less a free country in such circumstances. Which is why I'm puzzled by "Let this one place be where brave men are still free". That reads to me that the US is that one place which is more free.
It is a siren call for underlying problems, but with the 'ease of justice'/abuse of the gun, none of these problems are going to be solved when the gun reigns over them.
-
It's not that the gun is the only means of defending myself, but if it is such that I have to resort to using a gun, then I am simply not secure - it's a mindset that a gun = security.
To go back to statistics again the crime stats for England and Wales show there are about 800 murders per year
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp
in a population of ~53.5million
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6
while those for the USA are ~6.1 per 100000 population
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm
So in England and Wales there are ~1.5 homicides per 100000 population or ~25% the rate in the USA.
All those guns in the USA make you less safe not more so.
-
It's not that the gun is the only means of defending myself, but if it is such that I have to resort to using a gun, then I am simply not secure - it's a mindset that a gun = security.
This is where education comes in and play an important role in evolving that mindset.
I grew up in Missouri, and in 6th grade, Missouri has a hunter's education/firearms safety class that is MANDATORY for all students at public schools. Not only does Missouri have the highest rate of new hunters in the land, we have a low overall firearm incident rate.
This is reflected hmx9123's post too.
I agree it is no less a free country in such circumstances. Which is why I'm puzzled by "Let this one place be where brave men are still free". That reads to me that the US is that one place which is more free.
My only problem with that statement is that it suggests that brave people deserves more freedom than others. Not everyone in American exercise the right to own firearms. Are these Americans less deserving of their freedom?
So in England and Wales there are ~1.5 homicides per 100000 population or ~25% the rate in the USA.
All those guns in the USA make you less safe not more so.
What proportion of American homicides is gun-related?
What proportion of British homicides is gun-related?
-
What proportion of American homicides is gun-related?
What proportion of British homicides is gun-related?
Working the maths back from the stats I've posted previously and assuming as hmx9123 says the about half the gun deaths in the USA stats are suicides i get
UK ~10% of homicides are gun related (81 in 800)
USA ~82% of homicides are gun related (15100 in 18300)
-
Working the maths back from the stats I've posted previously and assuming as hmx9123 says the about half the gun deaths in the USA stats are suicides i get
I think your math is wrong. Bureau of Justice Statistics is not about 'gun death' but about 'homicide' - thus IMHO it is doubtfull it includes suicides.
-
in 2005 Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states.
but in 2007 he bought 2 guns and killed 32 people.
Part of the problem seem to be the gaps in the system between state and fedral laws/reporting.
See the attached PDF on discrepancy between State and Federal Law.
By right, mentally unsound individuals should not be able to acquire firearms.
-
Working the maths back from the stats I've posted previously and assuming as hmx9123 says the about half the gun deaths in the USA stats are suicides i get
I think your math is wrong. Bureau of Justice Statistics is not about 'gun death' but about 'homicide' - thus IMHO it is doubtfull it includes suicides.
I took the gun death numbers from 2002 of 30242 and took half of that figure as gun homicides and divided it by the 18300 homicides total from the BJS number of 6.1 homicides per 100000 head of population in a contry of ~300 million. So i think my maths is close enough.
-
I gotta check on this, but I believe that homicides include suicides on the BJS website, so you're off by about half. In either case, there are two obvious conclusions:
1. The US has more murders
2. A larger percentage of the murders in the US are by firearm
(All compared to the UK)
Now, this doesn't mean that the fact that we have more guns creates these homicides, as is implied. It also doesn't mean it's not. It's impossible to prove one way or the other. We live in a more violent country than the UK. Entropy has one thing right for sure: murders (regardless of whether by gun or not) are the affect of a poor and uneducated class that doesn't have the means to achieve conventional success.
I will look into the suicide thing on the stats. I would ask DrCMS to figure out how many firearms are owned in the UK, since he's better at finding UK statistics, and I shall look into the US number. This will give us a relative % of gun ownership in each country to compare to the % of murders related to firearms. I'm curious, because, as I have listed in my previous posts, the UK has a higher % of knife killings than the US. I guess the question is, if people are willing to kill each other, does having a firearm available increase the likelihood that they will kill someone else, and if so, by how much? That is the part that is difficult to prove, if at all possible, as we won't know unless we could turn back time and look at each path that could be taken by an individual.
Oh, and BTW, there's some other firearm-related statistics here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm
-
Here we go:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm
It says that 30,622 suicides occurred in 2001. In 2003, 55% of them were comitted with firearms. If we assume that the % is about the same year to year, especially with only a 2 year gap, that leaves us with 16,842 suicides in 2001.
Then: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm
Gives for 2001:
5.6 murders per 100,000 pop, and 16,039 homicides total. This obviously doens't include the suicides.
Looking here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
For 2001, we get 7,900 handgun killings, 2,239 other firearm killings, and a total of 16,037 including all weapons, which is in excellent agreement with the 16,039 figure above. Averaging them, we get 16,038 homicides. Adding both firearms stats together, we get 10,138 firearms-related homicides, or 63%. Adding in suicides, we have a total of 46,700 deaths in the US. Adding the number of firearm-related suicides here to the firearm homicides, we come up with a total of 26,980 firearms-related deaths per year, which is ~ 58% of the deaths in the US every year.
Thus, there is definitely a higher % of firearms-related murders in the US every year, but that was known from the get-go. I guess the supposition that I make is that if you were to get rid of all the guns, do you really think that all of those 26980 deaths would go away every year? I doubt it. There may be some % that would not be comitted were there not an available firearm, but I bet a lot of it would just shift over to different weapons. As I said before, about 13% of homicides in the US are comitted by knives; in the UK it's around 30%. If we got rid of guns, we may just see our percentages change around, but it's impossible to know unless we do, and therefore no one can really claim that they know what happens when it does.
-
I guess the supposition that I make is that if you were to get rid of all the guns, do you really think that all of those 26980 deaths would go away every year?
Obviously not. But I don't think anybody stated that.
There may be some % that would not be comitted were there not an available firearm, but I bet a lot of it would just shift over to different weapons.
Yep. But I prefer to stand barehanded against someone with knife - and not because I am Chuck Norris ;) Large part of these lifes will be saved, just because knife is not that efficient tool as a gun is when it comes to killing.
-
Yep. But I prefer to stand barehanded against someone with knife - and not because I am Chuck Norris Wink Large part of these lifes will be saved, just because knife is not that efficient tool as a gun is when it comes to killing.
Wrong. A knife is just as efficient, it however requires you to first develop a skill. Guns are easy.
One of the biggest problems with hand guns, and I would love to see a real statistic on this, is “accidental” deaths (I use the word accidental lightly). That is, I suspect that a very VERY large portion of people killed with hand-guns are not the intended victim. It is in fact fairly trivial to avoid being shot (at least at first) with a handgun at close range. You simply push the gun one way, and move your body the other. This leads to “wrestling”, and the gun goes off, and shoots other people. I personally know of 3 cases this year alone of this from the local news about local bouncers or security officers from a bank disarming the bad guy and succeed without getting hurt, but some innocent bystander gets shot (and I rarely read the local newspaper too).
As for statistics about crime, these two websites comparing UK and US.
The UK one, which has a nice interface and well done:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/Default.asp?region=0&force=0&cdrp=0&l1=7&l2=0&l3=0&sub=0&v=36
And this one, which is not from a government site, but says they quote government statistics (but broken down by state):
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
Now, some things to point out. Let’s look at violence.
Notice that the US is per state, and notice the huge variance in the numbers. And in fact, there are many US states that when you compare the per capita to the UK, it makes the UK look like a horribly violent disaster zone.
For instance, Lets take the US’s Vermont in 2005, and compare it with the UK in 2005-2006.
US Vermont: Violent Crimes; 1.197 + 0.739 (aggravated assault) +.0026 (murder) per 1000
UK + Whales: Violent Crimes; Average 4.95 per 1000, 2.5 X higher then Vermont’s.
And these numbers show the same trend for Vermont in other crimes, such as sexual offences, burglary, vehicle theft, fraud, etc.
Now, let’s also look at Vermont’s gun laws, the state that makes the UK look like a horrible miserable violent place.
Vermont has no law against the number of hand-guns allowed to be purchased per month.
Vermont has no law against assault weapons (such as the well know AK-47) or the amount of ammunition you can stockpile.
Vermont has no law that handguns must be ballistic fingerprinted prior to sale.
Police permit to carry a loaded and concealed gun in public, not required.
Child Access Prevention: Gun owners, in Vermont are not legally held responsible for leaving guns accessible to children.
Child safety locks are not required in Vermont.
At gun shows, in Vermont background checks are not required.
License to purchase a hand gun? Not in Vermont. Safety training before owning a handgun? Not in Vermont.
Local cities over ride state gun laws? Not in Vermont.
Police maintain gun sales records? Not in Vermont.
Guns required to be registered with law enforcement? Not in Vermont.
Are background checks required for sale of guns from private individual to private individual? Not in Vermont.
Waiting period for guns in Vermont? Nope.
All these lacks in laws, and Vermont makes the UK look like a horrible, violent crime ridden miserable place to live.
Now, if we compare California’s gun laws, where California makes the UK look like a paradise to live when compared to crime statistics.
California:
Limit on the number of hand-guns allowed to be purchased per month, Yes.
California has laws against assault weapons and excess ammunition.
California does not do ballistics finger printing (neither did Vermont).
California requires a police permit to carry a loaded and concealed handgun in public, unlike Vermont.
Gun owners in California are legally held responsible for leaving access to guns to children.
Child safety locks are required with the purchase of all hand-guns in California.
There are gun show checks in California.
California requires a license/permit to purchase a handgun.
Local cities can override state gun laws.
Police are allowed to maintain gun sales records.
California requires registration of assault weapons, not handguns (Vermont did not require it for anything).
People in California are required to take a safety training course before buying hand-guns.
Background sales on private individual to private individual sales, Yes.
Waiting period on Guns sold in California, yes.
Now, notice these two strikingly different approaches to gun laws (one has gun laws, the other essentially does not). One makes the UK look like a crime infested place, the other makes it look like a paradise.
Now, slow down before you go making any conclusions on guns and crimes (since these crime statistics are for more then guns, and again Vermont in virtually all of them making the UK look horrible). Now, go pair the education level of Vermont and California, go compare the Wealth level of Vermont and California. Go compare the education and wealth level of Vermont and California to the UK.
What is the whole point of this long post that hopefully you read it all before you respond? It is not a post for or against gun control; I believe it is important to keep my opinion separate from this post.
It is simply to point out, that in America there are amazingly striking differences in, gun control, wealth, education, and amazingly different crime statistics.
The issue is clearly more complicated the just gun-control. You are naive to think outlawing/not outlawing will solve the problem/is the problem.
And in defense of the US, take even California, if you then break those statistics down by regions in California, you will find regional difference as great in contrast as Vermont to California.
-
Yep. But I prefer to stand barehanded against someone with knife - and not because I am Chuck Norris Wink Large part of these lifes will be saved, just because knife is not that efficient tool as a gun is when it comes to killing.
Wrong. A knife is just as efficient, it however requires you to first develop a skill. Guns are easy.
You can outrun someone with knife - you can't outrun the bullet. It is much easier to pull the trigger then to strike with a knife - that's psychology, guns are distant weapons, knives are close combat. And there is the skill thing that you have already mentioned. I am not telling that knfie is not an efficient killing tool for someone trained - but most killers are not trained. I stand by what I said - many lifes will be saved if the attacker has knife and not gun.
It is in fact fairly trivial to avoid being shot (at least at first) with a handgun at close range. You simply push the gun one way, and move your body the other.
You need to be very close for that. You can easily kill with gun from much longer distance - you can't do that with knife (unless you are good at throwing, but then again that's trained/not trained opposition).
The issue is clearly more complicated the just gun-control. You are naive to think outlawing/not outlawing will solve the problem/is the problem.
I don't think anyone ever wrote gun-control will solve everything, you are naive thinking we are that naive ;) It is obvious that it is part of the grater picture. Still, gun availability doesn't help - it just adds to the wrong side of the equation.
-
You can outrun someone with knife - you can't outrun the bullet. It is much easier to pull the trigger then to strike with a knife - that's psychology, guns are distant weapons, knives are close combat. And there is the skill thing that you have already mentioned. I am not telling that knfie is not an efficient killing tool for someone trained - but most killers are not trained. I stand by what I said - many lifes will be saved if the attacker has knife and not gun.
Well, you can not always outrun somebody with a knife, they could be faster! :)
And yes, it is clearly easier to kill somebody with a gun, as I said. And the circumstances for a gun to be less deadly then a knife are extreme. But you specifically said "But I prefer to stand barehanded against someone with knife". Given the same circumstance, and no innoncent by-standards around, I would chose to stand mano-eh-mano with a guy with a gun, not a knife. Standing barehanded against someone with a knife implies close hand-to-hand combat range. I know in the situation (from experience unfortunately) that I would much prefer going against a gun, because it has a VERY limited deadly range, where as a knife is deadly anywhere, in any direction. Again, very specific circumstances though.
I would prefer, of course, to not have to go against anybody with any weapon!
I don't think anyone ever wrote gun-control will solve everything, you are naive thinking we are that naive
I get that there is quite a few implying that guns and gun control are the only issue and how to solve the problem. I think they are a circumstance of the larger problem. That is not saying that addressing the issue is not one way to help the problem, but, with specific regards to after this incident that started the topic, people and the media go crazy for/against gun control and not look much (if at all) at all the other problems.
Also, I think now after looking up all that information for that post I am going to move to Vermont, it sure does seem like a nice place to live!
-
I, too, construed from most of the posted that people were thinking that getting rid of the firearms would solve the problem.
As for the gun vs. knife, the major advantage a firearm has is that it is a ranged weapon. If it came down to me standing to to to with someone using a gun or using a knife, I'd choose the gun, but that implies that: a. I'm not going to be able to run and b. I have no choice but to stand and fight it out. However, that gets reversed at even 10 feet (3m) away. At that distance, the gun becomes more effective because it is ranged, though at distance, it requires skill and training to hit anything, especially a moving target. You know what's even worse than a gun? A bow and arrow. I'd much rather face a guy with a hangun than a guy with a bow and arrow. Partly because if you're using a bow and arrow the chance is that you're trained with it, and partly because if you get hit with an arrow, the wound is much more likely to be fatal. Broadhead hunting arrows leave horrible wound channels--much worse than the crushing of a bullet.
All that being said, this debate is kind of silly since it is a hypothetical situation. It does bring up an interesting point, however, and that is our misconceptions about firearms. Hollywood brings us many misconceptions about firearms:
1. Recoil and reloading don't exist
2. Someone is knocked down when shot
3. If you shoot someone once, they die
4. Handguns are more dangerous than long guns
All of these are bogus. The middle 2 most specifically. The only firearm that I know of that has a chance of knocking you down with one shot would be a shotgun at close range. None of the others will do it. As for the killing in one shot, unless you get hit in the head (which is also the case for many other weapons, like knives, bludgeoning weapons, etc.), you won't die instantly. Matter of fact, you may not die at all. The other big misconception is that a rifle or shotgun is less deadly or dangerous than the handgun. This has taken a little bit of a backseat in recent years with all the sniper movies out there, but besides increased accuracy with a rifle, you've also usually got hydrostatic shock that takes effect after a round travels over 2700 fps. A shotgun, well, you don't even have to take careful aim--you just eyeball it and shoot.
Anyway, that's probably somewhat OT and more than anyone wanted to hear.
-
Hollywood brings us many misconceptions about firearms:
.
3. If you shoot someone once, they die
Unless they are the hero, then they can get shot all they want and not die.
-
The only firearm that I know of that has a chance of knocking you down with one shot would be a shotgun at close range. None of the others will do it.
Not even Python or Anaconda/Magnum combination? IIRC correctly it is at least powerfull enough to knock down the shooter ;)
-
I would ask DrCMS to figure out how many firearms are owned in the UK, since he's better at finding UK statistics, and I shall look into the US number.
I claim no greater expertise at this than anyone else with access to Google but I did find some interesting numbers.
For England and Wales on 31st March 2005 there were 126,400 Firearms Certificates, which allow an individual to keep a rifle or shotgun at home in a gun safe. In 2005/2006 there were 766 homicides in England and Wales, 50 of which were due to guns. The population at the time was ~53million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
For the USA the numbers are obviously harder to get for legal gun ownership but are estimated at ~ 200million guns, with ~16000 gun murders per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States
Per legal gun these equate to
UK ~40 gun murders per 100000 legal guns.
USA ~8 gun murders per 100000 legal guns.
Per head of population
UK ~ 1 gun murder per 1million people
USA ~53 guns murders per 1million people.
I did also see a hole in the gun death figures
Total gun deaths ~30000 per year, suicides with guns 16500 per year, homicides with guns about 10500 per year. So does that leave 3000 accidental deaths per year with guns?
The numbers for knife crimes are not what I expected as there are more knife murders in the USA per head of population than in the UK. As a percentage of all homicides knife murders are more common in the UK than USA but there are more murders per head of population in the USA.
In the UK for 2004/05 – 236 homicides – were committed using a sharp instrument, 28.78 per cent of the total.
http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=108&category=factsheets
for the USA in 2004 there were 2132 knife murders in the USA ~13% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
These work per head of population as:
UK ~4.5 knife murders per million of population
USA ~ 7 knife murders per million of population
In terms of suicides rate we Brits kill ourselves at twice the rate of the USA.
~20 per 100000 population in the UK
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=13618
compared with ~10 per 100000 population in the USA http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm
I guess that means you are less likely to die young in the USA but if you do there's more chance someone else did it?
-
DrCMS--that post had me cracking up at the end with your comment about dying young. Statistics can make some interesting statements.
Borek--while some of the powerful handguns out there may have enough recoil to knock down the shooter (:)), there is a kind of mystique surrounding things like the .44 Magnum that if you shoot someone with it, they'll be knocked down, which simply isn't the case. With a .44 Magnum, you actually have so much velocity behind the round, the bullet will most likely pass through the body without doing much of anything in the way of knocking someone down. Kinda weird. Speaking of knocking down the shooter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0LcizHaLMc
Hope they only loaded one round in that rifle, because he sure didn't have good control of the weapon! This is some oddball sort of high-powered round that I haven't heard of before (a .577 ?). Amusing, though.
And no, this video has NOTHING to do with the shooter's nationalities, it was just funny.
-
I think I recall some opinion that Colt Pacemaker (in a way similar to Python/Anaconda, even if not that powerfull) was liked just because it was powerfull enough to incapacitate opponent, as opposed to small calibre weapons. However it could be anectodal and simply incorrect.
-
Borek, first, let me congratulate you in making medical history by crediting Colt with making the pacemaker. ;) Sorry, I know it's a small typo, but it's funny still!
The wepons you mention, the Peacemaker (Single action army, .45 Long Colt), the Python (Colt .357 Magnum), and the Anaconda (Colt .44 Magnum), are all very famous, either through advertisement, oral tradition or perhaps hollywood. The general consensus among the uninitiated is that these are the 'best' weapons because they're feared and of a large caliber. That's not particularly correct, as some of the very powerful weapons are actually less deadly than their weaker counterparts, for reasons mentioned before.
In reality, the incapacitation of the firearm depends on how much energy can get transferred to the target in one shot. Much of it depends on the type of bullet used, such as hollowpoint vs. full metal jacket ball ammo. The 1873 Peacemaker actually fires a better round for transferring kinetic energy to a target than the python or anaconda, as it moves much slower. Despite this, it's still not a 'one shot' weapon. The only true 'one shot' weapons are artillery or anti-tank weaponry--i.e., something large enough to physically dismember you in one shot. Perhaps that rifle in the video or something like a .50 BMG would put you down in one shot, but these are pretty close to anti-tank weaponry and certainly too ungainly to wield even walking down the road, much less in close combat.
Also, the 1873 Peacemaker is a terrible weapon for 'spree shooting' or in a combat situation because: a. you have to manually cock the hammer each time and b. you have to unload and reload one bullet at a time. This is also one of the least common handguns for crime, for that very reason. When under timed pressure, I was able to reload one in just under 30 seconds. Not particularly fast.
-
Borek, first, let me congratulate you in making medical history by crediting Colt with making the pacemaker. ;) Sorry, I know it's a small typo, but it's funny still!
At your Service and your Family's ;)
I was referring only to the 'kinetic energy transferred' part, not to the 'shooting practicalities'. At least you have indirectly confirmed that Peacemaker is pretty good here :)
Besides, as is often the case - we should probably start with defining what we mean by 'incapacitated'. Dismembered/pulverized will work, but that's most likely classical 'overkill' :)
-
I would think that incapacitated means that the target is so badly wounded that they are unable to continue attacking/chasing you/whatever. It doesn't mean that they are knocked to the ground necessarily. That being said, there are some statistics out there, quoted in a lot of gun books, that talk about the 'one shot stop'. They claim that the Winchester Silvertip (hollowpoint) .357 Magnum round has the greatest 'one shot stop' record. That being said:
a. These statistics are based on a collection of police reports/autopsies of homicides
b. They were done a number of years ago in the US, when the most common duty weapon of police was the .357 Magnum.
They are questionable at best, but for this kind of data, you can hardly go out and do rigorous scientific testing. The old 1873 Peacemaker may indeed be better than the .357 Magnum, but there aren't an abundance of hollowpoints for it, and since it's such an uncommon weapon now, it would be difficult to find statistics on it. The .45 ACP was meant to be the .45 LC in automatic, and it does reproduce the ballistics of the .45 LC pretty well. The .45 ACP is a much more common weapon, but it didn't come in first on the 'one shot stop' list, thereby questioning the efficiency of the 1873. I find that argument very flimsy, though.
There's an interesting, if long, read on criminals and handguns here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txt
This kind of gives an idea of the types of firearms used in crime here in the US and how they've changed over the decades, using Philadelphia as an example.
In Philadelphia, handguns most often used:
In 1985, of 91 homicides
44% .38 caliber revolver
19% .25 caliber pistol
14% .22 caliber revolver
14% .32 caliber revolver
3% 9 mm pistol
2% .357 caliber revolver
In 1990, of 204 homicides
23% 9 mm pistol
18% .38 caliber revolver
16% .357 caliber revolver
16% .22 caliber revolver
10% .32 caliber revolver