I'll start the gun control debate

[alguien]

Criminal punishments? or just civil? I worry about holding parents responsible for the actions of their kids. A sixteen year old is going to do what a sixteen year old wants to do. Barring gross negligence (parent knows the kid is unstable and leaves the gun accessible to the kid), I think holding the parent responsible is a step too far.

I'm honestly not sure. A firearm is a HUGE responsibility, moreso than an automobile or pretty much anything I can think of. Part of assuming that responsibility is being able to guarantee no child or neighbor can waltz in and misuse it. I'm not talking about a parent whose kid went out and stole a gun from somewhere else, but a case where a parent's own firearm was stolen. Nor do I mean they should be held to the same penalty as if they themselves pulled the trigger.

If the excuse is, "kids can always figure out how to break into my safe" or "my kid just always knows where I keep the gun hidden" then sorry, you aren't qualified to own a handgun.

[Tempra]

Of course it fucking matters.

If your going to argue, as you did, that gun control laws are bad because they limit the individuals ability to use said guns in self-defense, then your argument is based on the premise that guns actually help in self-defense.

So you actually need to prove that guns help in self defense.

You have conflated "guns keeping people safer" and "guns being used for self defense." They aren't the same. Obviously the use of weapons escalates the situation. It really shouldn't be shocking that an individual is more likely to be harmed if he possesses and subsequently uses the gun to prevent a break-in.

The fundamental question is whether an individual must rely on the State to protect his family and his home. I don't believe so and I think a gun can be a useful tool. Of course, owning a gun has its risks.

[Shryke]

You have conflated "guns keeping people safer" and "guns being used for self defense." They aren't the same. Obviously the use of weapons escalates the situation. It really shouldn't be shocking that an individual is more likely to be harmed if he possesses and subsequently uses the gun to prevent a break-in.

The fundamental question is whether an individual must rely on the State to protect his family and his home. I don't believe so and I think a gun can be a useful tool. Of course, owning a gun has its risks.

Yes, and you have to prove that a gun can be a useful tool in making you (and your family) safer.

[TrueMetis]

1) bar individuals with criminal records from possessing a gun

2) bar underage / not competent individuals (i.e. mental health problems) from possessing a gun

3) limiting certain types of weapons that are not suited for regular self defense / hunting (i.e. RPG)

4) barring guns from certain areas (schools, hospitals, etc)

5) require strict registration and reporting standards (i.e. must prove that you still possess the gun and haven't sold it illegally)

1 Is already a law and is supported by the NRA.

2 Is a law for underage people but not sure about mentals.

3 agreed.

4 gun free areas already exsist but don't seem to work.

5 agreed.

[Elrostar]

You have conflated "guns keeping people safer" and "guns being used for self defense." They aren't the same. Obviously the use of weapons escalates the situation. It really shouldn't be shocking that an individual is more likely to be harmed if he possesses and subsequently uses the gun to prevent a break-in.

The fundamental question is whether an individual must rely on the State to protect his family and his home. I don't believe so and I think a gun can be a useful tool. Of course, owning a gun has its risks.

This does not make sense. Here's why. If owning a gun is, on balance, a good protective measure, then it should help you, and not hurt you in a potentially bad situation. And statistics ought, at the very least, to support this supposition. So one should certainly find that gun owners are indeed safer in their homes than people without guns. I mean, if they're not, then what is the point?

Saying that having a gun in the situation can lead to escalation is obvious, but if this happens more often than it leading to the attackers backing down, then clearly guns are not an effective self-defense weapon, since they are failing to protect members of the household.

I can find other problems with there being a huge number of guns just lying around in society, but if you cannot even demonstrate to me that having guns in your home works as a successful way of keeping people safer, then I feel like I don't have to make any argument at all. Because their premise is already self-defeating.

Your second point is a totally different kettle of fish, and makes it appear that we shouldn't have any kind of military or police force at all. Since apparently we shouldn't have to rely on the state to provide us with security? Do you just not believe in having a criminal justice system, or a military? Or should it only not be providing us with security in our homes? Is it ok for the state to provide us with security everywhere else?

[Tempra]

Yes, and you have to prove that a gun can be a useful tool in making you (and your family) safer.

No, I don't. I have made no such claim. In fact, I have said statistics show the opposite. I said I am against gun control laws that make a gun useless - or damn near useless - for self-defense purposes.

If an individual does not want the risks of owning a gun, don't buy one. I haven't.

[Shryke]

No, I don't. I have made no such claim. In fact, I have said statistics show the opposite. I said I am against gun control laws that make a gun useless - or damn near useless - for self-defense purposes.

If an individual does not want the risks of owning a gun, don't buy one. I haven't.

Except your argument still hinges on a gun being useful for self-defense in the first place. Otherwise your argument makes no sense.

It's like complaining about car licensing because "car licensing makes a car useless for the purposes of protecting yourself from packs of Zombie Orangutans". This only woks as an argument if you prove that cars are actual useful for the purpose of undead primate defense in the first place.

You have to prove that guns are helpful in self-defense.

[Elrostar]

No, I don't. I have made no such claim. In fact, I have said statistics show the opposite. I said I am against gun control laws that make a gun useless - or damn near useless - for self-defense purposes.

If an individual does not want the risks of owning a gun, don't buy one. I haven't.

So you're claiming that the only reason owning a gun makes you less safe is because of gun control. That's a hell of a claim and one you seriously need to back up if you're going to make it.

[Tempra]

This does not make sense. Here's why. If owning a gun is, on balance, a good protective measure, then it should help you, and not hurt you in a potentially bad situation. And statistics ought, at the very least, to support this supposition. So one should certainly find that gun owners are indeed safer in their homes than people without guns. I mean, if they're not, then what is the point?

Saying that having a gun in the situation can lead to escalation is obvious, but if this happens more often than it leading to the attackers backing down, then clearly guns are not an effective self-defense weapon, since they are failing to protect members of the household.

I can find other problems with there being a huge number of guns just lying around in society, but if you cannot even demonstrate to me that having guns in your home works as a successful way of keeping people safer, then I feel like I don't have to make any argument at all. Because their premise is already self-defeating.

Guns are used quite frequently for defensive purposes. Over two million times a year by Americans. Over 10% of acts of self defense are women defending against sexual assault. Burglars are 3.5x more likely to burglarize a home in a country with stricter gun control than they are in the US. That would be "the point." Yes, gun owners are more likely to be injured by guns than non-gun owners, but that does not necessarily negate the benefits to guns.

Panels D and E nevertheless confirm previous research on the effectiveness of self-defense with a gun--crime victims who use this form of self-protection rarely lose property and rarely provoke the offender into hurting them. In property crime incidents where burglary, robbery, or other thefts were attempted, victims lost property in just 11% of the cases. Gun defenders were injured in just 5.5% of all DGU incidents. Further, in 84% of the incidents where the defender was threatened or attacked, it was the offender who first threatened or used force. In none of the eleven sample cases where gun defenders were injured was the defender the first to use or to threaten force. The victim used a gun to threaten or attack the offender only after the offender had already attacked or threatened them and usually after the offender had inflicted the injury. There is no support in this sample for the hypothesis that armed resistance provokes criminals into attacking victims; this confirms the findings of prior research.[82]

While only 14% of all violent crime victims face offenders armed with guns,[83] 18% of the gun-using victims in our sample faced adversaries with guns.[84] Although the gun defenders usually faced unarmed offenders or offenders with lesser weapons, they were more likely than other victims to face gun-armed criminals. This is consistent with the perception that more desperate circumstances call forth more desperate defensive measures. The findings undercut the view that victims are prone to use guns in "easy" circumstances which are likely to produce favorable outcomes for the victim regardless of their gun use.[85] Instead, gun defenders appear to face more difficult circumstances than other crime victims, not easier ones.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Your second point is a totally different kettle of fish, and makes it appear that we shouldn't have any kind of military or police force at all. Since apparently we shouldn't have to rely on the state to provide us with security? Do you just not believe in having a criminal justice system, or a military? Or should it only not be providing us with security in our homes? Is it ok for the state to provide us with security everywhere else?

The state is not the only means of protection. An individual has some power too. I'm not saying that a person with a gun shouldn't call 911. They absolutely should.

[Tempra]

So you're claiming that the only reason owning a gun makes you less safe is because of gun control. That's a hell of a claim and one you seriously need to back up if you're going to make it.

I have no clue where you got that from. And no, I am not claiming that. Though some people have made that argument. Try More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott. The book is based around a study showing concealed guns reduced certain violent crimes.

[Tempra]

Except your argument still hinges on a gun being useful for self-defense in the first place. Otherwise your argument makes no sense.

It's like complaining about car licensing because "car licensing makes a car useless for the purposes of protecting yourself from packs of Zombie Orangutans". This only woks as an argument if you prove that cars are actual useful for the purpose of undead primate defense in the first place.

You have to prove that guns are helpful in self-defense.

See my response to elrostar. This is really not controversial stuff.

[Shryke]

So your proof is a random book and a site specifically created to oppose Gun control?

:lol:

[Tempra]

So your proof is a random book and a site specifically created to oppose Gun control?

:lol:

The "proof" is an article from a Journal at the Northwestern University School of Law by one of the most respected criminologists in the country. And the "random book" is based on another study. Ball is in your court. What evidence do you base your position on?

ETA: Instead of providing you the text of the article, i'll just give you the citation. I bet that would be more helpful.

*hums the Jeopardy theme*

[turinturambar]

If it isn't true I'd like to know. I've always assumed gun crime was DOWN in those countries, but I have heard this statement that it is higher than the US. So that's something we might address. I'll see what I can find, but you live in Canada--right? Do you have anything you can help dig up? I'd be interested to know.

I mean honestly--if it'll keep kids from getting killed in school, then I think we're being grossly irresponsible as a nation for not doing it sooner.

I guess I'd like to cut through all the BS about it. What is the truth? What can we verify with statistics? Is it bullshit that countries with gun control have worse gun related crime? These are the things we're fed in our country when the topic comes up. The discussion is not honest here. So I'd like to see it honest.

It creates a slippery slope though. If you're all for taking away the rights of the people in the guise of "keeping them safe", then why isn't it ok to spy on people suspected of being terrorists, or other criminals? If there is a bomb about to go off in a major city, is it ok to torture suspected terrorists if the torture is more likely to give us the necessary info to prevent this action? Is it ok to eavesdrop or to profile certain people if it results in lower crime and homicide rates?

I'm sorry, but it's never ok to take away the rights of innocent citizens just because we claim we want to keep them safe. I had parents for 18 years, I don't need anybody else to watch after me. I'll live my life and take my chances.

Anyways, I found this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it was an interesting read.

[Elrostar]

I do not agree with gun locks and other rules that limit the viability of the gun to be used in a self defense situations. What do you do when someone breaks into your house and is threatening your family? Tell him to hold on because your ammunition is in a safe on the other side of the house? Please don't say dial 911 and hope that the cops rescue you.

I'm not saying that a person with a gun shouldn't call 911. They absolutely should.

So they should call 911, but they should then deal with the intruder themselves? I don't understand.

Should we rely on laws at all to keep us safe? How about we go back to a complete state of anarchy wherein everyone is completely responsible for their own safety and we abandon the concept of a social contract altogether?

Aren't states like Somalia the epitome of this, really? There people are free to have any kind of weapon they want. When you arrive at the airport they ask you what caliber your weapon is, after all. So why aren't people really safe there?

And pardon me for being ever so slightly suspicious of that article you're quoting. It seems like it might be a tiny bit biased in its reporting. I mean, perhaps not to the extent of the advertising of the makers of the Backup, but still pretty bad. That article oozes bias in a way that makes it almost painful to read. It's perhaps not quite like reading The Jungle, but it's not far off.

[Adz of CCAA]

This is nagging at me the whole day.

I'm from Germany were we have, compared to the US, quite severe gun control laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_Germany

And I cannot say how glad I am that we have them!

Of course. Things happen here, too. As for example the school shooting at Winnenden this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

But I cannot get rid of the feeling that it would be much worse here if we hadn't gun control!

I have never seen a gun up close, and I hope that I will not in the future.

[Tempra]

It creates a slippery slope though. If you're all for taking away the rights of the people in the guise of "keeping them safe", then why isn't it ok to spy on people suspected of being terrorists, or other criminals? If there is a bomb about to go off in a major city, is it ok to torture suspected terrorists if the torture is more likely to give us the necessary info to prevent this action? Is it ok to eavesdrop or to profile certain people if it results in lower crime and homicide rates?

I'm sorry, but it's never ok to take away the rights of innocent citizens just because we claim we want to keep them safe. I had parents for 18 years, I don't need anybody else to watch after me. I'll live my life and take my chances.

Anyways, I found this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it was an interesting read.

Good article. Thanks

A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Guns are useless....

[turinturambar]

I think the question is probably less important than you're suggesting. Legal firearms have the tendency (or at least the possibility) of becoming illegal firearms. I have no idea what the statics are, but I would guess that a hefty number of illegal firearms in America are either stolen or legitimate guns sold on illegally. I have no doubt that there is a black market in guns, but in a country where so many guns are imported or manufactured legally, I would imagine that few of the guns on that black market are smuggled into the country (it's an unnecessary added risk when there are so many other ways of coming by a weapon).

It is true that (constitutional considerations aside) if certain types of gun were banned in America today then the criminals would not hand in their weapons (I suspect that quite a few people with no criminal intentions would hang on to their weapons as well), but you will also have cut off one of the major sources of illegal guns in America as well.

None of which is the really important point. The question wasn't whether there is a correlation between gun control and violence with legal firearms; the question was whether there is a correlation between gun control and gun violence generally. Actually, if every single firearm related murder on Skyrazer's list was committed with an illegal firearm that would be far more significant than if they were committed with legal gun. It's fairly intuitive that gun control can affect amount of violence committed with legal guns, what it would be really useful to measure is whether gun control can affect the amount of violence caused by illegal guns. A glance at the table suggests that countries with tighter gun controls do have fewer gun related homicides. It's far from definitive (indeed, according to Stubby's article there is some question as to the affect that gun control in Australia had on gun crime), but the problems with drawing a connection like this really have nothing to do with the legality of the weapons in question.

I would say a more important indicator on the worth of gun-control wouldn't be to see if it reduces gun crime, but to see whether it reduces crime in general. You have to look at more than one statistic. Suppose gun crime does go down, especially gun homicide. But then does knife crime and knife homicide go up? Does the overall homicide level go down at a statistically significant level? It does no good to reduce gun crime if other kinds of crime rise. This also includes muggings, break-entering, etc. Perhaps homicide goes down slightly, but B&E and muggings rise significantly. You have to analyze the entire picture.

And, as far as looking at those tables, yes countries with less gun control have more gun crime, but they also seem to have more non-gun crime as well which suggests that violent crime in those countries is higher no matter gun-laws. You can't just say, "look at this country, they have gun-control and they have low gun crime" when their knife crimes and other violent crimes are low as well. IMO that suggests that the country just simply has violent crime in general which is not a result of gun-control.

[ljkeane]

Anyways, I found this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it was an interesting read.

I wouldn't place to much confidence on that article the only real comparison it uses is that of "very serious offenses" which as I understand it the statistics for are compiled in different manners between countries so isn't a reasonable comparison.

A quick search for the rates of firearm related deaths shows that the US has a far higher rate than the UK and I'm certainly happy with the laws as they are in the UK. The last time the laws were changed in the UK was after the Dunblane shootings and I can't remember any similar incidents since then in the UK while there have been a number in the US.

[turinturambar]

This is nagging at me the whole day.

I'm from Germany were we have, compared to the US, quite severe gun control laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_Germany

And I cannot say how glad I am that we have them!

Of course. Things happen here, too. As for example the school shooting at Winnenden this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

But I cannot get rid of the feeling that it would be much worse here if we hadn't gun control!

I have never seen a gun up close, and I hope that I will not in the future.

And what happened shortly after strict gun-laws were put into place?

Hitler of course rampaged your country-side and abducted people from their homes with general ease.