Great Great Great Grandson of Gun Control...

[thecryptile]

While over penetration is a concern, careful ammunition selection minimizes the risk. It is true that most handguns aren't one shot, one kill. However, you do not always need to kill. For most criminals, the sight of a gun will be enough to send them scurrying off in search of easier prey, without a shot being fired.

Handguns have another advantage: one of your hands is free- so you can be on the phone with Law Enforcement while confronting an intruder.

Then there are the issues of most humans being unwilling to actually try to kill another human, being too amped up or scared to shoot straight and the speed at which someone could close the 5-10 feet they would likely be from you.

With shotguns, there is no need to line up sights and aim in the fashion that is used with pistols and rifles. Simply point in the direction of the threat and pull the trigger.

If you are unwilling to kill to save your own life, then you shouldn't rely on a gun (or a hatchet) for home defense.

Given that, it seemed that a kbar or hatchet would actually be a better choice for personal self defense in most homes. It would be more forgiving when you lose your fine motor skills and no risk of killing your family or neighbors by accident.

One problem with the hatchet and knife is that you must be within your assailants striking distance. You risk being disarmed. You risk being killed. If you, with your hatchet, are the last line of defense; that leaves your family vulnerable to whatever criminal mischief your murderer has in mind.

The hatchet and knife are not going to aid a smaller, weaker, person in a physical contest with a larger, stronger person. There is a reason that Col. Colt is remembered as the equalizer. Guns level the playing field. A petite woman with a 20 gauge can hit harder than a 6'7" meth-freak with a knife. I wouldn't want my wife going up against an assailant with a knife, I'm glad she has several guns and knows how to use them.

[fuseprime]

I am a little curious as to the effectiveness of a gun versus other methods of home defense in practical terms. I am not a huge gun person, so excuse me if I make some errors.

Not a problem. As a gun-rights proponent, I find it's my responsibility to educate people about guns to the best of my ability.

Most handguns tend to have relatively little stopping power, and cannot be relied on to drop someone who means to do you harm quickly, or before they get to you, and the ones with the higher stopping power come with the associated risks of shooting through a wall and hitting a neighbor, or your own family members.

Stopping power isn't the be all end all when it comes to defensive use. I personally keep a 9mm (one of the "weaker" handgun calibers) in one of the rooms to my house, in the event I cannot access my shotgun (more on that in a sec). It's always loaded with hollow points which is more effective than a full-metal jacket. HPs also address the issue you have with bullets going through walls as they slow the penetration speed/velocity of the bullet. I like the 9mm because of the low recoil and the high capacity it allows.

If you want a hand gun with stopping power (and there are many people who do), you can get a .45 ACP semi-auto pistol or a .357 revolver. Trust me, you won't be saying they lack stopping power after firing those.

A rifle or shotgun could be rather unwieldy in many homes, and have the same risks of firing through a wall or something.

Then there are the issues of most humans being unwilling to actually try to kill another human, being too amped up or scared to shoot straight and the speed at which someone could close the 5-10 feet they would likely be from you.

Given that, it seemed that a kbar or hatchet would actually be a better choice for personal self defense in most homes. It would be more forgiving when you lose your fine motor skills and no risk of killing your family or neighbors by accident.

A shotgun has the least chance of penetrating through walls and hurting a bystander. Yes, they can blast right through a wall, but after the initial blast, the pellets lose much of its power. Also, this is assuming you are standing a couple of feet away from a wall and you're using some sort of non-defensive use shell. If you are 7-10 feet away, then the chance of a shotgun blast going through a wall is minimal.

There are home-defense shotguns like the Mossberg 590A1 that are extremely easy to use in the home. It is mainly used as hip fired, and with the adrenaline and what-not flowing through a person, this is the best weapon to use in the home. Point and shoot.

But, like I said before, a pistol is also great because it is light-weight and there is low recoil. From 5-10 feet away, all you really need to do is point and shoot as well.

I would use a melee weapon if and only if my access to a firearm is impossible. The chance of me swinging and missing, and thus dying, or me swinging and the intruder countering, and me again dying, is a lot higher than me shooting and missing.

[TheRaggedWildling]

You also need to be extensively trained to even approach basic proficiency with a CQC weapon like a knife or a handaxe. The relative "ease of use" of firearms was one (one of the major ones, actually) of the reasons they eventually supplanted melee weapons and bows/other ranged weapons in war.

It certainly depends on the circumstances, but I'd probably want to get shot than stabbed by someone who knows how to use a knife. You can survive gunshots with proper medical care, but if someone with a knife gets intimate with your innards and wants you dead, well.....

[Sturn]

You want to lower the murder rate? For real? Legalize all drugs. The turf disputes and dope-house robberies will cease, as will retaliation for same; the gangsters will have to get 9 to 5 jobs and no one's rights will be violated.

You're kidding right? Gang bangers are going to suddenly start working at Walmart and McDonalds? You believe they will turn to a 40 hour work week? Or is it more sensible that other crimes will skyrocket as gang bangers supplement their old income with something new, but still criminal?

[Guest Raidne]

Well, that's a good point.

[thecryptile]

You're kidding right? Gang bangers are going to suddenly start working at Walmart and McDonalds? You believe they will turn to a 40 hour work week? Or is it more sensible that other crimes will skyrocket as gang bangers supplement their old income with something new, but still criminal?

Before the rise of crack in the 1980s most gang bangers did abandon the street life as they got older and needed to provide for their families. Gangs were a juvenile phenomena.

[fuseprime]

You're kidding right? Gang bangers are going to suddenly start working at Walmart and McDonalds? You believe they will turn to a 40 hour work week? Or is it more sensible that other crimes will skyrocket as gang bangers supplement their old income with something new, but still criminal?

Well, maybe not at first, but eventually yes. People who get convicted of drug crimes often can't get a decent job because of of their criminal history. There's no opportunity for them later in life because of stupidity committed in their younger years. So, if the door is closed on legitimate opportunities, then where else can you turn to for income? Selling drugs is easy. Sure, criminals can find other things to buy and sell, but eliminating their BIGGEST trade is going to help immensely.

Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs a few years back and the sky didn't fall.

[Guest Raidne]

Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs a few years back and the sky didn't fall.

Indeed, but isn't the operative question whether crime dropped?

[thecryptile]

It seems that the Portuguese experiment has been a success, and crime rates have fallen- as have the number of drug users, and the number of communicable diseases spread through unsafe drug use (sharing needles).

Violent crime didn't "sky-rocket" as drug dealers switched to other crimes. I would expect such dire prognostications from a LEO, without the drug war, they will lose a lot of funding.

The only criminal enterprise I can think of with comparable levels of violence to the Dope Game is prostitution. Even if the criminal class merely switches from slangin' rock to identity theft, there would be a drastic drop in violence.

[Guest Raidne]

I may be a little biased by my marathon rewatching of The Sopranos.

Thank you for the data!

[Galactus]

It seems that the Portuguese experiment has been a success, and crime rates have fallen- as have the number of drug users, and the number of communicable diseases spread through unsafe drug use (sharing needles).

Violent crime didn't "sky-rocket" as drug dealers switched to other crimes. I would expect such dire prognostications from a LEO, without the drug war, they will lose a lot of funding.

The only criminal enterprise I can think of with comparable levels of violence to the Dope Game is prostitution. Even if the criminal class merely switches from slangin' rock to identity theft, there would be a drastic drop in violence.

Racketeering would be the obvious other contender. (also possible stuff like bank robberies, although they're naturally rarer)

[Guest Raidne]

Surely there will always be things people want to do that we don't want to legalize (the movie Hostel comes to mind) and organized crime will always find a home there.

But the policy issue is how many. A lot more people want to do drugs than torture people to death for entertainment.

[Sturn]

Before the rise of crack in the 1980s most gang bangers did abandon the street life as they got older and needed to provide for their families. Gangs were a juvenile phenomena.

Does it matter to victims if the persons committing crime are adults or juveniles?

From my personal experience, gang members still tend to be young. I'm also trying to think of a single young gang banger I knew who turned legit. I can't think of a single one - all dead, still slinging dope or committing other crimes, or incarcerated. Apparently it's not the 80's anymore. Actually there was one dealer I thought went legit. I just found out today he is back to his old ways. Blame it on the economy I guess.

Sure, criminals can find other things to buy and sell, but eliminating their BIGGEST trade is going to help immensely.

When they are selling your car for you, I'm sure you will be happy they aren't selling crack anymore.

Violent crime didn't "sky-rocket" as drug dealers switched to other crimes. I would expect such dire prognostications from a LEO, without the drug war, they will lose a lot of funding.

Yep I would hate to lose the drug stipend attached to my paycheck (sarcasm of course). My objections have nothing to do with a fear of loss of drug seizures which supply better equipment. It's a fear of what sort of crimes will replace drug dealing. Some dealers may become legit and start selling drugs at a greatly reduced price. Most will probably turn to burglary and robbery. Currently drug dealers primarily only harm each other and drug users while the drug users commit the property crimes. Legalization will shift many of the drug dealers to theft right along side their previous customers. I completely believe legalization will lead to a huge upswing in property crimes. I'm not going to attempt to list the differences between the social, legal, and criminal systems of the US and Portugal.

[Phaing]

Surely there will always be things people want to do that we don't want to legalize (the movie Hostel comes to mind) and organized crime will always find a home there.

But the policy issue is how many. A lot more people want to do drugs than torture people to death for entertainment.

Huh, makes me wonder if the "slippery slope" line is really such a bad logic path, here's why;

There are always people who are looking to push the boundary, go to the weirder kink, the higher high, whatever it takes to top the next guy.

So, if we make everything legal except crack, will people stampede to crack?

No, but the people who think if themselves as the cutting edge when it comes to this sort of thing will. So, if the only illegal thing is a guaranteed death, they will they Darwin themselves out?

One can only hope so.

As far as the whole 'Hostel' thing goes, that is a symptom of societal rot. I have always thought that treating the disease, rather than the symptom, would be the right way to go.

One way to go might be to have some way of making sure that the richest and most powerful people in the world are also not the sickest of them all.

[fuseprime]

When they are selling your car for you, I'm sure you will be happy they aren't selling crack anymore.

Yep I would hate to lose the drug stipend attached to my paycheck (sarcasm of course). My objections have nothing to do with a fear of loss of drug seizures which supply better equipment. It's a fear of what sort of crimes will replace drug dealing. Some dealers may become legit and start selling drugs at a greatly reduced price. Most will probably turn to burglary and robbery. Currently drug dealers primarily only harm each other and drug users while the drug users commit the property crimes. Legalization will shift many of the drug dealers to theft right along side their previous customers. I completely believe legalization will lead to a huge upswing in property crimes. I'm not going to attempt to list the differences between the social, legal, and criminal systems of the US and Portugal.

I agree with you that the US and Portugal (or any country for that matter) do not have a similar legal or social system. I also agree (to an extent) that if you legalize drugs, that something else would fill its void. Just to be clear here, I am not advocating legalizing drugs (or marijuana for those of you who insist it's not a "drug"). I've never had an interest in doing any of that stuff and I most likely never will. What I am open to is decriminalization. Let's face it, the War on Drugs is a complete and utter failure. Again, if an 18 year old high schooler has an ounce of weed for personal use, he can and will be charged as a felon with intent to distribute. That will affect him for the REST of his life. No more voting. Can't own a gun. Good luck getting into college. Have fun on welfare. All because of some stupid act you committed while in High School.

If you decriminalize the drug trade, that does not mean that people will look for another source of "fast income". Gangs in the last 100 years have been primarily centered around drugs (and alcohol). If something is illegal, there will ALWAYS be a lucrative market for it. Yes, crime will shift in other areas, but I firmly believe that things like murder, gangs, and other violent crimes will drastically decrease if you decriminalize drugs. The high-schooler who otherwise would have been a felon, now has opportunities that he would not have had, had the current War on Drugs policy been implemented. You're only perpetuating the cycle of deviance if you keep throwing the book at drug users.

ETA: Sorry for getting off topic, but I really do believe that America's War on Drugs and gun violence have a direct correlation with each other. We have among the strictest and most regulated drug trade/culture of all the Western Countries.

[The Progressive]

I think that sturn is making an unproven assumption that property crimes from the users will not decrease from legalization to offset rising rate from the former dealers.

I will argue that with lower prices due to legalization, users will have less incentive to commit property crimes ...... and there are vastly more users than dealers.

[Sturn]

I think that sturn is making an unproven assumption that property crimes from the users will not decrease from legalization to offset rising rate from the former dealers.

No I'm just arguing against the unproven presumption making all drugs legal is not going to have some very severe side affects. History is full of fixes that caused more harm then good.

Most users of harsh drugs aren't employed. Where do you think they will be obtaining cash to buy drugs when they become legal? I'm not speaking of marijuana use here, but meth, crack, etc. I'm not fully against legalization of marijuana, believe it or not.

[thecryptile]

No I'm just arguing against the unproven presumption making all drugs legal is not going to have some very severe side affects. History is full of fixes that caused more harm then good.

Fixes like prohibition.

Face it- all drugs were legal at one time, and when they were legal- they weren't as widely abused. Did the end of alcohol Prohibition usher in a spike in violent crime and theft as rum-runners turned to robbery? I don't think so.

Most users of harsh drugs aren't employed.

I believe most users of hard drugs are employed, and most users of hard drugs pay for their habit mainly with money earned from work. There is also some "friends helping friends" drug dealing to supplement that for those with really expensive habits.

Drug use at work is more common than was once thought. The fast food joints, factories, call centers and landscaping crews of America employ their fair share of drug users. There's a reason the cashier at Wendy's has the sniffles- she's been snorting pills in the bathroom on break. There has been serious speculation that the 2008 financial collapse was caused in part by the large number of peopleon cocaine working in Wall Street

You see only the dumbest and most hopeless members of the Drug Culture in your line of work Sturn, but the vast majority of dopers skate by without drawing police attention.

The reason the drug trade is so violent is that dealers have to enforce their own law. If some one robs the gas station, the police deal with it. If someone sticks a crack dealer, he must deal with it himself, and that often means violence. If he could sue his supplier in civil court, he could redress his injury without resorting to violence.

ETA:From the first link:

The agency says that, of the 20.3 million adults in the U.S. classified as having substance use disorders in 2008 -- the latest year for which figures are available --15.8 million were employed either full or part-time.

So roughly 3/4 of drug users are legitimately employed, and many of the remainder are on disability or welfare- very few support their habit through armed robbery or burglary.

[lupis42]

No I'm just arguing against the unproven presumption making all drugs legal is not going to have some very severe side affects. History is full of fixes that caused more harm then good.

Most users of harsh drugs aren't employed. Where do you think they will be obtaining cash to buy drugs when they become legal? I'm not speaking of marijuana use here, but meth, crack, etc. I'm not fully against legalization of marijuana, believe it or not.

I don't have to do a really thorough search right now, but a quick-ass Google-ing suggests that the only crime number we have that was consistently reported from before the begining of prohibition until well past the end, the murder rate, immediately fell dramatically with the repeal of prohibition.

(eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol)