Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2776 of 5179 (733457)
07-17-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2764 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:09 AM


mram10 writes:
Those committing crimes are breaking numerous laws already, so what will more laws bring?
First of all, let me say that I think the US is a lost cause when it comes to gun control. US culture is as permeated with guns as most Western cultures are permeated with alcohol. Prohibition is not going to work.
It's not a question of putting out the fire; it's a question of saving as many of the victims as possble.
mram10 writes:
Vehicles can be used just like guns to kill people. Should we get rid of cars? No, because they are useful and being used wrong, just like guns.
Guns can be useful. They are occasionally necessary for putting down injured animals, etc. and they are often used for recreational purposes such as hunting and target shooting.
But it seems that many/most people in the US have guns for "protection". I've said it before and I'll say it again: A gun is not a defensive weapon. It will not protect you. The best you can do with a gun is shoot first (sneak attack) or hope the other guy misses. Guns used for "protection" are as likely or more likely to hurt the owner and/or his loved ones.
mram10 writes:
Does anyone even know the true meaning of the 2nd??? Jefferson said it best, when he made it clear it is to defend the people from tyranny by the gov't.
I think Jefferson intended that "a well-regulated militia" should protect the people from foreign tyranny, not that every yahoo should have a gun to overthrow his government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2764 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:09 AM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2777 of 5179 (733473)
07-17-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2775 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 11:18 AM


Diomedes writes:
For example, if I don't opt for a gun, am I allowed to use standard physical force to stop a burglar from stealing my property?
  • Is the burglar armed?
  • Is the burglar crazy?
  • Is the burglar drunk or on drugs?
  • Is the burglar accompanied by anyone?
  • Is the burglar much bigger and stronger than you?
  • Is the burglar a black belt?
  • Is what he's stealing more valuable than your life, permanent injury or a long stay in the hospital?
  • Is the burglar actually your niece sneaking in to her uncle's house for who knows what ungodly reason?
  • etc...
Regardless what the law permits, unless forced to do otherwise, don't try to handle the situation yourself. Call the police.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2775 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 11:18 AM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2779 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 1:58 PM Percy has replied

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 2778 of 5179 (733475)
07-17-2014 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2775 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 11:18 AM


Crime Statistics
Hi everyone.
I wanted to share some information on crime statistics as I think it helps provide some context regarding our discussions here on gun control and the usage of weapons to protect oneself or oneself's personal property.
The statistics are somewhat difficult to acquire, since different countries use different means to gather data and classify crimes. But I came across these two articles I wanted to pass on.
The first one is from the University of Windsor, which shows a pretty decent and comprehensive breakdown of crimes as a comparison between the USA and Canada:
http://web4.uwindsor.ca/...FILE/ATT8BNDV/0110185-002-XIE.pdf
What is interesting on first glance is that when you look at aggravated assault rates, the USA is actually higher from a per capita standpoint compared to the Canada. Ditto for personal robbery.
However, for breaking and entering and motor vehicle theft, Canada actually exceeds the USA in that regard. I had always heard that as a rumor, but here is the data to back it up.
Not drawing any conclusions here (yet), but just providing some context.
The second article I came across discusses the differences in crime between the USA and the UK. This article is somewhat of a 'debunk' article relating to a claim made by some libertarian in the USA that the UK had 2000 crimes recorded per 100,000 people. Of course, this came down to how the classifications of crimes occurred. So the people at politifact did a more granular analysis here:
PolitiFact | Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
Now they did debunk the original claim of an apples to oranges comparison between the USA and the UK. However, when they performed a more granular analysis, they actually DID confirm that when the crime statistics are matched, the UK indeed does have more instances of violent crime per 100,000 than the USA does. Approximately 775 violent crimes per 100,000 versus the 383 violent crimes per 100,000 in the USA.
(Note that the authors of the aforementioned article do acknowledge that there is no easy way to perform these comparisons)
Being that each of these countries handles its gun laws differently, I thought it would be an interesting thought experiment to look at their actual crime rates to determine any potential correlations. So just to summarize regarding actual gun policies in each country:
USA - Few restrictions on gun ownership and types of guns being owned by citizens. Also allows for concealed carry and more liberal stances on self defense.
Canada - Stricter policies on gun ownership. Long guns are generally permissable, while hand guns are heavily restricted. Strict policies on using guns for self defense.
UK - Long guns heavily restricted but legal. Hand guns completely illegal. Strict policies on using guns for self defense.
Anyway, as someone who is more in the middle of the gun debate, I just wanted to share this info.
Edited by Diomedes, : Fixed typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2775 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 11:18 AM Diomedes has not replied

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 2779 of 5179 (733477)
07-17-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2777 by Percy
07-17-2014 1:42 PM


Is the burglar armed?
Is the burglar crazy?
Is the burglar drunk or on drugs?
Is the burglar accompanied by anyone?
Is the burglar much bigger and stronger than you?
Is the burglar a black belt?
Is what he's stealing more valuable than your life, permanent injury or a long stay in the hospital?
Is the burglar actually your niece sneaking in to her uncle's house for who knows what ungodly reason?
etc...
Regardless what the law permits, unless forced to do otherwise, don't try to handle the situation yourself. Call the police.
And I acknowledge that is a stance many people take. Ultimately though, my question was: should action on my part if I choose to respond with physical intervention be illegal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2777 by Percy, posted 07-17-2014 1:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2780 by Percy, posted 07-17-2014 2:31 PM Diomedes has replied
 Message 2781 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 2:33 PM Diomedes has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2780 of 5179 (733483)
07-17-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2779 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 1:58 PM


Diomedes writes:
And I acknowledge that is a stance many people take. Ultimately though, my question was: should action on my part if I choose to respond with physical intervention be illegal?
Every situation is fraught with unique details, every jurisdiction will draw the line between legal and illegal in a different place, every judge, every jury will interpret that line in a different place. Your question is unanswerable, certainly by me.
Regardless of the law, responsible people will choose a course that maximizes life and safety for all involved. If you pull the gun out of the drawer and go looking for the source of that funny sound a burglar might shoot you, or you might shoot your niece. If you hide in your closet the worst that will likely happen is that you'll lose your TV set and laptop. And if you don't even own a gun then your crazy cousin will never steal it and go shoot up the local middle school.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2779 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 1:58 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2782 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 2:46 PM Percy has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2781 of 5179 (733484)
07-17-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2779 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 1:58 PM


Diomedes writes:
Ultimately though, my question was: should action on my part if I choose to respond with physical intervention be illegal?
Suppose I have a convenience store on a busy street and an armed robber comes in. I pull my gun and chase him way, blazing away at him like Clint Eastwood.
Discharging a firearm in the city is a danger to innocent bystanders, which is already illegal (or should be). I think the question should be: At what point does my "right to self defense" supercede somebody else's right to safety?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2779 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 1:58 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2783 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 2:52 PM ringo has replied

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 2782 of 5179 (733485)
07-17-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2780 by Percy
07-17-2014 2:31 PM


Every situation is fraught with unique details, every jurisdiction will draw the line between legal and illegal in a different place, every judge, every jury will interpret that line in a different place. Your question is unanswerable, certainly by me.
It is actually not a specific question regarding the actual laws themselves. It is more of an open-ended question regarding people's stances on what should and should not be legal. In Canada for example, it is outright illegal to use physical force to stop a burglar from stealing your property. That includes all forms of legal force, not just deadly force. And note that if one does use force to stop a burglar, the individual could them be charged with a crime.
So ultimately, my question goes back to those on this forum: would the USA benefit from a similar law?
Regardless of the law, responsible people will choose a course that maximizes life and safety for all involved. If you pull the gun out of the drawer and go looking for the source of that funny sound a burglar might shoot you, or you might shoot your niece. If you hide in your closet the worst that will likely happen is that you'll lose your TV set and laptop.
That is making an assumption that the individual who has entered your premises is there strictly to steal. If you choose to hide in your closet and discover later that the intruder raped your daughter, then what?
We can go back and forth regarding various scenarios, but ultimately, I am actually not looking for hyperbole. I am curious what people's stances are regarding what actions should and should not be legal from the standpoint of defending oneself or one's property. Also, based on the aforementioned articles I provided regarding specific crime types by country, what effect do these laws, if any, have on actual crime itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2780 by Percy, posted 07-17-2014 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2785 by Percy, posted 07-17-2014 3:28 PM Diomedes has replied

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 2783 of 5179 (733486)
07-17-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2781 by ringo
07-17-2014 2:33 PM


Suppose I have a convenience store on a busy street and an armed robber comes in. I pull my gun and chase him way, blazing away at him like Clint Eastwood.
Discharging a firearm in the city is a danger to innocent bystanders, which is already illegal (or should be). I think the question should be: At what point does my "right to self defense" supercede somebody else's right to safety?
And this is a valid question. But if I alter your scenario as follows:
You own a convenience store and a armed robber enters and begins firing at you and patrons of your store because they are hopped up on meth, wants to steal from you and wants to leave no witnesses. You avoid the first salvo, grab your own firearm, and you.... return fire? Or simply duck, dodge the bullets, let the crazy guy off the remaining patrons, grab what's in the register and run out?
As I mentioned in another post, we can posit various scenarios and come to ultimately different conclusions just by altering parameters. So I think continuing to do so is an exercise in futility.
As I mentioned in my dialog with Percy, what I am more interested in is seeing where we draw the line in the sand. Should any and all forms of defense be abolished and people should simply take a 'no action' stance? Is some action allowed in circumstances? And when is deadly action warranted? And ultimately, how do these laws actual change the dynamics of various forms of crime?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2781 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 2:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2784 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 3:23 PM Diomedes has replied
 Message 2788 by Theodoric, posted 07-17-2014 4:31 PM Diomedes has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2784 of 5179 (733488)
07-17-2014 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2783 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 2:52 PM


Diomedes writes:
You avoid the first salvo, grab your own firearm, and you.... return fire?
The situation is the same. You are (should be) responsible for your own bullets. If you miss the perpetrator and your bullet goes out the door and hits a kid passing by on a bicycle, you are (should be) considered guilty of mansaughter.
Maybe you survive if you shoot back, maybe you don't. If you don't shoot back, at least you don't go to jail.
Diomedes writes:
Should any and all forms of defense be abolished and people should simply take a 'no action' stance?
As I keep harping, a gun is not a defensive weapon; it's an offensive weapon. People need to understand the offensive action of shooting an innocent passerby. "Self defense" isn't (shouldn't be) an excuse for endangering somebody else.
Diomedes writes:
Is some action allowed in circumstances?
I would ask, rather: Is it effective? Is a shopkeeper safer hiding behind the counter or playing Gunfight at the OK Corral?
Diomedes writes:
And when is deadly action warranted?
Personally, don't think deadly action is ever warranted. I think it's understandable if you're trying to protect your children - but it probably isn't the most effective means of protecting them either.
Diomedes writes:
And ultimately, how do these laws actual change the dynamics of various forms of crime?
As I've already mentioned in this thread, if I was an armed criminal, confronting an armed populace would make me more likely to shoot first. Making it illegal for my victims to shoot at me would make me feel a little safer, which would make them safer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2783 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 2:52 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2786 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 4:00 PM ringo has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2785 of 5179 (733490)
07-17-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2782 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 2:46 PM


Diomedes writes:
If you choose to hide in your closet and discover later that the intruder raped your daughter, then what?
We can go back and forth regarding various scenarios,...
Yes, exactly. Are you alone in the house or are there others? Do you suspect a burglar? A relative? A rapist? An inebriated neighbor? A kidnapper? A murderer? Militia (maybe you live in Syria or Iraq etc...)?
What effect do laws have on crime incidence rates? I don't know, but it does seem inevitable that the more things you make illegal the more illegal acts will be committed. Some laws even make the crime incidence rate skyrocket, such as Prohibition-caused speakeasies.
But getting back to the topic, I'm pretty sure that reducing gun deaths requires taking away people's guns.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2782 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 2:46 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2787 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 4:03 PM Percy has replied

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 2786 of 5179 (733493)
07-17-2014 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2784 by ringo
07-17-2014 3:23 PM


The situation is the same. You are (should be) responsible for your own bullets. If you miss the perpetrator and your bullet goes out the door and hits a kid passing by on a bicycle, you are (should be) considered guilty of mansaughter.
Maybe you survive if you shoot back, maybe you don't. If you don't shoot back, at least you don't go to jail.
But my scenario was describing a situation whereby the perpetrator was using their firearm to kill the patrons of your store. So you are essentially saying that, even though you are armed, you should not, in any circumstances use your firearm to stop this individual from continuing his/her killing spree?
As I keep harping, a gun is not a defensive weapon; it's an offensive weapon. People need to understand the offensive action of shooting an innocent passerby. "Self defense" isn't (shouldn't be) an excuse for endangering somebody else.
I would argue this is debatable, as it depends on the situation, as I described above. If the scenario I described above was ended by a patron, who happened to be a black belt, round house kicking the guy in the temple, thereby killing him, does that mean martial arts are now considered 'self-offense', as opposed to 'self-defense'?
I would ask, rather: Is it effective? Is a shopkeeper safer hiding behind the counter or playing Gunfight at the OK Corral?
Considering the scenario I described above, whereby the antagonist is using their firearm to kill innocent civilians, then yes, I would say a gun shot that ends their life is quite effective.
Personally, don't think deadly action is ever warranted. I think it's understandable if you're trying to protect your children - but it probably isn't the most effective means of protecting them either.
Fair enough. I would disagree however. If a women who is being sexually assaulted in her home by an intruder or estranged boyfriend grabs a kitchen knife and stabs the guy in his carotid artery, thereby killing him, my suspicion is most are not going to chastise her for being 'excessive'.
As I've already mentioned in this thread, if I was an armed criminal, confronting an armed populace would make me more likely to shoot first. Making it illegal for my victims to shoot at me would make me feel a little safer, which would make them safer.
But does this not embolden the criminal? Quite frankly, my nightmare scenario is a bunch of armed criminals and a completely disarmed population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2784 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 3:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2789 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 4:38 PM Diomedes has not replied

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 2787 of 5179 (733495)
07-17-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2785 by Percy
07-17-2014 3:28 PM


What effect do laws have on crime incidence rates? I don't know, but it does seem inevitable that the more things you make illegal the more illegal acts will be committed. Some laws even make the crime incidence rate skyrocket, such as Prohibition-caused speakeasies.
But getting back to the topic, I'm pretty sure that reducing gun deaths requires taking away people's guns.
Ok. Although I think in order to make informed decisions regarding how laws are being drafted, it is important to have all the information and an idea of the potential consequences of taking specific actions.
Circling back, is your ideal scenario a country with absolutely no firearms in the hands of civilians?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2785 by Percy, posted 07-17-2014 3:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2795 by Percy, posted 07-17-2014 9:04 PM Diomedes has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2788 of 5179 (733496)
07-17-2014 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2783 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 2:52 PM


Here is an issue. The pro-gun crowd makes is sound like this is an everyday scenario everywhere in the US. It isn't. The negs of having the handgun in the first place or far worse then any potential plusses if this once in a million scenario happens.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2783 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 2:52 PM Diomedes has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2789 of 5179 (733498)
07-17-2014 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2786 by Diomedes
07-17-2014 4:00 PM


Diomedes writes:
So you are essentially saying that, even though you are armed, you should not, in any circumstances use your firearm to stop this individual from continuing his/her killing spree?
Ultimately, I'm saying that you shouldn't be armed at all. Unprovoked killing sprees are going to happen. You're not likely to improve the situation by joining in the mayhem.
Diomedes writes:
If the scenario I described above was ended by a patron, who happened to be a black belt, round house kicking the guy in the temple, thereby killing him, does that mean martial arts are now considered 'self-offense', as opposed to 'self-defense'?
If you use a karate kick on somebody, that is offensive. If you trip him, that would be more defensive. If a gun could be used defensively, the same would apply, but it can't.
Also, accidentally killing somebody with a karate kick is fundamentally different from intentionally killing him with a gun - and your karate kick is less likely to effect the kid on the bicycle.
Diomedes writes:
ringo writes:
Is it effective? Is a shopkeeper safer hiding behind the counter or playing Gunfight at the OK Corral?
Considering the scenario I described above, whereby the antagonist is using their firearm to kill innocent civilians, then yes, I would say a gun shot that ends their life is quite effective.
You only answered half of the question. Is it safer? Do you actually have a chance to get to your gun and shoot him before he shoots you? Are you really helping the other victims by becoming another victim yourself? And what are the chances that you'll shoot one of the customers instead of the shooter?
Diomedes writes:
If a women who is being sexually assaulted in her home by an intruder or estranged boyfriend grabs a kitchen knife and stabs the guy in his carotid artery, thereby killing him, my suspicion is most are not going to chastise her for being 'excessive'.
There again, the intention of slashing at him is not necessarily to kill him but to stop him or disable him. I'm not necessarily against people defending themselves, only using deadly force to do it. I have little problem with killing somebody by accident while defending yourself.
But guns are far more likely to be deadly and, again, more likely to produce collateral damage.
Diomedes writes:
But does this not embolden the criminal?
I'm more worried about a frightened criminal than a bold one. After all, he's armed in the first place to defend himself and he knows he has to shoot first to do it.
Diomedes writes:
Quite frankly, my nightmare scenario is a bunch of armed criminals and a completely disarmed population.
If the population was unarmed, why would the criminals need to be?
(By the way, some of my ancestors left the old country because they were wanted for armed robbery. Their weapon? A block of wood. I expect there were few fatalities.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2786 by Diomedes, posted 07-17-2014 4:00 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2790 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2014 4:56 PM ringo has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2790 of 5179 (733500)
07-17-2014 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2789 by ringo
07-17-2014 4:38 PM


Unprovoked killing sprees are going to happen.
You know what else is going to happen? People are going to try to defend themselves.
Why you defend it as inevitable when its the perpetrator of a crime doing it but then get all offensive when its the victim of a crime doing it really boggles the mind.
I just don't get this tolerance for criminal action and intolerance victim action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2789 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 4:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2791 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 5:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 2792 by vimesey, posted 07-17-2014 5:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 2793 by Theodoric, posted 07-17-2014 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024