Right To Bear Arms

[Cryozombie]

The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people. He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.

This type of example is used often by the anti-gun side to "illustrate" their point... that said however... cite to me some examples of these wild gunfights actually occuring. I'm sure an example or two might be found if you look hard, but the truth is that it really doesn't happen often. And in fact, most of these "loon with a gun" sprees tend to take place in locations where the general population is unarmed; Schools, Violence-free workplaces, the streets of D.C., Chicagoland Lane Bryant stores, and other places where the carrying of a weapon is prohibited. You don't hear about these mass killing sprees in places where the victim's are armed very often, I question why that is. (Nah, I really don't.)

 

[Sukerkin]

Also a valid point, Cryo.

I am most assuredly of the opinion that in the end the numbers speak for themselves (depending on how they are gathered and 'spun' of course), without the need for 'edge of the spectrum' what-if scenarios. Sadly, much as most of us here might wish it otherwise, the numbers seems to say that a society with relatively free access to guns leads to the death of more of it's constituent members - more so than when the weapons available are blades (such as the knife crime problems in Scotland).

Those same numbers (comparing the US to the UK) show that burgulary is about half where common firearms ownership is present and yet rape is doubled .

Lies, damn lies and statistics? Or cultural differences?

 

[Blade96]

Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen, even very bad things, because we chose not to live in a nation that attempted to regulate whatever that bad thing is, or which denied the government the power to monitor, investigate, and otherwise interfere with bad things happening.

Wiretap laws means some bad guys get to have discussions about crimes without being detected. Freedom of religion means there are religions that want me dead, but they still have the right to believe that if they wish. Freedom of the press and speech means hate groups get to spout their hatred and foment violence and chaos. The right to bear arms means that some people who should never have guns will have them, and all that that implies.

More freedom equals more danger. You can't be free and protected (or rather, you can, but only in the sense that an absolute power chooses to act benevolently). At one end of the spectrum is a society that holds all the power and protects its citizens against all dangers - even dangers to themselves in some cases. At the other is anarchy. The US exists somewhere between those two extremes, as does most of the rest of the world. But the US is a bit farther over to the 'more freedom, more danger' side than most.

Reminds me of a quote I love

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

So true.

 

[Archangel M]

Most statistical "gun deaths" in the US are suicides.

and

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

In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.)

 

[Bruno@MT]

Another point to consider is this: making guns more available to people increases the risk that they will be used the wrong way. On the other hand, making them less available to people only restricts access to the people that follow the law in the first place; it in no way restricts criminals who want guns but who cannot obtain them legally. Given that an armed citizen has a better chance to survive a gunfight with an armed criminal than an unarmed citizen, I'd choose to be armed if given the chance.

Guns have absolutely nothing to do with violence in a society.
The US has gun proliferation, but is fairly violent.
Switzerland has guns in every home yet is also a much safer place.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The problem is not the guns, it's the people holding them. Take away the guns, and the same thing will happen as in the major UK cities: people start stabbing each other.

Guns themselves are irrelevant to crime figures.

 

[Bruno@MT]

It is difficult, isn't it? How do you tell a parent whose child was killed in a crossfire between a 'citizen' and a 'bad guy' that the citizen did nothing wrong, although their shots went wild and killed their child? I would not want to be the one having to explain something like this.

Do you mean that in that situation, the citizen will not be prosecuted? Is he not responsible for the bullets coming out of his gun?

 

[David43515]

Do you mean that in that situation, the citizen will not be prosecuted? Is he not responsible for the bullets coming out of his gun?

Yes they could still be held responsible in both crimminal and civil courts. But the fact that they were engaged in a struggle for their life at the time might go in thier favor in the crimminal court. (They`d better have been struggling for their life. If you kill some innocent bystander while shooting it out over a car stereo you desrve to share a cell with the crook.)

 

[David43515]

Guns have absolutely nothing to do with violence in a society.
The US has gun proliferation, but is fairly violent.
Switzerland has guns in every home yet is also a much safer place.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The problem is not the guns, it's the people holding them. Take away the guns, and the same thing will happen as in the major UK cities: people start stabbing each other.

Guns themselves are irrelevant to crime figures.

A friend from Jamaica used to get the papers from home, no shootings in them but plenty of stories each week about people hacked to death with machetes.

But aren`t there stats that show when states adopt CCW laws their violent crime usually drops, or is that just a myth? For example, I`d always heard that when Kenesaw GA passed an ordinance that said each homeowner had to own a gun the violent crime rate went to almost zero. (IIRC, their nonviolent property crime went down for a while and then came back up to what it had been before.)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And yet because it takes more skill to use the weapon it gives rise to classes in society who are dedicated to their use and often use it to dominate the rest of the society. And often aren't so polite.

"God made man. Colonel Colt made them equal." - Unknown author.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Guns have absolutely nothing to do with violence in a society.
The US has gun proliferation, but is fairly violent.
Switzerland has guns in every home yet is also a much safer place.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The problem is not the guns, it's the people holding them. Take away the guns, and the same thing will happen as in the major UK cities: people start stabbing each other.

Guns themselves are irrelevant to crime figures.

I disagree.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do you mean that in that situation, the citizen will not be prosecuted? Is he not responsible for the bullets coming out of his gun?

Where did you read me saying that?

My point was that if citizens are not authorized to be armed, there would not be the potential for crossfire injuries or deaths between criminals and would-be victims. There would only be victims; no cross-fire, since no one would be shooting back.

Not that I believe in this scenario; there have been many dire predictions that if citizens are allowed to go about armed, there would be 'blood in the streets' and 'wild west shootouts' happening everywhere. It's never happened. But yes, the potential is there for innocent people to be harmed if an armed citizen defends himself with a gun. I was just trying to answer the question.

However, to answer your question; if a citizen is attacked by an armed thug and returns fire with a legally-carried firearm of his own, he is responsible for where his or her bullets go, aye; but if he accidentally hits someone other than his target, he would most likely not be prosecuted for murder. Perhaps involuntary manslaughter, if that. Just as a person whose car goes out of control, mounts the pavement, and kills a pedestrian is 'responsible' for the death, might be prosecuted, but certainly would not be prosecuted for intentional acts.

 

[Cryozombie]

Sadly, much as most of us here might wish it otherwise, the numbers seems to say that a society with relatively free access to guns leads to the death of more of it's constituent members - more so than when the weapons available are blades (such as the knife crime problems in Scotland).

I think it has less to do with the availability of guns here, and more to do with other factors. It doesn't take a gun to be an idiot, i think that both: the general availability of guns in our society, as well as an attempt to vilify them means that is the weapon one hears about most...

However it's true that with the availability of a firearm as a weapon, that is the weapon of choice... but realistically, if that gun wasn't available, then a sword would be used, if the sword wasn't availible, then a kitchen knife, if not the knife, a sharp stick, if not that stick, then a rock...

And, FWIW, I read a study from... I wanna say 2003 or 2004, I will see if I can find it, the common kitchen knife was used in more assaults in the US than firearms durring the period studied.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

However it's true that with the availability of a firearm as a weapon, that is the weapon of choice... but realistically, if that gun wasn't available, then a sword would be used, if the sword wasn't availible, then a kitchen knife, if not the knife, a sharp stick, if not that stick, then a rock...

Actually, I don't agree with that statement. No offense meant, but it's a common counter-argument that pro-gun people use to counter anti-gun people's assertions that having 'easy access' to guns results in more deaths than if guns were unavailable.

The truth is probably unknowable - no one knows - or can prove - that if a person who kills another person with a gun could not gain access to a gun, then they would definitely still kill, but using a different weapon.

However, I have an unsupported opinion. I am willing to believe that SOME people want to kill so badly that they would use whatever weapon they could, or even their bare hands. Others, however, would not. A gun does offer an immediacy and in some ways an impersonalization that other weapons do not. I suspect that some people who would pick up a gun and fire it would not have the courage - or the willingness - to club someone to death with a stick or a rock.

I say this as a pro-gun person. However, I don't think hiding from the facts is particularly useful. I think it is true that in a society where guns are more available, they will be used to kill sometimes. It is an unfortunate side-effect of having that sort of freedom. I wish it wasn't true, but I think it is.

 

[Sukerkin]

I agree with your views on that particular argument, Bill.

It is true that if someone is really and trully all fired up to have blood on their hands they will do anything to achieve the desired end. Most ordinary people will not - guns make it all too easy to have a momentary 'paddy' and produce a corpse.

The best example is found in World War One, of all places. Military records show that when ammunition ran out, troops were most rebellious about refusing to resort to 'cold steel' to do the job that guns made so easy at a distance. It might be something that is not widely known because, clearly, it's not something the 'brass' would like getting about but it is nontheless the case.

Mind you, with the desensitisation to lethal force that is being inculcated by the 'leisure media' maybe that reluctance no longer applies?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well, I've gone and read the whole blog. My head hurts and my eyes burn, but I managed.

Rather wish I hadn't, because I had hoped there might be some chance of salvaging certain individuals' catastrophic misunderstandings of what we are about.

But then two things occurred to me at once:

* It's a British paper. I'm not British. I don't like it when they stick their noses in to what I do, so I would show myself a hypocrite were I to come onto their site and do the same.

*It's quite obvious the predominant amount of posters on both sides of the pond would have but precious little interest in anything I would have to say. I have always thoroughly disapproved of the Internet custom of engaging in battles of wits with unarmed men before, and will not go in for it now.

As to the original topic: I am unshakably pro gun but, though I do not believe open carry should necessarily be illegal, I myself do not support the idea of open carry as it is tactically unsound.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When I lived in Denver, I knew a man (friend of a friend) who owned a pawnshop. He had been robbed before, as had the person who owned the pawnshop before him. He carried his pistol in a shoulder rig in plain view when he worked in the shop. He had not been robbed since he started doing that. Simple, effective, and makes it very clear that if anyone robs him, they will be getting shot. Seemed to work for him.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

When I lived in Denver, I knew a man (friend of a friend) who owned a pawnshop. He had been robbed before, as had the person who owned the pawnshop before him. He carried his pistol in a shoulder rig in plain view when he worked in the shop. He had not been robbed since he started doing that. Simple, effective, and makes it very clear that if anyone robs him, they will be getting shot. Seemed to work for him.

I'm gonna err on the side that it also makes it very clear that he's saying "Hey, look what I have, assassinate me from distance with a rifle and come take it AND my merchandise, since guns and prescription drugs are the only two things you scumbag types can sell on the black market for more than their market value".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm gonna err on the side that it also makes it very clear that he's saying "Hey, look what I have, assassinate me from distance with a rifle and come take it AND my merchandise, since guns and prescription drugs are the only two things you scumbag types can sell on the black market for more than their market value".

Haven't heard of many pawnshop owners taken out by sniper recently, but then perhaps I haven't been paying attention. I rather think armed robbery is a bit more common?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Haven't heard of many pawnshop owners taken out by sniper recently, but then perhaps I haven't been paying attention. I rather think armed robbery is a bit more common?

I'm just saying, It is my personal opinion that giving an impending miscreant, or group thereof, advance warning to come in shooting is tactically unsound.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm just saying, It is my personal opinion that giving an impending miscreant, or group thereof, advance warning to come in shooting is tactically unsound.

It worked for Ronald Reagan. Remember MAD?