The Gun Control Thread!

[??????????]

Look at DC - they have the toughest gun laws in the nation, and yet the highest crime rate. DC is living proof gun control dosen't work.

But D.C. is very different from Minnesota.

Tell me about it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Concealed weapon laws do have effect. For example when the law was passed here crime did drop.

Crime rates have been generally dropping for over a decade now.  To be able to prove that concealed weapons laws have had that effect one would need to compare the rate of change in crime for two similar areas whose only difference was that one adopted a conceal carry law and the other did not.

That said, I am in favor of allowing concealed carry, but not because of any nebulously claimed reduction in crime rates.  However, I'm also in favor of gun registration and licensing requirements.  Its supposed to be a "well-regulated militia" not "every yahoo can shoot in a random direction", so while I don't want the goverment to prevent me from owning automatic weapons, I have no problem with their requiring that they be able to know what the milita has and restricting the use of certain weapons to those who have demonstrated that they can use them in a responsible manner.

[stry_cat]

Like criminals care whether or not carrying a gun is legal or not.

So we must make it harder to get a gun.

Besides, Concealed Carry would only help crminials... for instance, if a criminal was walking to shoot someone, but was stopped by a cop:

Cop: Is that a gun you're hiding?
Criminal: Er, why, yes, yes it is.
Cop: Can I see your Concealed Carry permit?
Criminal: Here you are...

And then the criminal would walk on and shoot a family of 8.

First of all criminals don't waste time getting CCW permits.  Second of all at least one member of that faimly is probably armed and will be able to deter the criminal without even firing a shot.  

[ilikeverin]

pretty much every public building in any city where you had any chance of running into an armed ciriminal "NO GUNS ALLOWED ON THESE PREMISES" sign outside. And if you live in some little hick town of 200, is anyone really going to care that you're carrying a gun without a permit? Not much of a difference.

It's kind of funny that my church had a sign up (AFAIK they still do).  'Blessed are the peacemakers', no?

[ilikeverin]

Like criminals care whether or not carrying a gun is legal or not.

So we must make it harder to get a gun.

Besides, Concealed Carry would only help crminials... for instance, if a criminal was walking to shoot someone, but was stopped by a cop:

Cop: Is that a gun you're hiding?
Criminal: Er, why, yes, yes it is.
Cop: Can I see your Concealed Carry permit?
Criminal: Here you are...

And then the criminal would walk on and shoot a family of 8.

"So we must make it harder to get a gun."

This is why you got called naive.

It's like trying to stop a natural disaster.  A flood wipes out your house, so you say, "Make the house stronger!".  Another flood, the very next year wipes out your house.  You say, "Make it stronger still."

So what do you do?  Certainly not let the river course still, so it floods every year.

Or do you propose that you weaken the house?  That leads to tragedy, too, on a greater form.

No, we must dam the river, making it a nice little stream.

I mean, seriously.  Why do we have semiautomatic guns accessable to the public?  Their only purpose is to kill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's also a less civilized nation.  But that's besides the point.

[ilikeverin]

Like criminals care whether or not carrying a gun is legal or not.

So we must make it harder to get a gun.

Besides, Concealed Carry would only help crminials... for instance, if a criminal was walking to shoot someone, but was stopped by a cop:

Cop: Is that a gun you're hiding?
Criminal: Er, why, yes, yes it is.
Cop: Can I see your Concealed Carry permit?
Criminal: Here you are...

And then the criminal would walk on and shoot a family of 8.

First of all criminals don't waste time getting CCW permits.  Second of all at least one member of that faimly is probably armed and will be able to deter the criminal without even firing a shot.  

So you're proposing everyone gets a gun.  Oh joy!  I love barbaric countries

[ilikeverin]

That said, I am in favor of allowing concealed carry, but not because of any nebulously claimed reduction in crime rates.  However, I'm also in favor of gun registration and licensing requirements.  Its supposed to be a "well-regulated militia" not "every yahoo can shoot in a random direction", so while I don't want the goverment to prevent me from owning automatic weapons, I have no problem with their requiring that they be able to know what the milita has and restricting the use of certain weapons to those who have demonstrated that they can use them in a responsible manner.

I'm guessing these whackos would disagree with you.

Anyway, as much as I'd like that, how would determine that?  This is a subjective question... and what constitutes maturity?

[ilikeverin]

Like criminals care whether or not carrying a gun is legal or not.

So we must make it harder to get a gun.

Besides, Concealed Carry would only help crminials... for instance, if a criminal was walking to shoot someone, but was stopped by a cop:

Cop: Is that a gun you're hiding?
Criminal: Er, why, yes, yes it is.
Cop: Can I see your Concealed Carry permit?
Criminal: Here you are...

And then the criminal would walk on and shoot a family of 8.

Right. Sure. So what makes you think the criminal wouldn't just shoot the cop if it was illegal?

And even if it is harder for criminals to attain guns, they will still attain them - they aren't afraid to use the black market(make guns hard to get and I assure you one will come, and crime will rise because of it). And, myself and other law abiding citizens will be unarmed when attacked. Who's going to protect me? The police? A criminal won't attack when the police are around, and the police definitely aren't always around. I'd rather have the ability to defend myself thank you(armed resistance has a lower injury rate to the victim than not resisting at all).

Since everyone else here has been throwing out a situation or two, I threw out one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Law abiding citizens?  Yeah... why do you people keep throwing that around?  Who says that when people get a gun, they will be reckless?  Who says they won't shoot someone if they're angry?  You hear of stabbings over simple things.  Who says that instead of a knife, they'll whip out a gun?

[ilikeverin]

They do help. Last year where I live (when I'm not in school), a guy robbed an ABC store. On the way out, he turned to fire on the cashier- but a customer in the store had a concealed carry permit and shot the criminal 5 times or so before he could hurt anyone.

Things like that happen all the time- having the gun prevents many crimes (I know someone who was about to get carjacked, showed a piece, and the thugs got back in their car and left). It can stop someone committing a robbery dead in their tracks, and if the criminal is armed it gives the option of using force against them.

See my response to Dibble.

[AuH2O]

Countries with 2 highest rates of gun ownership in the world:

1. Switzerland
2. Israel

Countries with 2 lowest crime rates in the world:

1. Switzerland
2. Israel

[ilikeverin]

Countries with 2 highest rates of gun ownership in the world:

1. Switzerland
2. Israel

Countries with 2 lowest crime rates in the world:

1. Switzerland
2. Israel

Back it up.

[The Duke]

Actually, Verin, the right answer is not to build a house on a flood plain.

If you want some info on Switerland's gun ownership rate, every male owns an assault weapon.  They are issued said weapon by the army as part of their compulsory military service, and they keep the weapon at the end of their service.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Law abiding citizens?  Yeah... why do you people keep throwing that around?  Who says that when people get a gun, they will be reckless?  Who says they won't shoot someone if they're angry?  You hear of stabbings over simple things.  Who says that instead of a knife, they'll whip out a gun?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I don't know, we throw it around because we can own a gun and not kill and rob people, perhaps? People who stab people over small things are not the norm - you act as if people can't control themselves. I've been angry plenty of times - and had the chance to kill people at those times - but did I kill them? No. You'll find most people won't kill people over small things - or over merely being angry. Whether a criminal is attacking with a knife or a gun is not relavant - they are still armed, and if I am not I'm more likely to get harmed. We state that statistics show concealed carry lowers the crime rate. Since you seem to ask "well what if people start shooting eachother over small things" you should look up information on concealed carry areas to see if your fears are justified or not.

[ilikeverin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Law abiding citizens?  Yeah... why do you people keep throwing that around?  Who says that when people get a gun, they will be reckless?  Who says they won't shoot someone if they're angry?  You hear of stabbings over simple things.  Who says that instead of a knife, they'll whip out a gun?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I don't know, we throw it around because we can own a gun and not kill and rob people, perhaps? People who stab people over small things are not the norm - you act as if people can't control themselves. I've been angry plenty of times - and had the chance to kill people at those times - but did I kill them? No. You'll find most people won't kill people over small things - or over merely being angry.

And most people don't go around killing people, most people will never need to use a gun, most people won't... etc., etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm

Yes, the majority of sites said crime data fell with states with Concealed Carry.

But... who says it didn't also fall in states other than those?

And... who says in those states that it wasn't still higher than in others?  For instance, Florida (CC since '87) in 2000 had a crime index of 5,694.7.  But Minnesota had a crime index of 3,488.4.  Remember, it's not how much crime fell, it's how much crime there is that matters.

[cwelsch]

People are basically smart, responsible and decent.  They aren't all just wildcard crazies that are walking around normal but the slightest provocation will cause them to flip out.  Most people are basically good and basically decent.

Besides which, if you do encounter a wacko do you want to wait for the police to arrive or do you want a responsible, decent ARMED person to put it all to an end?  It could be over before it begins, or it could unfurl into a hostage situation that lasts hours.

[ilikeverin]

It could be over before it begins, or it could unfurl into a hostage situation that lasts hours.

...with no one dead, and the hostage taker goes to jail for 5 years, enters drug rehab (he was high when he took his hostage), and eventually reforms and becomes a 'law abiding citizen', and the hostage forgives the person.

Let's compare this to what might've happened if the hostage had shot the hostage-taker.  His life ends, and the hostage has issues ("I shot a man!  Oh, God, I shot him!  I saw him crumble to the ground, dead!").  She could: a) go to therapy or b) be driven into drugs/alcoholism/gambling addiction/whatever.

Which of these is better?

Anyway, that's what bugs me about some of you Libertarians.  You seem to just think every single person is a saint who knows what's best for him/herself and his/her offspring.  Uh huh.

[cwelsch]

Actually in a lot of hostage situations somebody gets killed.

But what usually happens in office rage situations is not a hostage drama but a mass murder followed by suicide.

There have been a number of situations where a shooter was taken down.  A school shooting a few years back was stopped when a guy on the wrestling team tackled the shooter.  Another was stopped when a teacher went to his car, got a gun, and stopped the shooter.

Ultimately, the police came in with what?  Guns!  The only difference is being a cop and being something other than a cop.  All we're really saying is, "I don't trust you with a gun."

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Law abiding citizens?  Yeah... why do you people keep throwing that around?  Who says that when people get a gun, they will be reckless?  Who says they won't shoot someone if they're angry?  You hear of stabbings over simple things.  Who says that instead of a knife, they'll whip out a gun?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I don't know, we throw it around because we can own a gun and not kill and rob people, perhaps? People who stab people over small things are not the norm - you act as if people can't control themselves. I've been angry plenty of times - and had the chance to kill people at those times - but did I kill them? No. You'll find most people won't kill people over small things - or over merely being angry.

And most people don't go around killing people, most people will never need to use a gun, most people won't... etc., etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm

Yes, the majority of sites said crime data fell with states with Concealed Carry.

But... who says it didn't also fall in states other than those?

And... who says in those states that it wasn't still higher than in others?  For instance, Florida (CC since '87) in 2000 had a crime index of 5,694.7.  But Minnesota had a crime index of 3,488.4.  Remember, it's not how much crime fell, it's how much crime there is that matters.

Minnesota vs Florida crime rate: You are automatically assuming that one having the lower crime rate coincides with stricter gun control. Minnesota has a population of 5,059,375, Florida has a population of 17,019,068. Minnesota land area in square miles is 79,610, Florida land area in square miles is 53,927, so Florida has a higher population density(which, in general, leads to higher crime). Minnesota has a superior rate of educated people, a higher homeownership rate, a lower poverty rate, a lower rate of minorities(not to be racist, but statistically speaking this often attributes to crime). Multiple factors attribute to crime rates, not just guns. I think both sides of this debate need to start looking at other factors before we go claiming guns are solely responsible for either increase or decrease in crime.

Source of information - U.S. Census Bureau

Florida: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html
Minnesota: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

Now, let's compare some cities that are close by - that way they are likely to be more alike.

Kennesaw, Georgia: crime index, 2002 - 133.6 (higher means more crime, U.S. avg 330.6)
more data: http://www.city-data.com/city/Kennesaw-Georgia.html
Ackworth, Georgia: crime index, 2002 - 195.9
more data: http://www.city-data.com/city/Acworth-Georgia.html
Roswell, Georgia: crime index, 2002 - 177.6
more data: http://www.city-data.com/city/Roswell-Georgia.html
Alpharetta, Georgia: crime index, 2002 - 275.6
more data: http://www.city-data.com/city/Alpharetta-Georgia.html

Other cities in Georgia: http://www.city-data.com/city/Georgia.html

Please note I didn't include Atlanta - this is because it is an urban area, so it is practically gauranteed to have higher crime(which it very much does). Kennesaw and the other cities I included all are relatively near Atlanta anyhow. While this does not relate to concealed carry exactly, with a few exceptions, Kennesaw home owners are required to own a handgun - and their crime rate is one of the lowest if not the lowest in all of Georgia. While these areas are not perfectly the same in all respects except gun law, they should be similar enough to take out many factors in determining what causes the difference in crime rates.

[John Dibble]

It could be over before it begins, or it could unfurl into a hostage situation that lasts hours.

...with no one dead, and the hostage taker goes to jail for 5 years, enters drug rehab (he was high when he took his hostage), and eventually reforms and becomes a 'law abiding citizen', and the hostage forgives the person.

Let's compare this to what might've happened if the hostage had shot the hostage-taker.  His life ends, and the hostage has issues ("I shot a man!  Oh, God, I shot him!  I saw him crumble to the ground, dead!").  She could: a) go to therapy or b) be driven into drugs/alcoholism/gambling addiction/whatever.

Which of these is better?

Anyway, that's what bugs me about some of you Libertarians.  You seem to just think every single person is a saint who knows what's best for him/herself and his/her offspring.  Uh huh.

1. That's an extremely unrealistic situation no matter what occurs. You assume a lot(like the guy is high for instance - most hostage takers either want money, perhaps to buy drugs, or they are crazy, not drugged up), or perhaps the woman shooting the person(if it is a woman) would have issues, for all you know it would give her a boost of confidence(after all, she'd be praised as a hero I would think).

2. That's what I don't like about you Democrats - you think if you put a gun in someone's hand they go crazy, but at the same time you think any criminal can be reformed(so, wouldn't everyone be a saint then?). I used to be a liberal too, so I know how you think. No - I don't believe everyone to be a saint - far from it, my family has been a victim of gun crime, and I would think if my father had brandished a gun when he was carjacked he would have had a chance.

What Libertarians actually believe is that the individual is responsible for his or her actions - be they good or bad - and that the individual must live with the consequences of those actions. We would impose the stictest of penalties on gun criminals, and hold those who are negligent with guns fully responsible for the harm caused by their negligence. We would encourage gun education and safety, so that those who wish to protect themselves with guns will know how to do so without causing unnecessary injury. At age 7 my father showed me how to use a rifle - he did it right too - he explained that a gun is not a toy, it is a weapon and it should be taken seriously.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Israel has the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world? All those stories about the suicide bombers must be overblown.

[John Dibble]

Israel has the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world? All those stories about the suicide bombers must be overblown.

I think suicide bombing goes under the category 'terrorism'. Terrorism and domestic crime are not the same thing.

[ilikeverin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Law abiding citizens?  Yeah... why do you people keep throwing that around?  Who says that when people get a gun, they will be reckless?  Who says they won't shoot someone if they're angry?  You hear of stabbings over simple things.  Who says that instead of a knife, they'll whip out a gun?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I don't know, we throw it around because we can own a gun and not kill and rob people, perhaps? People who stab people over small things are not the norm - you act as if people can't control themselves. I've been angry plenty of times - and had the chance to kill people at those times - but did I kill them? No. You'll find most people won't kill people over small things - or over merely being angry.

And most people don't go around killing people, most people will never need to use a gun, most people won't... etc., etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm

Yes, the majority of sites said crime data fell with states with Concealed Carry.

But... who says it didn't also fall in states other than those?

And... who says in those states that it wasn't still higher than in others?  For instance, Florida (CC since '87) in 2000 had a crime index of 5,694.7.  But Minnesota had a crime index of 3,488.4.  Remember, it's not how much crime fell, it's how much crime there is that matters.

Minnesota vs Florida crime rate: You are automatically assuming that one having the lower crime rate coincides with stricter gun control. Minnesota has a population of 5,059,375, Florida has a population of 17,019,068. Minnesota land area in square miles is 79,610, Florida land area in square miles is 53,927, so Florida has a higher population density(which, in general, leads to higher crime). Minnesota has a superior rate of educated people, a higher homeownership rate, a lower poverty rate, a lower rate of minorities(not to be racist, but statistically speaking this often attributes to crime). Multiple factors attribute to crime rates, not just guns. I think both sides of this debate need to start looking at other factors before we go claiming guns are solely responsible for either increase or decrease in crime.

Very good Now convince some other people of this fact, please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I tried and tried to find any differences, and I could not.  You are right, perhaps, in this case.  Maybe.

However, perhaps there are outside influences involved.  For instance, there could be more people who moved there from somewhere where guns were more respected.  Or maybe they were 'invaded' by Northerners after the Civil War who resettled after seeing Kennesaw Mountain's beauty, because everyone knows that Northernors are way better with guns than Southerners

Or perhaps it's because the majority of Kennesaw-ers are of Irish descent

(BTW, I've been to Kennesaw Great place!)

However, I'd hesitate to use those crime statistics.  It has my city's level as less than Acworth's, even though we both had 0 murders, and Acworth had one rape and we had... 18

[John Dibble]

1. Which fact? I presented a lot of them. Do you mean that both sides of this debate don't consider enough factors?

2. The Kennesaw law was enacted in 1982. I'd think by that time any Northerners would have the Northernerness bred out of them. And I'd dispute the idea that Notherners are better with guns - especially considering the hell the South gave the North during the early Civil War(though I'm glad the North won that).

3. Mind giving me the name of your city so I can compare?
I'm not exactly sure what they use to calculate their crime index(though I'm sure population must be taken into account, check to see if yours is greater, after all higher population areas have higher total crime as a general rule).

[ilikeverin]

1. Which fact? I presented a lot of them. Do you mean that both sides of this debate don't consider enough factors?

Yeah, that one.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the , I consider it to be a sarcastic happy face.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm, good point.  My city's about 5 times as big.   I'll email you my city name... let's just say its substantially more educated

[John Dibble]

Ok, a comparison of Ackworth, Georgia and your hometown(which I shall assume you would rather keep anonymous).

Ackworth crime, 2002, pop 16,605:
0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
1 rape (7.1 per 100,000)
8 robberies (57.0 per 100,000)
15 assaults (106.9 per 100,000)
47 burglaries (334.9 per 100,000)
360 larceny counts (2565.0 per 100,000)
35 auto thefts (249.4 per 100,000)
City-data.com crime index = 195.9

Your hometown, 2002, pop 67,304:
0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
18 rapes (26.8 per 100,000)
13 robberies (19.3 per 100,000)
42 assaults (62.5 per 100,000)
378 burglaries (562.2 per 100,000)
1,383 larceny counts (2056.9 per 100,000)
92 auto thefts (136.8 per 100,000)
City-data.com crime index = 164.9

Population densities are about the same.(pop/square mile)

My guess for the reason your town has a lower crime index is because Ackworth has a much higher larceny rate(petty theft), which is the majority of all crimes, and auto thefts. So, if we accounted only for violent crimes(murder, rape, assault, perhaps robberies), your town would in truth have the higher crime index. This idea needs to be taken into account when judging how gun laws(be they for gun control or for gun rights) affect crime - petty theft is likely to be less affected, so change in violent crimes need to be the primary gauge for the affectiveness of gun laws, not overall crime.