Gun Rights Outweigh Gun Control - Pew Survey

[Underseer]

As all my gun friends keep telling me: Gun crime is going down and gun sales are going up.

And yet, when we compare nations to each other, we find that gun availability correlates with crime rates.

The most likely explanation is that the drop in gun crime in a limited part of the world for a limited time is not related to gun ownership rates.

 

[arkirk]

People do kill people. So do bullets. I think this kind of weird word foolery has been thrown around so long that it becomes nothing but a senseless repetition similar to Hail Mary. Gun makers kill people. Gun sellers kill people. etc. etc. etc.

What is behind the motive to have a gun. Don't shrug and tell me that punching holes in paper targets is so interesting that you must have a gun. I feel what is behind the desire to own a firearm (and I am not an innocent person in this regard) is the silly notion that guns can protect us from our enemies. Actually, guns only empower their owners to kill their enemies if they use their gun first. I am not going to advocate that guns all be seized and destroyed because that doesn't seem like a task anybody would want to take on. Remember all those folks with guns may just use them in an effort to keep their guns.

I feel that for a person in a densely populated city to desire to own a high power firearm, that person must harbor in his or her mind some vague fear of being attacked. Actually, the ownership of such guns in densely populated areas is nothing but an unnecessary responsibility as a firearm discharged in such an area may kill unintended people and damage property of others as well. In short, it is a nagging onerous task and demands a lot of the gun owner. If you use all the locks and child protection devices you are required to buy for your gun, you will never get it unlocked in time to protect yourself from someone else whose gun is unlocked. So even in this case, the law abiding citizen gets his ass kicked by the law breaker.

The real problem is that we do not have any faith in our own ability to live in civil society without the ability to kill our neighbor whenever we feel we must. That is why you have a gun...so you use it when you you must. The reason for making guns...outside of the #1 reason, (profit) is to make a device that propels lead at high velocity out the barrel. Now how many times would a person in a civil setting find the need to do this? It is virtually impossible to outlaw guns. It is possible to increase the level of disinterest in guns by cleaning up our government and feeling safe. Just saying all the ranting and raving about the second amendment is pure hogwash. A person with his gun in the presence of another person is as dangerous to that other person as a person with an atom bomb. Push a trigger and pow! you're dead! It may have well have been an atom bomb.

If we are to face the problems we have presented ourselves, we need a far gentler and beneficent form of exchange between citizens than the gritting of teeth and the loading of firearms. The police should not have to take the guns away from the people. The people should want the fucking things taken away...far away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Though after scanning thru the poll report, I'm not so sure how significant the results are. They posed a binary choice of "right to own guns" verses some vague thing called "gun control". I think the term "gun control" sounds too much like taking away guns from people. It would be interesting to see trends on say 100% national background check requirements; mandatory change of ownership filing; and say normative liability for owning something as dangerous as guns (sort of like what people owning those nefarious swimming pools deal with when it ensnares cute little children).

Yeah, "gun control" is usually a code-word for taking guns away from the lower classes and for backdoor schemes.

Given a question like that I would have come down on the side of gun rights--yet in reality I favor a system of gun licenses akin to driver's licenses. It's just I do not favor bans and I do not favor gun registration schemes, even backdoor ones.

 

[ksen]

what's "vote control" code for?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what do you advocate as your so-called "sensible" gun control? And don't say "we don't want to take away your guns" because that is you saying what you don't want, not what you do want.


Police as the most highly trained? Geesh!

Actually I'd be ok with someone taking away your guns...but also agree it's not sensible gun control.

I think sensible gun control would include background checks, licensing and registration. You know, the same things that are required to drive a car (or vote these days).

aa

Registration is about the anonymous nature of cars. There's no corresponding parallel with guns unless you go with some sort of fingerprinting scheme and none are reliable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Though after scanning thru the poll report, I'm not so sure how significant the results are. They posed a binary choice of "right to own guns" verses some vague thing called "gun control". I think the term "gun control" sounds too much like taking away guns from people. It would be interesting to see trends on say 100% national background check requirements; mandatory change of ownership filing; and say normative liability for owning something as dangerous as guns (sort of like what people owning those nefarious swimming pools deal with when it ensnares cute little children).

Actually the surprising statistic to me were responses to the question: Gun ownership in this country does more to: A) Protect people from being victims of a crime; B) Put people's safety at risk.

The majority answered A). This is statistically false. People who own guns are something like 12 times more likely to kill or injure themselves or own family members than they are to successfully protect themselves against a crime. Source

aa

Meaningless.

1) Much of that increased risk is suicide--and that proves nothing.

2) People in riskier environments are more likely to own guns. It's not an independent variable, you can't draw conclusions.

3) This is making the errant assumption that successfully protecting themselves requires a dead bad guy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

$5,000 bullets.

In other words, nobody will actually know how to use their guns. Can you say "stray rounds"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reasonably gun control is the way to reduce misuse, mishandling, etc, by legal gun owners. Background check, a safety course and secure storage requirements. The black market for firearms that supply the needs of the underworld will never be eliminated, they don't care about the law.

I have a problem with the secure storage requirements. That generally means a substantial bolted-down gun safe. That's not an option for someone living in a rental, that's generally not an option for those living above the lowest level of a building.

I would not object to secure storage if it simply meant a locked container.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the "control" fallacy that's built into the human mind.
Even if statistically more at risk that way, people prefer to each have their own gun than relying on a state-owned monopoly of violence. Because on the second case, if you end facing a murderer with his own gun, there's nothing you can do. In the first case, you're probably equally dead, plus the much higher odds of the murderer having a gun, but the fact that you can try to draw your own makes you think you're somehow in control.
Same for feeling more secure in a car you drive than in a plane piloted by someone else, despite all statistical evidence to the reverse.

Even if someone is coming to kill you a gun might very well be useful--if you're aware of them breaking in. Your argument isn't relevant to other self defense situations, though. Few rapists are going to simply shoot the woman, even if they intend to kill her that will be the endgame, not the start. Even the low estimates of crimes prevented by guns is in the 6 figures annually. Few of those guns are even fired--the usual scenario is the bad guy hauls ass out of there when he realizes his intended victim is armed.

But yes, you USians need to wake up and vote according to real risks and not gut feelings. Gun registration would be a minimum, and strict handgun control (including revokation of all hidden carry laws - if you have a handgun with you to go to the range, it must be locked and the ammunition in a different box) would be nice.
I'm not sure I'll see that before I die.

Yeah, you need to look at the real risks. There are very few crimes by CCW holders once you discount the crimes of improper carry. If someone keeps their nose clean enough to get to the age to get a CCW license without getting disqualified it's very unlikely they will be of a criminal bent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As all my gun friends keep telling me: Gun crime is going down and gun sales are going up.

And yet, when we compare nations to each other, we find that gun availability correlates with crime rates.

The most likely explanation is that the drop in gun crime in a limited part of the world for a limited time is not related to gun ownership rates.

Societies with major violence problems have both a lot of guns (although not necessarily liberal gun laws!) and lots of crime but beyond that the correlation does not hold. This "stat" is usually used to bash the US--never mind that we have a lower crime rate than many of the supposedly safer countries. It's only our murder rate that's an outlier--and that's mostly criminals killing other criminals.

 

[DBT]

Reasonably gun control is the way to reduce misuse, mishandling, etc, by legal gun owners. Background check, a safety course and secure storage requirements. The black market for firearms that supply the needs of the underworld will never be eliminated, they don't care about the law.

I have a problem with the secure storage requirements. That generally means a substantial bolted-down gun safe. That's not an option for someone living in a rental, that's generally not an option for those living above the lowest level of a building.

I would not object to secure storage if it simply meant a locked container.

It's not necessary to have a bolt down safe. A safe that's over 150kg does not have to be bolted down. It's also acceptable to store firearms in built in storerooms, etc, as long as the door is solid, deadlocked and only the licensed owner has access. Which is fair enough within a family situation, and also reduces the likelihood of theft if the premises are burgled. I keep my firearms locked in a small storeroom that's built under the stairs to the second floor, no windows, brick walls, concrete stairway roof and a solid deadlocked door.

 

[dystopian]

Actually the surprising statistic to me were responses to the question: Gun ownership in this country does more to: A) Protect people from being victims of a crime; B) Put people's safety at risk.

The majority answered A). This is statistically false. People who own guns are something like 12 times more likely to kill or injure themselves or own family members than they are to successfully protect themselves against a crime. Source

aa

Meaningless.

1) Much of that increased risk is suicide--and that proves nothing.

2) People in riskier environments are more likely to own guns. It's not an independent variable, you can't draw conclusions.

3) This is making the errant assumption that successfully protecting themselves requires a dead bad guy.

1) "much of that" is a meaningless statement. HOW much of it is suicide? If you're going to dismiss the statistics based on the statement that it's meaningless if much of it is suicide (not sure why that would somehow make it "prove nothing", but ok); then you had better make sure to show how large a portion of the statistics is taken up by suicides; instead of just making a vague proclamation about the quantity. Incidentally, the article that was linked also states that the majority of these suicides are impulsive with no evidence of prior psychological issues... which suggests that the majority of those people would still be alive if they didn't have such an easy way to kill themselves.

2) This is an absurd statement. You're literally saying that people in environments where there are a lot of people who own guns are more likely to own guns. And it is of course, an irrelevant distinction to make in any case; if people who own guns are statistically twelve times more likely to kill or injure themselves or family members, then even if there was reason to think people in "less risky" environments would be less likely to injure/kill themselves or family (and there isn't), the statistical rate would almost certainly STILL be significantly higher than that of people who don't own guns.

3) Yes; absolutely. Except that is the assumption that the pro-gun people are working from. You don't need a gun to protect yourself from a bad guy; and having one just puts you at greater risk even if you're pointing it at the bad guy instead of yourself or a family member by mistake.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a problem with the secure storage requirements. That generally means a substantial bolted-down gun safe. That's not an option for someone living in a rental, that's generally not an option for those living above the lowest level of a building.

I would not object to secure storage if it simply meant a locked container.

It's not necessary to have a bolt down safe. A safe that's over 150kg does not have to be bolted down. It's also acceptable to store firearms in built in storerooms, etc, as long as the door is solid, deadlocked and only the licensed owner has access. Which is fair enough within a family situation, and also reduces the likelihood of theft if the premises are burgled. I keep my firearms locked in a small storeroom that's built under the stairs to the second floor, no windows, brick walls, concrete stairway roof and a solid deadlocked door.

150kg on an upper floor is something you need to check the engineering for. Such rules basically say apartment dwellers can't have guns. As I said, denying them to the lower classes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) "much of that" is a meaningless statement. HOW much of it is suicide? If you're going to dismiss the statistics based on the statement that it's meaningless if much of it is suicide (not sure why that would somehow make it "prove nothing", but ok); then you had better make sure to show how large a portion of the statistics is taken up by suicides; instead of just making a vague proclamation about the quantity. Incidentally, the article that was linked also states that the majority of these suicides are impulsive with no evidence of prior psychological issues... which suggests that the majority of those people would still be alive if they didn't have such an easy way to kill themselves.

After this revision, I don't know. Before they fixed it, 90%.

2) This is an absurd statement. You're literally saying that people in environments where there are a lot of people who own guns are more likely to own guns. And it is of course, an irrelevant distinction to make in any case; if people who own guns are statistically twelve times more likely to kill or injure themselves or family members, then even if there was reason to think people in "less risky" environments would be less likely to injure/kill themselves or family (and there isn't), the statistical rate would almost certainly STILL be significantly higher than that of people who don't own guns.

No. I'm saying that in an environment where they feel threatened they're more likely to own guns, no matter what the source of the threat is. Guns aren't the only threat!

3) Yes; absolutely. Except that is the assumption that the pro-gun people are working from. You don't need a gun to protect yourself from a bad guy; and having one just puts you at greater risk even if you're pointing it at the bad guy instead of yourself or a family member by mistake.

Look at the number of rapes being harped about in other threads. Those are women who failed to protect themselves. Almost certainly very few were armed at the time they were raped.

 

[dystopian]

After this revision, I don't know. Before they fixed it, 90%.

You're sounding like a conspiracy theorist here, Loren. Revision? What revision?

If you have any real evidence that the rate was 90%, then let's hear it. And while you're at it, let's hear your argument as to how those people couldn't possibly still be alive if they didn't have a gun which therefore means 'it doesn't prove anything'.

I'm not holding my breath on either count.

No. I'm saying that in an environment where they feel threatened they're more likely to own guns, no matter what the source of the threat is. Guns aren't the only threat!

And what, exactly, do you think Americans are so afraid of if not criminals with guns? Reckless bus drivers? Mountain lions invading the suburbs? People glaring at them in the streets?

And also, again, why do you ignore the argument right after where I explain why your point is irrelevant anyhow? There's absolutely no reason to think that people who own guns while living in "less risky" environments would subsequently be less likely to injure or kill themselves/family. The number of people in an area that own guns doesn't alter the risks involved with owning a gun oneself.

Look at the number of rapes being harped about in other threads. Those are women who failed to protect themselves. Almost certainly very few were armed at the time they were raped.

And almost certainly none of them would have been able to protect themselves if they HAD been armed. To say nothing of the false positives.

And of course, it was *you* who said that protecting yourself from a bad guy needn't require a dead one; meaning you SHOULDN'T want to arm women with guns but instead arm them with non-lethal weapons. So I really don't see your point.

 

[dystopian]

150kg on an upper floor is something you need to check the engineering for.

What? You can't be serious. 150KG is nothing. Unless you live in an apartment made of papermache that hasn't been maintained in over a century, there's absolutely no way that a 150KG safe would fall through a floor.

 

[arkirk]

150kg on an upper floor is something you need to check the engineering for.

What? You can't be serious. 150KG is nothing. Unless you live in an apartment made of papermache that hasn't been maintained in over a century, there's absolutely no way that a 150KG safe would fall through a floor.

So we are admitting the liability of these firearms are we...with 150KG safes? You have to carry the bugger up the stairs and then worry that Loren thinks IT IS UNSAFE. Nobody gets the picture how much service we give the gun making industry with our worship of these guns. If the safe hold the gun, and a home invasion robber comes to the door, do you say to them through the peep hole..."Wait a minute! I gotta go open the safe!" of is that "oops! lost the key to the trigger lock."
There are so many better ways to keep yourself safe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're sounding like a conspiracy theorist here, Loren. Revision? What revision?

If you have any real evidence that the rate was 90%, then let's hear it. And while you're at it, let's hear your argument as to how those people couldn't possibly still be alive if they didn't have a gun which therefore means 'it doesn't prove anything'.

I'm not holding my breath on either count.

The original was IIRC 43x as likely--but almost 40x of that was suicide.

No. I'm saying that in an environment where they feel threatened they're more likely to own guns, no matter what the source of the threat is. Guns aren't the only threat!

And what, exactly, do you think Americans are so afraid of if not criminals with guns? Reckless bus drivers? Mountain lions invading the suburbs? People glaring at them in the streets?

Well, the CCW person I used to know with the greatest fear wasn't worried about guns. She was worried about dicks.

And also, again, why do you ignore the argument right after where I explain why your point is irrelevant anyhow? There's absolutely no reason to think that people who own guns while living in "less risky" environments would subsequently be less likely to injure or kill themselves/family. The number of people in an area that own guns doesn't alter the risks involved with owning a gun oneself.

You can conclude that someone in a low-risk environment is at a greater danger than benefit from their gun (while neglecting the uses that don't make for dead perps and neglecting the other uses of guns--say, hunting) but you are making the erroneous assumption that they are as likely to own a gun as someone in a high risk environment.

Look at the number of rapes being harped about in other threads. Those are women who failed to protect themselves. Almost certainly very few were armed at the time they were raped.

And almost certainly none of them would have been able to protect themselves if they HAD been armed. To say nothing of the false positives.

False positives? You're saying they are shooting at shadows??

And the reality is that rape victims sometimes do manage to shoot their attackers. More likely she draws and he hauls ass out of there--no news.

And of course, it was *you* who said that protecting yourself from a bad guy needn't require a dead one; meaning you SHOULDN'T want to arm women with guns but instead arm them with non-lethal weapons. So I really don't see your point.

If there were a non-lethal option that was nearly as effective as a gun I would agree with you.

- - - Updated - - -

150kg on an upper floor is something you need to check the engineering for.

What? You can't be serious. 150KG is nothing. Unless you live in an apartment made of papermache that hasn't been maintained in over a century, there's absolutely no way that a 150KG safe would fall through a floor.

It's likely to be eroding the safety margin.

- - - Updated - - -

What? You can't be serious. 150KG is nothing. Unless you live in an apartment made of papermache that hasn't been maintained in over a century, there's absolutely no way that a 150KG safe would fall through a floor.

So we are admitting the liability of these firearms are we...with 150KG safes? You have to carry the bugger up the stairs and then worry that Loren thinks IT IS UNSAFE. Nobody gets the picture how much service we give the gun making industry with our worship of these guns. If the safe hold the gun, and a home invasion robber comes to the door, do you say to them through the peep hole..."Wait a minute! I gotta go open the safe!" of is that "oops! lost the key to the trigger lock."
There are so many better ways to keep yourself safe.

Digital safes can be opened quite quickly. I see absolutely no reason for a trigger lock on a gun in a safe.

 

[DBT]

It's not necessary to have a bolt down safe. A safe that's over 150kg does not have to be bolted down. It's also acceptable to store firearms in built in storerooms, etc, as long as the door is solid, deadlocked and only the licensed owner has access. Which is fair enough within a family situation, and also reduces the likelihood of theft if the premises are burgled. I keep my firearms locked in a small storeroom that's built under the stairs to the second floor, no windows, brick walls, concrete stairway roof and a solid deadlocked door.

150kg on an upper floor is something you need to check the engineering for. Such rules basically say apartment dwellers can't have guns. As I said, denying them to the lower classes.

I agree that our Government has gone too far, but there are ways around the problem of the letter of the law in relation to secure storage. But a 150kg safe isn't that bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

150kg on an upper floor is something you need to check the engineering for. Such rules basically say apartment dwellers can't have guns. As I said, denying them to the lower classes.

I agree that our Government has gone too far, but there are ways around the problem of the letter of the law in relation to secure storage. But a 150kg safe isn't that bad.

The problem is that the 150kg safe is a case of going way too far.

No burglar is going to haul off even a 50kg safe unless he has good reason to believe there's something quite valuable in it. I've hauled one of that weight range upstairs and it was quite an undertaking. Burglars grab small stuff!