Gun Rights Outweigh Gun Control - Pew Survey

[dystopian]

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

Again, conspiracy theory. Do you have some evidence of these changes?

Alternatively, do you have some evidence of this general breakdown in statistics?

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

And because of that, she bought (or should have bought) a gun? Do you not realize how insane that sounds?

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.

W-what? Nobody is making that fucking assumption. Not did I conclude that someone in a low-risk environment is at a "greater" danger than benefit from their gun (In fact, I would say the exact opposite and that said danger is higher in the high-risk environment).

You seem to be arguing that the reason people in America own so many guns is because they live in a high-risk environment; which is an interesting argument for you to make because just a few posts ago you were claiming that "yes", the US has more murders (which is entirely due to the prevalence of guns, I might add), but that it had equal or lower overall crime-rates to other developed countries, leading to the inevitable conclusion that the only reason the US is a high-risk environment is because of all the fucking guns.

Unless I missed something and the US is just infested with rabid mountain lions prowling the streets, I don't see how you can blame the rampant ownership of guns in America on some sort of inherent 'unsafeness' that would still be there without all the guns being there to begin with.

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

No, I'm saying that there's certainly going to be cases where, in a society obsessed with guns and personal safety, there's going to be cases of people being shot as a pre-emptive measure against a crime they were never intending to commit in the first place. "I'm sorry, he came at me with a funny look in his eyes." "I'm sorry, I got confused and thought my wife was a burglar." "I'm sorry, but I was alone at night and he was a black guy wearing a hoodie."

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.

No, more likely he surprises her; and she either never gets the chance to draw before he pins her down, or fear takes over and she doesn't even try. The idea that someone suddenly faced with a threat to themselves (a rapist, a mugger, whatever) could not only make a rational decision to draw their gun, but can do so in a quick and composed enough manner to do him/her any good, is nothing but a fantasy that I've only ever heard uttered by American gun enthusiasts. It's what others in this thread pointed out as being the illusion of control. In reality, people in these situations do NOT have that level of control, over themselves or the situation. Pulling a gun in that situation is far more likely to get yourself hurt.

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

There is. In fact, just about every option is just as effective or *better* as a gun in that situation. Rapes happen in close quarters; a stun-gun is going to be far more likely to take an attacker down then a gun in that situation.


- - - Updated - - -

It's likely to be eroding the safety margin.

No, it really isn't. Again, a 150KG is nothing; buildings in the developed world are not so poorly constructed that a mere 150KG safe is going to 'erode' the safety margin.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

I don't know if cars are anonymous or whatever, but registration is about liability. Automobiles are hazardous and can cause a lot of damage. They are also expensive and difficult to trace back to an individual.

Exactly like guns.

There's no corresponding parallel with guns unless you go with some sort of fingerprinting scheme and none are reliable.

Is 'some fingerprinting scheme' better than 'no fingerprinting scheme' or should we absolve all liability until we have the fingerprint scheme 100% reliable?

Also - Make, Model, Serial Number, Rifling, Ammunition Type - all decent information to have recorded and could easily absolve (or implicate) you of a gun related crime.

Actually there are tons of parallels with cars. What are you talking about?

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

I'm not sure you noticed this pattern, but when I made a claim that on it's face sounded fantastical - I immediately provided the source of the information in the claim. That way you knew I wasn't just pulling '12x more likely' out of my ass. Admittedly, I've never conducted such a study myself.

The claims you are making, I'm not so sure about:

1) Impulsive suicide was addressed in the study. If you want to claim that once corrected for suicides, the risk of harm is equal to or less than the risk protection from home invasion, then you might provide your own evidence for this.

2) They are in riskier environments because they have a gun in the house. That you cannot identify that is what is wrong with risk assessment in the US. We don't live in 1980's Beirut.

3) Another opportunity for you to provide evidence! Are there studies that show how many crimes were not even started because the potential criminal had prior knowledge of victim gun ownership? And even if there are, guess what? That is a strong argument for gun registration. Register it and let all your criminal neighbors know you have one and you will never be accosted amirite?

aa

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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).

The restrictions that are in place on cars?

Title and tag at each point of sale. License and unlimted use at age 16. Licences in one state recognized in all states. Easy written test. 2 minute practical test. No license or registration of any kind required if the car is only used on your personal private property. You can buy any car you want, from anybody you want, at any time, and own as many cars as you want.

I think I could live with these restrictions.

I would like to see 100% federal background check requirements; no buying 5 38-specials at a swap meet in 15 minutes, ready to go off on some adventure.
I would like to see change of ownership requirements, like we have for cars, when one sells a car.

The first category of restrictions you wish to have in place, tracing the transactions. The background check would prohibit some from owning firearms, but mostly you are aiming at tracing the transaction here.

I would like to see civil liability for negligently managing a dangerous weapon. Like when some idiot leaves his AR15 on the kitchen table overnight, while his buddy sleeps over. And then his buddy bugs out early in the morning with his friend’s AR15, and goes on a shooting rampage in a nearby mall. That is a real story; and nothing happened to the fuckwit who owned the AR15. If a guy left his backyard gate wide open with a swimming pool, and some 4 year old drowned, we all know the pool owner would be fucked for real.

Does this mean you want, say, liability insurance for gun owners? What about poor people who also wish to own guns, or do you wish that only the wealthy can have the right to own a gun?

Police as the most highly trained? Geesh!

They are certainly better trained than my moronic nephew, who has no business owning an AR15, yet he does. Having a conversation with an average 7 year old is better than with him.

You still haven't supported that they are better than your "moronic nephew."

I made specific proposals even though I wasn't asked to do so. Now its your turn to come up with proposals for citizens who live in cities where guns are threats rather than solutions, most suicides and murders happen cities, so we can drop the rates of these forms of killing down to Great Britain levels.

No word salad, no humor, no problem, right........

No you didn't even though you were asked to do so.

My proposal to reduce gun violence - end the drug war.

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.

Background checks and secure storage requirements.

By the way, DBT and funinspace, who will pay for the background checks? This, along with the secure storage requirements, might be another way to try to price the poor out of owning firearms.

And what constitutes "secure storage"? If you need your firearm in a hurry, is it quick to retrieve?

But yes, you USians need to wake up and vote according to real risks and not gut feelings.

I keep saying that, but the phobics keep voting according to their gut fears.

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.

So in addition to registration, you would like laws that prohibit the usage at any place other than the firing range? And if someone needs to use their firearm at a time and place outside a firing range, what are their options? Or do you believe there is no need outside a firing range (and thus essentially no need at all)?

 

[DBT]

Background checks and secure storage requirements.

By the way, DBT and funinspace, who will pay for the background checks? This, along with the secure storage requirements, might be another way to try to price the poor out of owning firearms.

We have background checks. The applicant does not directly pay for their background check (and medical record), unless it's a part of the licence fee, which is not all that high.

And what constitutes "secure storage"? If you need your firearm in a hurry, is it quick to retrieve?

In general, locked in a safe, a dead locked storeroom, a solid timber cabinet or container is considered to be legal gun storage. We are not allowed to own guns for the purpose of self defence, only sporting use, target shooting and hunting.

 

[bilby]

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

Pretty much everyone in the world, outside the USA, understands this.

 

[dx713]

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

Pretty much everyone in the world, outside the USA, understands this.

Same here.
You only can have a gun for sporting purposes or hunting.

It actually empowers the police: they catch a guy with a gun other than a hunting gun, and not locked with ammunition locked in a separate box on his way to the range, they can assume he is a criminal and arrest him on the spot. And he IS at least breaking that law, so it's not a useless arrest.
I thought the authoritarians would love that, but apparently, they're all for empowering police except when it touches guns...

Once again, I think they're making the "control" fallacy. They can't get rid of "what if I really need a gun now ?", despite being actually safer with gun control laws. I suppose they also think they're safer in their own car than in a plane?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

Pretty much everyone in the world, outside the USA, understands this.

Legitimate reason to need a firearm in a hurry: You found you have a likely-violent stalker. In most of the world if you have a stalker after you that's willing to die you have no meaningful options, you're probably going to die.

 

[bilby]

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

Pretty much everyone in the world, outside the USA, understands this.

Legitimate reason to need a firearm in a hurry: You found you have a likely-violent stalker. In most of the world if you have a stalker after you that's willing to die you have no meaningful options, you're probably going to die.

And this is commonplace where you live, is it?

Even if it was, how would you find out in time to draw your gun, but not with enough time to seek police protection?

Exactly how many such scenarios do you imagine that there might be worldwide per annum that fall into this category?

Do you favour everybody wearing a bulletproof vest everywhere too? That would certainly increase personal safety more than everybody carrying a firearm.

Your argument is only good for people with no grasp of statistics or of risk.

 

[dystopian]

Legitimate reason to need a firearm in a hurry: You found you have a likely-violent stalker. In most of the world if you have a stalker after you that's willing to die you have no meaningful options, you're probably going to die.

No, in most of the world if you have a violent stalker after you that's willing to die (which almost never fucking happens but okay), you go to the police and they actually protect you instead of shrugging their shoulders and suggesting you get a gun and pray that you get the first shot in.

 

[dx713]

Legitimate reason to need a firearm in a hurry: You found you have a likely-violent stalker. In most of the world if you have a stalker after you that's willing to die you have no meaningful options, you're probably going to die.

No, in most of the world if you have a violent stalker after you that's willing to die (which almost never fucking happens but okay), you go to the police and they actually protect you instead of shrugging their shoulders and suggesting you get a gun and pray that you get the first shot in.

And even in a case where the answer is "you die", the risk is still lower than the one you take by having you AND EVERYONE AROUND be possibly armed.

 

[PyramidHead]

Take the money we are spending on creating more effective killing machines for the military, and pump a huge chunk of it into researching and creating non-lethal weapons that indefinitely (but not permanently) disable their target. The goal would be to create weapons that are as useful in self-defense and law enforcement scenarios for their intended purpose--to stop a person in their tracks and keep them there until the situation is under control--without killing them. When such a level of technology is available and can be made widespread, ban all civilian guns everywhere. Military personnel should still have access to them, of course, and licenses can be provided for hunters who cull overpopulations of various animals and help provide food. Nobody else gets to have a gun. If they piss and moan about not being able to defend their homes, direct them to the nearest weapon retailer to obtain a non-lethal alternative that allows them to do just that. If they piss and moan about not being able to participate in a violent uprising against the government, slap them upside the head with an open palm.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In general, locked in a safe, a dead locked storeroom, a solid timber cabinet or container is considered to be legal gun storage. We are not allowed to own guns for the purpose of self defence, only sporting use, target shooting and hunting.

So you are asserting that nobody actually needs a gun. Of course, that means you know what other people need, but your omniscience is beside the point. What you are doing is begging the question.

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

Pretty much everyone in the world, outside the USA, understands this.

How long should the process to retrieve a "properly stored" firearm take? What do you consider a reasonable amount of time for a person to have access to his own property?

Legitimate reason to need a firearm in a hurry: You found you have a likely-violent stalker. In most of the world if you have a stalker after you that's willing to die you have no meaningful options, you're probably going to die.

No, in most of the world if you have a violent stalker after you that's willing to die (which almost never fucking happens but okay), you go to the police and they actually protect you instead of shrugging their shoulders and suggesting you get a gun and pray that you get the first shot in.

Actually, the courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you. This was decided in the case of a person who called the police to report that a violent stalker had violated a restraining order and was entering her property. The police were only 30 minutes away, and they did eventually arrive.

The police were sued for not providing protection, which is when the courts ruled that it isn't their job to do so.

If you are going to argue that the police are sufficient protection, you might want to change the laws so that the police are sufficient protection.

No, in most of the world if you have a violent stalker after you that's willing to die (which almost never fucking happens but okay), you go to the police and they actually protect you instead of shrugging their shoulders and suggesting you get a gun and pray that you get the first shot in.

And even in a case where the answer is "you die", the risk is still lower than the one you take by having you AND EVERYONE AROUND be possibly armed.

Interestingly enough, there was only one casualty from this very interesting crime. According to the conventional wisdom, everyone at that scene should have been firing at anyone else who was firing until there was at most one person left standing. For some reason that sort of bloodbath did not happen and generally doesn't happen in places where many people are armed.

The lack of said bloodbaths should make you ponder if your opinion on the behavior of gun owners is perhaps incorrect. Maybe you think that is how you would behave if you had a firearm and you are projecting your fears and insecurities onto everyone else.

 

[dystopian]

So you are asserting that nobody actually needs a gun. Of course, that means you know what other people need, but your omniscience is beside the point.

He may or may not be asserting that.

But just in case he isn't; *I will*.

There is absolutely no reason for a civilian living in a developed country to own a gun except to hunt or target practice, and in both those cases you could just as well just keep the gun at the shooting range/hunting lodge/some place else safe and out of the way.

Actually, the courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you. This was decided in the case of a person who called the police to report that a violent stalker had violated a restraining order and was entering her property. The police were only 30 minutes away, and they did eventually arrive.

The police were sued for not providing protection, which is when the courts ruled that it isn't their job to do so.

If you are going to argue that the police are sufficient protection, you might want to change the laws so that the police are sufficient protection.

Like I said, in MOST of the world. You apparently didn't read properly. I was deliberately excluding the United States where it seems it's perfectly okay and normal for a court to decide the police don't have a obligation to protect you.

Apparently to the American mind, instead of reforming the fucking system so that it makes actual sense, the solution is more guns.

Interestingly enough, there was only one casualty from this very interesting crime.

You *really* don't want to go into the "here's an example of a crime where gun owners being around didn't go horribly wrong!"; because not only is nobody saying that people owning guns will *always* result in bloodbaths (just that statistically speaking it's less safe to have everyone armed)... but there are a *lot* of examples where gun owners being around the scene of a crime *does* in fact go horribly wrong.

 

[bilby]

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

Pretty much everyone in the world, outside the USA, understands this.

How long should the process to retrieve a "properly stored" firearm take? What do you consider a reasonable amount of time for a person to have access to his own property?

As long as it takes to ensure that such property is reasonably secure from access by unskilled and/or unauthorised persons who are otherwise likely to be harmed by it, or to use it to cause harm.

The owners of a quarry who left explosives lying around unsecured, in the interest of preventing delays in accessing them, would quite correctly be held criminally liable if those explosives were stolen and used in a crime, or if an unsuspecting person was to blow themselves up by accident.

The same duty of care should be applied to firearms owners.

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Legitimate reason to need a firearm in a hurry: You found you have a likely-violent stalker. In most of the world if you have a stalker after you that's willing to die you have no meaningful options, you're probably going to die.

No, in most of the world if you have a violent stalker after you that's willing to die (which almost never fucking happens but okay), you go to the police and they actually protect you instead of shrugging their shoulders and suggesting you get a gun and pray that you get the first shot in.

It happens. Everywhere. Sometimes a nutter decides that if they can't have you nobody can.

And the police can't provide 24/7 protection.

 

[bilby]

No, in most of the world if you have a violent stalker after you that's willing to die (which almost never fucking happens but okay), you go to the police and they actually protect you instead of shrugging their shoulders and suggesting you get a gun and pray that you get the first shot in.

It happens. Everywhere. Sometimes a nutter decides that if they can't have you nobody can.

And the police can't provide 24/7 protection.

It happens very, very rarely. And when it does, having a firearm is very unlikely to help one little bit - so unlikely, in fact, that the chance of a firearm providing you with protection are lower than the chances of that firearm causing you or one of your family harm.

It works in the movies. In real life, a determined attacker always has the edge, because he has the initiative. And in real life, determined attackers of this kind are very rare indeed.

You would be better off building a meteorite shield over your house than buying a gun. And you would be far better off spending your money on a lightning conductor - I assume you have fitted one to your home, if personal protection from small risks is so important to you?

 

[DBT]

So you are asserting that nobody actually needs a gun. Of course, that means you know what other people need, but your omniscience is beside the point. What you are doing is begging the question.

I'm not asserting that at all.
I was outlining what our gun laws allow us to do, and what they don't allow us to do. Whether Australian gun laws are right or wrong on these points is a matter for further discussion. On the issue of self defense, the idea of our laws is to eliminate unnecessary shootings and reliance on guns as a means of self defense. Obviously, a gun owner may still use a firearm for self defense, even though it's not legal, but he must have an extremely good reason for doing so.

 

[dystopian]

It happens. Everywhere. Sometimes a nutter decides that if they can't have you nobody can.

Gasp! Shock! Horror! Better stock up on bullets cause it could happen to ANYONE! ANYWHERE! PANIC!

Of course, in reality, it's not even a million in one chance that this happens to you. And if you have the good fortune of living in a country with sensible laws; the cops will take the threats seriously, and the stalker will have a hard time acquiring the means to hurt you.

But let's ignore basic common sense because we need to pretend that we actually need guns everywhere.

And the police can't provide 24/7 protection.

Well actually they *can*, it's just that *your* cops choose not to.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you are asserting that nobody actually needs a gun. Of course, that means you know what other people need, but your omniscience is beside the point. What you are doing is begging the question.

He may or may not be asserting that.

But just in case he isn't; *I will*.

There is absolutely no reason for a civilian living in a developed country to own a gun except to hunt or target practice, and in both those cases you could just as well just keep the gun at the shooting range/hunting lodge/some place else safe and out of the way.

In that case it is YOU begging the question.

Interestingly enough, there was only one casualty from this very interesting crime. According to the conventional wisdom, everyone at that scene should have been firing at anyone else who was firing until there was at most one person left standing. For some reason that sort of bloodbath did not happen and generally doesn't happen in places where many people are armed.

The lack of said bloodbaths should make you ponder if your opinion on the behavior of gun owners is perhaps incorrect. Maybe you think that is how you would behave if you had a firearm and you are projecting your fears and insecurities onto everyone else.

You *really* don't want to go into the "here's an example of a crime where gun owners being around didn't go horribly wrong!"; because not only is nobody saying that people owning guns will *always* result in bloodbaths (just that statistically speaking it's less safe to have everyone armed)... but there are a *lot* of examples where gun owners being around the scene of a crime *does* in fact go horribly wrong.

I had to go that far back to find a situation that was even remotely similar to the shooting hysteria fantasy that many subscribe to here. The belief is that if one person starts firing in a place where many have guns, then everyone will start firing back, and then start firing at anyone nearby who is firing, etc, until there is only one person at most still standing. Except there are no recorded instances of that. This is the closest event that has ever come to the daydream wishful fantasy that is accepted as real around here.

How long should the process to retrieve a "properly stored" firearm take? What do you consider a reasonable amount of time for a person to have access to his own property?

As long as it takes to ensure that such property is reasonably secure from access by unskilled and/or unauthorised persons who are otherwise likely to be harmed by it, or to use it to cause harm.

The owners of a quarry who left explosives lying around unsecured, in the interest of preventing delays in accessing them, would quite correctly be held criminally liable if those explosives were stolen and used in a crime, or if an unsuspecting person was to blow themselves up by accident.

The same duty of care should be applied to firearms owners.

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

A very skillful dodge of my question. If you are threatened, what do you feel is a reasonable length of time to retrieve a "properly stored" firearm? Should you have any access to a firearm to protect yourself from a threat?

Or do you mean "you are doing it wrong" means you always have your firearm on your person?

So you are asserting that nobody actually needs a gun. Of course, that means you know what other people need, but your omniscience is beside the point. What you are doing is begging the question.

I'm not asserting that at all.
I was outlining what our gun laws allow us to do, and what they don't allow us to do. Whether Australian gun laws are right or wrong on these points is a matter for further discussion. On the issue of self defense, the idea of our laws is to eliminate unnecessary shootings and reliance on guns as a means of self defense. Obviously, a gun owner may still use a firearm for self defense, even though it's not legal, but he must have an extremely good reason for doing so.

You are not asserting that nobody actually needs a gun? The discussion isn't "this is what Australian gun laws are" but "what should gun laws be". Do try to keep up.