Do we NEED guns? (evolution, America, pagan, Zen)

[robtex]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

Hi Robtex, thanks for your post.
However, any sweeping statements about a culture such as "we tend to gun one another down after drinking or in domestic disputes" is ripe for debate. Likewise, the idea that we "attach guns to being a 'macho man.'" In short, I disagree with that sweeping generalization of American culture.

It is not a sweeping statement but a marginalized statement. That is hardest point to get across to the pro-machine gun/pistol camp. I am making my evaluations and decisions thinking in terms of numbers and margins. What disturbs me about the pro-gun guys in this thread is yall's blantant disregard for applicable stats to quantify your claims. I am not asking for a total gun ban but a marginalized one. I am not saying all shooters are drinking, or all men feel macho when having a gun but a margin do. On the macho I would guess, though it would be hard to measure that the margin is over 50 percent.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

A central part of this that cannot be overlooked is the idea that most gun-related crime--or a significant portion of it--is committed by people who are otherwise law-abiding and who are using legally obtained firearms. In other words, that Joe Sixpack grabs his legally-owned gun and blows away his wife in a sudden fit of rage, conditioned to this response by his culture. This idea is incorrect. Most gun-related crime is committed by hardened criminals using illegal arms. And yes, they usually victimize their family members.

Do you have stats to support that claim? I am on a time crunch right now but can probably find some later.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

Being a democratic republic in no way insures that our government will protect our liberties. Many founding fathers warned against the "tyranny of the majority". Remember, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is also a democracy.

But also remember that Hitler was elected by democratic means, and the vast majority of Germans supported him until near the very end. Democracy can easily slip into populism, and as evidenced by some hysteria after 9/11, constitutional liberties can often by ignored cheerfully by the majority.

What a paranoid set of statements to make. You are not the only one to make staements like that on this thread. It seems to be a common theme with the pro gun camp. All silly statements like this convince me of is that a large group of you are parnoid against our goverment and buying machine guns to feel safe. If you want to debate why Hitler came into power that might be another thread but the situation was very very complexed. Apples and oranges to our goverment. What I am learning from you and the others who are against gun control from statements like this is

1) you fear the goverment
2) you need guns to feel safe
3) it is an all or none proposition when it comes to gun control

Originally Posted by bartdanr

(To be continued...)

I put this link at the bottom because it is a neutral stat from the goverment. This site concurs with the brady site that about 85 % of firearm deaths are homocide and suicide. Suicide being 1/2.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[robtex]

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

Sir, it is obvious that you and I are not going to come to any sort of agreement on this subject. It has been fun debating with you, I wish you all the best, and certainly hope I don't ever have to rely on someone with a similar outlook to come to the aid of those I love.
B.

Don't sweat it. My opinions are in the minority in the usa on gun control. The NRA is one of most powerful lobby groups in america and there are scores of others with the same agenda. Rest assured your safe to buy concealable pistols that you can carry with you and rifles that shoot hundreds of rounds per minute.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

(...continuation...)

Since the beginning, this country has had two kinds of military forces: (1) the Standing Army and (2) the Militia....

There is a milita thread in the politics section. I am gonna stick to gun control debae on this thread.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

Also, legally owned handguns carried by people with canceled carry permits are almost never used in the commission of a crime. I think this also brings to question the idea that Americans somehow have a propensity to gun people down indiscriminately and that the vast majority of Americans, when armed, are very responsible.

If you could find some stats I would be most apprciative.. I am still on time crunch but can look for some later.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

There has been some research on the effect of CCW (canceled carry weapon) laws on crime. Basically, a criminal does not know if a given person is armed if there is a CCW law in a given area, and will have a greater tendency to turn to non-confrontational crime. See the studies by John Lott for further details. Thus, the brandishing of a weapon, or even the shooting of an attacker, is not necessary for CCW to decrease the incident of violent crime.

Conceal laws are pretty new. So stats either way are lacking the longivity needed to find trends. That is why I didn't really push on stats for that. Lott, isn't probably the best source to go to. I would only use his stats if Heston's NRA was the only other choice.
http://timlambert.org/lott/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Criticism

Originally Posted by bartdanr

How does the presence of a firearm give people more mental fortitude and emotional commitment to murder? I can understand about physical inability, though most crime (including murder) is committed by young men who physically are able to kill by other means.

Let me come back to that when I have more time.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

I wouldn't single out a higher death rate from guns from the overall murder rate. If you're including gun accidents here, they are statistically very small and have been continually decreasing for over 100 years--not just in deaths per 10,000, but in absolute numbers. I also wouldn't include suicide; some countries with much stricter gun laws than the U.S. have higher suicide rates (Japan, for one). Murder is a problem; the weapon of choice is not the issue. And again, "assault rifles" (or any kind of rifle) are used in a very small number of crimes. You are absolutely correct in believing that handguns are used in a large percentage of murders; but legally owned handguns are rarely used in crimes. Ideally, if we could keep guns (especially handguns) out of the hands of criminals, we would decrease gun-related deaths, and probably the murder rate as well (though of course many criminals would turn to other means to commit their crime.)

I wasn't really aruging the suicide stats here because I don't know enough about suicide to make a qualfied educated opinion but I am noticing that 50% + deaths a year from firearms are suicide. What I don't know is how many of them would not go through with it were a gun not present. My beef with assult rifles is there primary purpose is killing humans. As opposed to shotguns whose primary purpose is hunting. As far as singling guns out for murder rate I am not. I am saying that gun control is way to marginalize our murder rate.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

So how do we best keep guns out of the hands of criminals? I can think of no single "silver bullet" (pardon the expression). Even the total ban of handguns would likely have little effect (certainly no immediate effect due to the large current supply of illegally owned firearms); clandestine arms trade, like clandestine drug trade, would still continue. Guns and ammunition are relatively easy to manufacture, and if there is a demand from the criminal community, they will be made and sold on the black market (just like drugs--stop them at the border, and we still have meth labs to deal with.)

Making certain types of guns less avaliable to society will give less guns to the hands of crimminals. The statement, "Even the total ban of handguns would likely have little effect" is an unqualfiable statement either pro or con. Never been tested in the USA.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

I think we have good laws, in general, with instant background checks for gun purchases (and I wouldn't mind it being expanded to cover gun shows and private sales). But I am not sure how best to attack the problem of illegal arms. As I said before, I believe self-defense as one of the most fundamental human rights--and to take away the most effective means to exercise that right is a poor way of attacking the crime problem.

Let me get back to this one too time crunch.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

One other point that I failed to make in my prior post: nearly everyone believes in some kind of arms control; it's only a matter of extent. I think 99% of Americans would agree that the Second Amendment does not give people the right to own private nuclear weapons. Most of the debate is on where to draw the line (though some believe in the absolute prohibition of all classes of firearms.)
Peace

Your nuclear weapons statement seems to be a trend on here. When you say most pro gun people seem to draw the line somewhere you guys talk about nukes, subs, tanks and planes. That is not part of gun control. The question is where do you feel we should draw the line for firearms such as automatic rifles, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, single-shot guns and the like and why.

[bartdanr]

Hi Robtex, thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by robtex

It is not a sweeping statement but a marginalized statement. That is hardest point to get across to the pro-machine gun/pistol camp.

What did I say that made you think I was "pro-machine gun"? As I tried to point out, so-called "assault weapons" as understood by most today are not capable of automatic fire and are not machine guns. True machine guns have been regulated heavily since the 1930's, and legally-owned machine guns are almost never used in the commission of a crime.

I am making my evaluations and decisions thinking in terms of numbers and margins. What disturbs me about the pro-gun guys in this thread is yall's blantant disregard for applicable stats to quantify your claims. I am not asking for a total gun ban but a marginalized one. I am not saying all shooters are drinking, or all men feel macho when having a gun but a margin do. On the macho I would guess, though it would be hard to measure that the margin is over 50 percent.

Well, your guess at a very subjective measurement ("over 50 percent") is a strange statement to make after a criticism about "disregard for applicable stats." How do you quantify your claim about this crowd? And I never claimed to believe that you were for a total gun ban.

Do you have stats to support that claim? I am on a time crunch right now but can probably find some later.

Here you go: (from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%


During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

Please note that most criminals are unarmed during their offenses--15% of State and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2% carried a military-style semiautomatic gun (the so-called "assault rifles"). Please note that this is not the statistic on how often these weapons are used in the commission of a murder, only in the possession of the criminal at the time of arrest. Please also note that the majority of firearms--80%--we obtained in a way other than the normal gun trade.

There are more stats on that cite, but I'm running short on time; I'll post more later. In particular, I have heard cited the stat that ninty percent of adult murders are committed by people who had previous crimminal records as adults. (I trust the source for that data, but I'd rather get the government statistics which do not have an agenda.)

What a paranoid set of statements to make. You are not the only one to make staements like that on this thread. It seems to be a common theme with the pro gun camp. All silly statements like this convince me of is that a large group of you are parnoid against our goverment and buying machine guns to feel safe. If you want to debate why Hitler came into power that might be another thread but the situation was very very complexed. Apples and oranges to our goverment. What I am learning from you and the others who are against gun control from statements like this is

1) you fear the goverment
2) you need guns to feel safe
3) it is an all or none proposition when it comes to gun control

Again, let me point out that I am not "pro machine gun". I have never owned a machine gun, nor do I intend to own one in the future.

I'm sorry if I left you this impression. I would carefully re-read what I posted, not what others posted, before lumping me with them.

1) I do not fear the government in a paranoid sense. Indeed, I support the government, and have taken an oath to do so.
2) I live in an envirnoment that is very safe, and guns to not measurably increase my security. (Life in a small town). However, I do need access to guns as a soldier.
3) The very last point I made in my post should have made this clear. I said that everyone believes in some measure of arms control, it's only a matter of extent. I support many of the current laws and support many proposed laws when it comes to gun control (and I obey all current law on gun control). I think the tight regulation on machine guns is a good thing. I think instant background checks before purchases is a good thing, and I wouldn't mind if it was extended to private sales and gun shows. I support background checks and licensing for concealed carry.

I think, my friend, that you have assumed certain things about me simply because you've been posting in response to many others and colored your response because of that. It's understandable, since you've been slugging away at this debate for a while. But please, read my posts more carefully before judging me.

I put this link at the bottom because it is a neutral stat from the goverment. This site concurs with the brady site that about 85 % of firearm deaths are homocide and suicide. Suicide being 1/2.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

I don't dispute those statistics.

Peace

[bartdanr]

Thanks for your continued response, Robtex.

Originally Posted by robtex

There is a milita thread in the politics section. I am gonna stick to gun control debae on this thread.

Ok; I was just answering your question, then added my two cents. I've posted more on that thread if you want to see it.

If you could find some stats I would be most apprciative.. I am still on time crunch but can look for some later.

I will try to find them. Again, if you find them before me, please post them here. As with all stats, it would be good if we agree to use neutral sources--stuff from HCI, VPC, NRA or other advocacy groups will probably not be accepted by the other party. Agreed?

Conceal laws are pretty new. So stats either way are lacking the longivity needed to find trends. That is why I didn't really push on stats for that.

How long would you consider sufficient longevity to see trends?

Lott, isn't probably the best source to go to. I would only use his stats if Heston's NRA was the only other choice.
http://timlambert.org/lott/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Criticism

There are other places that also address John Lott's problems as well. I agree; he's not the best source (though by the same token, VPC and HCI have distorted the information they present. I'm not saying that it's right in either case, that it's common in this issue.) However, it should be noted that when the National Acadamies of Science looked at Lott's data, though they were critical, they felt that CCW neither increased nor decreased crime (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument ) However, there was some dissent ( http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/269.html ), suggesting that the matter is not resolved.

One of the difficulties here is that, like a abortion issue, this issue remains highly emotionally charged. Pro-gun control crowds generally uncritically accept studies sponsored by HCI and the VPC, and pro-gun crowds tend to support anything that is cited by the NRA. Since success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan, changes in the crime rates (which can be due to a multitude of factors) are cited by both sides to confirm their opinions.

Let me come back to that when I have more time.

Okay, sounds fine.

I wasn't really aruging the suicide stats here because I don't know enough about suicide to make a qualfied educated opinion but I am noticing that 50% + deaths a year from firearms are suicide. What I don't know is how many of them would not go through with it were a gun not present.

I think that's going to be extremely hard to quantify. Though of course there are a lot of differences in cultures, it is evident that suicide is still signifiant (and sometimes more common) in countires where there is little access to firearms.

My beef with assult rifles is there primary purpose is killing humans. As opposed to shotguns whose primary purpose is hunting. As far as singling guns out for murder rate I am not. I am saying that gun control is way to marginalize our murder rate.

So, even if so-called "assault rifles" are not generally used to illegally kill people (murder), the fact that they were designed to kill people is what makes them unacceptable in your eyes?

Making certain types of guns less avaliable to society will give less guns to the hands of crimminals.

Agreed. However, that would not inevitably lead to a decrease in crime, only in the number of guns. There may or not be a correlation. If society is unguned as a whole, would that also lead to a decrease in crime? Maybe, maybe not.

The statement, "Even the total ban of handguns would likely have little effect" is an unqualfiable statement either pro or con. Never been tested in the USA.

Sorry, I should have said "little immediate effect." You are correct. Only law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns, and criminals would retain them. And given our traditions of liberty, it is extremely unlikely that law enforcement would undertake a house-to-house search to find illegal weapons (such a search would no doubt be considered unconstitutional.) A total ban on handguns would only reduce the number of handguns in the hands of criminals over time, and only if illegal arms trade is effectively stopped. (I question our society's willingness to stop illegal arms trade given its ineffectiveness in controlling illegal drug trades.) But you are right, we can only speculate based upon our current situation what the effect a total handgun ban might have on crime--though that cuts both ways.

Let me get back to this one too time crunch.

Okay on that one, too.

Your nuclear weapons statement seems to be a trend on here. When you say most pro gun people seem to draw the line somewhere you guys talk about nukes, subs, tanks and planes.

Not me; I sure draw the line further on down. Even though I disagree with some current laws on the books, for the most part I think our guns laws (national and in my state) are pretty good. They maybe could use some tweaking and in some cases better enforcement, but on the whole the classes of weapons restricted (again, Federal and in my state--I disagree with the laws in other states, but it's not really my business to change them) make sense.

That is not part of gun control. The question is where do you feel we should draw the line for firearms such as automatic rifles, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, single-shot guns and the like and why.

Ok, here's where I draw the line:
*Automatic rifles--Restricted as Class III weapons, as current law holds
*Machine guns--This is the same thing as "automatic rifle"
*Pistols--Should be legal, purchase subject to background checks. I also support CCW laws (with background checks, training and licensing.) (And yes, some pistols are used for hunting, but that's irrelevant in my mind.)
*Shotguns--Same as pistols (CCW doesn't necessarily apply, however; I agree with having a minium barrel length, as current law.)
*Single-shot guns--Same as pistols. Of course, this includes many classes of weapons, pistols, rifles, shotguns; black-powder and smokeless; and muzzle-loading and cartridge. Really, I'm fine with one law governing all non-automatic firearms. Currently, muzzle-loading firearms are subject to less control. I don't see a pressing need for more control on them, but I wouldn't object having them as controlled as other firearms.
Some classes of firearms you didn't list:
*Bolt- or lever- action rifles--Same regulations as pistols.
*Semi-automatic weapons--Same regulations as pistols. Many hunting arms (rifle and shotgun) are semi-automatic, as are so-called "assault rifles." Making a semi-automatic rifle out of black plastic and giving it a pistol grip, throwing on a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug does not make it any more deadly than a hunting rifle (unless you count the potental for bayoneting someone ). Saying "it was specifically designed to kill people" doesn't mean that it's better at killing someone than a hunting rifle.

In fact, the ONLY aspect of the so-called "assault rifle ban" that makes ANY sense, ESPECIALLY from the perspective of a sincere desire to reduce gun crime, is the magazine limitation (allowing no new manufacture of magazines with a capability of holding more than 10 rounds). That is the ONLY thing that could potentially make a so-called "assault rifle" (semi-automatic) more deadly than its hunting cousin with walnet stock and no bayonet lug.

*Field artillery or large-caliber weapons--I'm fine with prohibiting civilian ownership of firearms with calibers, say, one inch.
*Grenades and other explosive devices--Again, same as field artillery.

Now, I understand you are against handguns and so-called "assault rifles". I can understand your objections to handguns, even if I don't agree with them. I don't understand, however, your (or anyone else's) objections to so-called "assault rifles." Frankly, the objection that "they were specifically designed to kill people" doesn't really seem rational to me. The round a so-called "assault rifle" shoots isn't inherently more dangerous (in many cases, less dangerous) than the round shot by a hunting rifle. And the semi-automatic action of a so-called "assault rifle" is the same semi-automatic action of many hunting rifles. As stated above, I can understand (though I don't necessarily agree) with the magazine capacity limitations; but other than that, the objections seem without any rational merit.

I am still pouring through crime data on finding how many murderers were guilty of prior offenses. If you find it first, please post it here.

Peace

[EnhancedSpirit]

Do we NEED cars? Do we all NEED a phone with us 24/7? Do we NEED fireworks on the fourth of July?

We have a lot of things we don't NEED. God gave us everything we need. However, he also gave us the power to create. And somebody wanted a gun, so they exist.

I am a country girl. My dad gave me a gun when I was 12, and taught me how to hunt. He also told me how to protect myself, mainly from accidents. The number one rule was 'do not EVER point a gun at something, or someone, unless you intend to kill. I feel it's no different then saying don't ever run over a person with a car unless you intend on killing them. Both cars and guns can hurt people, and both can benefit us. But we don't NEED them, we want them.

[bartdanr]

Hi Again,

As I promised before, I did some research to try to find the statstics on murderers who had a prior history of crime.

One study that I found, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdluc98.pdf unfortunately dates back seven years--I don't believe it's an annual report. The 1998 statistics were compiled in put in this report in 2001. (If someone has a more recent copy of this study please point me to it.) This study is "Felony Defendents in Large Urban Counties."

On page 14, table seven, 45% of murderers had an "active criminal justice status" at the time of arrest: that means probation, partial release, parole, in custody (jail and prison murders), and "other". Please note that this just are those who were still going through the criminal justice system; if they had already served their sentence for a prior offense, they are not included in the 45%.

On p. 16, Table 8, 81% of murder defendets had prior arrests. 28% had 10 or more arrests.

On p. 18, Table 10, 70% of murder defendents had prior convictions for crime, with 11% having 10 or more convictions.

Now, I believe I used a figure of 90% before, and from this study, this appears to be an error on my part. However, it can be seen that it is still quite a large majority of murders who had prior criminal histories.

These statistics suggest that a large majority of murderers had prior criminal histories and, at least in the case of the nation's 75 largest counties in the year 1998, nearly half of them were still being processed for prior crimes and the great majority had an arrest record.

Keep in mind that criminals have family, friends and acquintances too, just like everyone else, and a criminal's family, friends and acquaintances are more likely to be victimized by the criminal than strangers.

Also keep in mind that current gun laws make it a criminal offense for a convicted felon (and in many cases, one convicted of non-felony offenses) to own, use or even pick up a firearm.

Peace