Farren

I've just been reading a lengthy slanging match about guns and decided to post a new thread because that one seems to have become convoluted without being too illuminating.

I just don't get the argument for civilian gun ownership:

Gun's don't kill people, people do

Yes but guns make it easier for people to kill other people.

You can argue Swiss crime statistics till you're blue in the face (a nation with a low crime rate and controlled gun ownership), but you're just falling into the trap of fallacy of complex cause. Other factors than the presence of guns contribute to gun related deaths, but guns are still a critical requirement.

Since a gun is required to shoot someone, the absence of guns self-evidently makes murder by shooting (self-evidently easier than, say suffocation) impossible.

You may blame poor social conditions for the action, but the action isn't possible without the gun. So civilian gun ownership is definitely a cause of murders involving shooting. Can't get round it.

An armed, civilian population is required so that people can protect themselves against their government, should it become oppressive

Pu-lease. A handgun vs. a Tank?

On the other hand, you could advocate that every citizen should have the right to bear Nukes (anyone read Snowcrash?)

Guns are a deterrent against crime

Well, if you're an advocate of death as the penalty for even the most minor crime, this makes sense. As in "he snatched my cell-phone, so I shot him". But then you'd be arguing against the reasoning behind the entire body of law that has evolved over the last two odd centuries away from such draconian thinking.

Failing that, you would have to account for why you would need a gun to defend yourself against a criminal who in turn, is less likely to have a gun in a gun-free society.

It just doesn't add up. Any takers?

Majestyk

Been to this argument before so, I'll just skip to my last statement on the subject; I claim the right of gun ownership and I will empty the weapon before handing it over.

JCS

My sentiments exactly. If the anti-gun people do not want guns, then fine don't buy them.


My wife's grandmother would drive across country for visits. On one of her drives through Montana she was in a situation facing 4 juveniles with bad intentions. All she did was pull her pistol from her purse, they left and nothing more happened. I would say that was a deterrent. Would you deny her the right of equalizing such encounters? What would be a reasonable alternative in this situation? They didn't brandish any weapons, but then 4 of them against a 140 pound 78 year old woman, maybe we should ban teenagers because they could pose a potential threat to the elderly.

RLV

This is a really strong argument against too few restrictions to own a gun.


RLV

Laci

But why shouldn't an individual be able to protect himself/family? That's makes no sense!

These guns, owned by responsible people, ARE NOT the guns who get into the hands of murderers. You keep thinking that they are! And you're wrong!!

The murderers would STILL somehow end up with a gun or weapon if they wanted it and then we (the innocent victim) would be weaponless!

How can you be so niave!

RLV

I'm not against me having a gun; I'm against everybody (most people, anyway) having a gun. If many people own guns, society is dangerous regardless of wether I own one or not.
OTOH, if there are few guns around, the risk of being a victim of guns is small, even if I don't own one (specially if I don't own one, actually).

Good for the old lady; she was brave... and lucky. Yet, I'm certain there are several cases in which the old lady/gentleman pulled her/his pistol and was shot to death by the also armed, and faster, teenagers.
OTOH, had that lady been in WE, it is most likely that none of the teenagers would have carried a gun, possibly not even a knife. The lady would not have resisted and she would have lost the valuables she had carried on. Most likely she would be left shocked and disgusted, but alive and unharmed.
Compare this risk to the risk of receiving a shot, and then you can argue which one is worst.

But anyway, there is a stronger argument against guns being a deterrent against crime: is crime significantly lower in the US than in WE?
Since guns are far more common in the US, if they acted as a deterrent against crime it should be much lower than in WE. This is not the case, so somehow guns are not working to deter crime.

If you really believe that teenagers have more risks to society than potential benefits, then, yes, you should ban teenagers.

Seriously, apply this criterion to any item potentially dangerous to decide if it should be banned or not. If you apply it to widespread gun ownership, I believe the balance most supports the ban.


RLV

RLV

Can't even think what are you talking about.

Good summary, btw. The complexity of factors is often overlooked. In the thread alluded above, Loren Petchel argued that the rural areas had more guns than the urban areas, and yet less gun victims (I assume that he meant relative to population). But then I asked him to compare gun victims in urban areas in the US (with more guns) and similar urbar areas in WE (with more guns).
All other things equal (something impossible in sociology, but something we must try to approach), you can compare the effect of gun ownership in a society. If you compare situations very different, then you can't ascertain if the differences observed are caused by gun ownership or by other factor.

The fact is that guns don't cause more crime (at least so I think): social factors cause crime. Guns increase the ratio of armed crime, and thus the number of victims of that crime.


RLV

RLV

You could be right if you were talking about people who intends to commit a murder, and who plans it with some time in advance. Alghough even in that situation, many people would not be able to get a gun in WE;it's not so easy. But yes, it can be done.

However, this kind of planned crimes are quite rare. Most of the murders happen during a robbery, burglary or assault, or in a 'spontaneous' murder, during a fight, not planned. In most of these cases, if there had not been a no gun there would have been no murder.

And the fact is that, in WE, criminals carry guns far less frequently than in the US. For the simple fact that they don't need one, as they are unlikley to face armed resistance.

Btw, many of the victims of gunshot are not-so-responsible gun owners who mishandle them or let their kids get them. If you were able to somehow restrict gun ownership only to really responsible people, the situation would be less bad. However, there is no test able to detect all cases of stupidity. And even resonsible, intelligent and careful people makes mistakes, so not even they are safe.


RLV

JCS

I feel the same way about cars. (Must make note to start petition ASAP)


Yes, but not in this instance.

Perhaps or perhaps not. Seems like a dice roll to me.Then why do cops carry guns? Don't they risk being shot to death by armed and faster criminals? If they didn't carry a gun the criminal would just commit his crime and move on and the cop while most likely shocked and disgusted would be alive and unharmed. Compare this risk to the risk of receiving a shot, and then you can argue which one is worst.


Ok I'll go along with that, only if we start banning all things related to deaths/injuries, cars and homes first, since that is were it seems most death and injuries seem to occure.

Farren

How does this invalidate the concept that a criminal is less likely to shoot someone if it is harder to acquire a gun? Personal accounts don't constitute statistical evidence, or logical refutation.

I say bully for your grandmother, but she's 1 in 5 billion people on this planet.