Guns in America

[Simon]

Hello Guys,

Please excuse me, I had a Kung Fu class all evening and only just got back to see the fight I managed to kick off...  So let me respond.

I don't even know where to start with this one.  I'm guessing with my avatar most of you can guess where I stand on the issue.  If not, I will summarize:

There are three types of people (taken from Dave Grossman who has many great books on the topics of personal defense and combat):
1) Sheep - The average person who thinks the government's job is to keep them safe and they do a good job at it.  Unfortunately, this is the majority of the population and it seems the majority of the posters here.
2) Wolves - This is a minority.  These are the people who prey on the sheep.  That is what they do.  They will do it by any means necessary and have no qualms about killing the sheep.
3) Sheepdogs - These people appear as sheep from a distance, and are part of the flock.  However, when the wolf attacks they find out this is not a mere sheep.  They will fight back and protect themselves and the rest of the flock.

I really don't know where to begin in refuting this...  It is so obviously fallacious to try to divide human beings into broad groups based on their macho prowess that there doesn't seem a reasonable way to take this on.  People respond to circumstances as they are used to behaving, and an unexpected criminal conflict will illicit an unusual response out of someone who is not used to this happening in their life.  I can say from experience that on an occasion where I was mugged on the tube, both I and the mugger were completely baffled by my response (I gave him a stern, and carefully considered lecture on why it was a bad idea to do this, then threw him off the train).  I say this to illustrate that both I, and the mugger, were acting on the spur of the moment...  Not as some grand category of humanity.  If you're claiming that all criminals are identical and have the same attitude, you are mistaken , for they are as diverse as any grouping of humanity, and I don't think the stupid wretch who mugged me deserved to have his head shot off.  If you're claiming that having some survivalist-type attitude of self-sufficiency allows you to stand above the average man without this attitude then you are again mistaken.  People are people, and each of us has their own story.

The thing with laws about weapons is that the only people that follow them are the sheep and sheepdogs.  The wolves don't care about the laws or they wouldn't be preying on the sheep in the first place!  Laws banning weapons give the wolves the advantage.

As far as Simon's post about Americans killing each other with guns more than in the UK he would find most murders are committed with ILLEGALL handguns.  That doesn't stop criminals (people who are willing to break the law anyway) from using them.  Also, for a number of reasons that could each have their own thread, Americans are most apt to use violence to solve their problems.  It's an unfortunate part of our culture going waaaaaay back to the revolutionary war when we decided we didn't like the British telling us what to do.  It's been there ever since, and it's one of our biggest strengths and our biggest weaknesses.

This is, again, a nonsense.  I will not - ever - accept arguments based on American Exceptionalism as justification for acts of barbarism, but let's address that later.  If you reduce the supply of weapons, then you will find that the need for a threatening weapon in organised crime and personal protection is massively reduced.  A macho-man will, in the UK, be content with a baseball bat under the bed to protect his family.  In the US he needs a gun.  In the UK, a young hood will go around with a pretty hefty knife (I live in an unusually rough neighbourhood, and police crackdowns on knives are a monthly occurance at the local tube station) because it is all they need to make their point...  In the UK, a heavy duty thug will be able to use a knife to hammer his point home.

The chances of a fatality either accidentally or intentionally with a knife are far, far lower than those with a gun.  These "wolves" you speak of are less likely to kill people when they are equipped with a sharp object than with a device for projecting hot lead... Guns exist, but the paucity of supply, and the abundance of less-fatal alternatives means that they are simply never going to be the weapon of choice for burglars and muggers.  Not while the ban is in place.  Banning weapons does not give advantage to some mythical "wolf" species, it reduces the total supply of deadly devices into the black-market and thereby makes it more likely that only serious organised criminals are found "packing".

America is not fundamentally different to the rest of the planet.  Gun control has been demonstrated to work in numerous countries, and the only reason it doesn't work in the US is because of massive vested interests struggling to prevent this happening.  When it comes to guns there is only one word for US culture: Barbaric. 

The only way to prevent you or your loved ones becoming a victim of violence is to become a sheepdog by preparing yourself to defend against the wolves at all times.  The police are not always going to arrive in time.  If you tell Mr. Samurai sword wielding mugger he is in volation of Statute # XYZ subsection 5 he's going to laugh at you.  I, personally, am ready to demonstrate to him he just made the biggest mistake of his life by thinking I'm just another sheep.

Or alternatively there might be less than a dozen samurai sword wielding muggers, and they might be drunk enough for you to work out your way to deal with them...  They might be people, and you can usually work out a way to deal with a person.  They are certainly easier to deal with than a kid with a pistol.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the people of Britain and the US are pretty fundamentally similar... Yet you have 40* the homicide rate with guns... You really ought to work on that.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I can't speak for Chodon, but here are my answers:

1) How should it be decided who is to be allowed access to weapons? Would you draw the line at convicted killers or other felons? The mentally disabled? Some other criteria? If there is a line to be drawn, how would you keep people with the legal access to weapons from distributing them to those from whom you wish to withhold such access?

Anyone who has been convicted of deliberately victimizing someone else should be bared from owning a weapon.  This applies most obviously to violent crimes, but I would extend it to the guy who scams people with email hoaxes too.  If you have demonstrated that you are willing to hurt or exploit another person then you have no business wielding deadly power that might help you do so again.  The mentally disabled would be bared too, just as they are bared from operating any dangerous equipment.

Withholding access?  Well, obviously you'd punish anyone who sold guns to people not authorize to own them–fines, jail, that kind of thing–but there isn't going to be any foolproof solution to that problem.  Thugs are going to get guns no matter what law you make, especially in a place like America that is so big and has so many borders.

2) Are there any limits on the type of weapon with which you would allow citizens to arm themselves? Would you consider disallowing any of the following: easilly concealed weapons, semi-automatic weapons, full automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, or anything else? What about body armor?

I would put a strict limit on what kind of weapon a person can carry with them.  Carrying a sawed-off shotgun in public is going to do more harm than good, even in the best-intentioned hands.  I would limit this to low-caliber weapons with small magazines, or, say, only revolvers.  This would provide provide ample force to stop any bad guys but minimize possible damage from incompetent and/or anger-prone individuals.

As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal.  A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive.  Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me.  How big?  I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own.  The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army.  We want to keep the power distributed.

Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.

3) Finally, how would you arm law enforcement personnel? Do you think your answer to questions one and two have any impact on this question and, if so, would it create a safer or more dangerous environment overall?

Cops can have any gun they need.  No restriction (except for obvious stuff like, you know, nerve gas, none of this is talking about weapons of mass destruction).

As for the overall safety of the environment, that is a question I can't answer because it depends on too many things.  I expect that more handguns on the streets would have the immediate effect of making all public places safer, but beyond that the question involves too many cultural variables to provide a pat answer.  Ultimately, the safety of an environment depends on the attitudes and values of the individuals who inhabit it, and those are influenced by many things.  What guns do is take the edge away from the ones who would do violence.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Simon, you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  You say that you will not accept an argument based upon cultural difference ("American exceptionalism") because American and British cultures are fundamentally similar; what works in one must work in the other.  But in the same breath say that American culture is barbaric and we have the wrong values.  I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

And you obviously haven't got a clue what Chodon is saying if you think "macho prowess" or "survivalist self-sufficiency" has anything to do with it.  Your appeal to such caricatures demonstrates this.

[Czhorat]

I can't speak for Chodon, but here are my answers:

Anyone who has been convicted of deliberately victimizing someone else should be bared from owning a weapon.  This applies most obviously to violent crimes, but I would extend it to the guy who scams people with email hoaxes too.  If you have demonstrated that you are willing to hurt or exploit another person then you have no business wielding deadly power that might help you do so again.  The mentally disabled would be bared too, just as they are bared from operating any dangerous equipment.

Withholding access?  Well, obviously you'd punish anyone who sold guns to people not authorize to own them–fines, jail, that kind of thing–but there isn't going to be any foolproof solution to that problem.  Thugs are going to get guns no matter what law you make, especially in a place like America that is so big and has so many borders.

Citing the borders as an source of illegal guns is disingenuous if you allow essentially any kind of weapon to be sold to anyone who isn't a convicted criminal. An obvious source of illegal weapons are weapons purchased legally and then re-sold at a steep mark-up to make some easy money.

I would put a strict limit on what kind of weapon a person can carry with them.  Carrying a sawed-off shotgun in public is going to do more harm than good, even in the best-intentioned hands.  I would limit this to low-caliber weapons with small magazines, or, say, only revolvers.  This would provide provide ample force to stop any bad guys but minimize possible damage from incompetent and/or anger-prone individuals.

It makes the damage lower than in the case of automatic weapons, but still creates a very good chance of your incompetent or anger-prone individuals killing one or two people at a time in an angry rage. Do you see violence as so prevalent that the citizenry needs to be armed to this degree? In my thirty five years living in a major metropolitan area, I personally know one person who was mugged. He lost some money and was banged up a bit, but otherwise OK. Would you rather he have shot his assailant?

As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal.  A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive.  Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me.  How big?  I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own.  The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army.  We want to keep the power distributed.

Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.

I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.

Cops can have any gun they need.  No restriction (except for obvious stuff like, you know, nerve gas, none of this is talking about weapons of mass destruction).

As for the overall safety of the environment, that is a question I can't answer because it depends on too many things.  I expect that more handguns on the streets would have the immediate effect of making all public places safer, but beyond that the question involves too many cultural variables to provide a pat answer.  Ultimately, the safety of an environment depends on the attitudes and values of the individuals who inhabit it, and those are influenced by many things.  What guns do is take the edge away from the ones who would do violence.

I see it just the opposite. Guns give those who would do violence the power to cause more harm. Giving police departments bigger and more dangerous weapons to keep pace with more dangerous weapons to which criminals have access because you've chosen to legalize them just creates more dangerous cross-fires in which innocents can be killed. An armed citizen can protect himself, but can also kill in a moment of rage. If you add up all the mass-shootings that could have been stopped by an armed citizen and compare that to the number of people already killed in gun accidents or crimes of passion you'd find that guns are already making the country more dangerous, not less. Increasing guns might reduce the former, but will be guaranteed to increase the latter.

[Czhorat]

And you obviously haven't got a clue what Chodon is saying if you think "macho prowess" or "survivalist self-sufficiency" has anything to do with it.  Your appeal to such caricatures demonstrates this.

Not to jump in on this, but the idea that unarmed citizens are "sheep", criminals are "wolves", and the armed heroes defending all that is good are "sheep-dogs" has the feel of a sort of macho survival of the strongest mindset. If Simon is using a caricature, but he's only responding to a similar set of simplistic ideas from Chodon.

In any event, it's dinner time. I'll see where this has gone when I wake up in the morning.

[wakela]

Everyone:  Statistics and links to sources will make you case more effectively than stating what you think or feel.

Mr. Tweedy, Chodon: Do you guys have a problem with the US gun laws as they are now?

Simon:

When it comes to guns there is only one word for US culture: Barbaric.

I find this insulting and surprising considering that you just read a very active thread featuring Americans with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. 

[Mr. Tweedy]

Mr. Tweedy, Chodon: Do you guys have a problem with the US gun laws as they are now?

Not where I live.  They aren't the laws I would make if I were king of the world, but I think they are reasonable.

[Chodon]

Okay, everyone is talking about how guns are the root of crime.  Seriously?  Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?  There ARE gun laws in the US.  They don't work because criminals still get guns.  This is not a point of debate, it's a fact.  Then you say we need more non-functional laws to prohibit gun ownership?  Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?

This type of thinking scares me. It feels like the justification of someone who wants to live in a wild-west fantasy world in which the only law is that which you can take into your own hands.

I take this as an insult, Czhorat.  You take my choice to defend myself and my family and make me out to be some gun-toting lunatic.  There are laws out there, but some people refuse to follow them.  You are delusional if you think there isn't someone out there who would kill you and your loved ones for $20.  I make the choice to put up a fight.  Not everyone can make that choice and I accept that.  Don't think I'm some kind of lunatic because I refuse to be a victim.

I would like to point out if there were one armed individual at Virgina Tech, or the mall in Oklahoma that there would have been much less bloodshed.  Instead people reacted the only way their government let them...as sheep.

1) How should it be decided who is to be allowed access to weapons? Would you draw the line at convicted killers or other felons? The mentally disabled? Some other criteria? If there is a line to be drawn, how would you keep people with the legal access to weapons from distributing them to those from whom you wish to withhold such access?

Honestly, there is no way to 100% restrict access to firearms in the United States.  The market is flooded.  In a perfect world none of the above would be allowed to own weapons.  However, in a perfect world they would not exist.

2) Are there any limits on the type of weapon with which you would allow citizens to arm themselves? Would you consider disallowing any of the following: easilly concealed weapons, semi-automatic weapons, full automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, or anything else? What about body armor?

Technically, flamethrowers are legal.  I don't think any of the above weapons should be restricted.  I know everyone is really going to think I'm a gun-toting looney now (maybe even Mr. Tweedy), but I believe the 2nd amendment exists to protect individuals from their government as well.  I, personally, would not be interested in owning most of those weapons.  I believe that our government, while flawed, has no malice toward its citizens at this point.  However, if history is any judge, any government can get out of control and it is the job of its citizens to reign it in.

3) Finally, how would you arm law enforcement personnel? Do you think your answer to questions one and two have any impact on this question and, if so, would it create a safer or more dangerous environment overall?

I believe the police should be armed no better or worse than the populace.

[Chodon]

Mr. Tweedy, Chodon: Do you guys have a problem with the US gun laws as they are now?

First of all, I think we have already pointed out that the gun laws themselves do not work.  An interesting example is that in Michigan registration of handguns is required, and a purchase permit is required.  An assault rifle can be bought in 15 minutes.  However, I think laws can serve some purposes.

I am a huge fan of waiting periods.  If you need a gun now, you need a waiting period.  Of course this doesn't help if people don't follow the law and buy from a non-dealer. 
The only thing I wish the law required was more training before gun ownership.  All that is required currently is an instant background check.  I think if people were better trained I think that there would be fewer kids getting their hands on guns.  The first two things I learned about firearms (when I was two) 1) don't point them at anything you aren't willing to destroy. This included toy guns.  2) always treat a gun like it's loaded.  If everyone followed these two rules there would be no accidental gun deaths.

[Chodon]

I suppose my question to you, Chodon, is how is society to decide who is a "wolf", who is a "sheepdog", and who is just to short-sighted and careless to own a weapon? Is there some kind of test in your mind, or should we just let everyone arm themselves to the best of their ability and means and let the chips fall where they may?

I missed responding to this part of your question in my previous post.  Society identifies Sheepdogs and Wolves through the justice system.  I identify a wolf as anyone that is physically threatening me.  I already have my mental "triggers" worked out in my mind when someone crosses over into wolf territory. 
1) close proximity combined with an aggressive stance
2) physical contact
3) presentation of a weapon

[Chodon]

Here are some interesting statistics about concealed weapon permits in Michigan.  In my county there were ~1200 concealed weapon permits issued in 2005-2006.  Only 5 were revoked.  1 for carrying under the influence, and 4 for getting a misdemeanor.  None committed while carrying.  To me that's a pretty interesting statistic that most people who will go to the effort of getting a concealed permit to legally carry a handgun are law-abiding citizens who are not cowboy-wannabes.  Also, it points out those who are illegally using handguns are ignoring the laws.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CCWAnnualReport_181416_7.pdf

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida homicide rate -36%
United States homicide rate -0.4%
   
Florida firearm homicide rate -37%
United States firearm homicide rate +15%

Florida handgun homicide rate  -41%
United States handgun homicide rate +24%

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

Definition of "assault rifle": semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor.

* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

* In October of 1996, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later that day at a political event, Clinton stated:
“I still think we ought to ban those bullets that are built only for one purpose, to pierce the bullet-proof vests that our police officers wear. I don't see why we need those things out there. … Today, I met with the first -- the family of the first one of the police officers hired under our Crime Bill, killed in the line of duty. I met here in Louisiana, in Lake Charles I met with that officer's widow and two beautiful, beautiful young sons. And I thought to myself, you know, if people like these folks here are going to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is tell them if they put on a bullet-proof vest, it will protect them from being killed. That's the least we can do for them.” (66) (67)
* Officer Seaberry was killed in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. (68)
* As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest. (3)

* There were 259 fatal firearm accidents for 15-19 year olds in 1995.

* There were 6,319 fatal motor vehicle accidents for 15-20 year olds in 1996. (9) (good God!  We need to ban cars!)

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."  --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."   --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
edited to remove a citation that showed up as a smiley...about children and gun crime...

[Chodon]

If you're claiming that having some survivalist-type attitude of self-sufficiency allows you to stand above the average man without this attitude then you are again mistaken.  People are people, and each of us has their own story.

I would like to say one thing for the record.  I am anything but a macho man.  I don't watch sports.  I don't hunt.  I drive a small car with good gas mileage, not some gas-guzzling SUV.  For God's sake, I belong to a science-fiction forum!  I don't fit into any stereotypes any of you have of Americans.  I am merely someone who refuses to be a victim.  Some people here are okay with being a victim from time to time, and that's okay.  I don't have any plans to be a vigilante.  I don't want to be a hero.  If I see someone else getting mugged I'm not going to do a damn thing about it.  If you are comfortable entrusting your safety to the police officer who might or might not get there in time, fine.  Or better yet, to the mugger with a heart of gold who might not stab you after taking the $40 out of your wallet.  I, however, am not willing to bet my life or my family's lives on anyone else.  It's my responsibility, and nobody else's.

Or alternatively there might be less than a dozen samurai sword wielding muggers, and they might be drunk enough for you to work out your way to deal with them...  They might be people, and you can usually work out a way to deal with a person.  They are certainly easier to deal with than a kid with a pistol.

Are you willing to bet your life on it?  Your mother's?  You child's?

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the people of Britain and the US are pretty fundamentally similar... Yet you have 40* the homicide rate with guns... You really ought to work on that.

I am working on it.  I'm not going to be a victim of homicide.  That's helping the statistics.

[Heradel]

There's no way I can start going point by point (silly me for studying for a final), but I do want to ask Chodon why he's so worried about being murdered.

—

Mr Tweedy— I believe the portion of US society that Simon was calling Barbaric were the people that are perpetuating the gun state in this society — mostly the NRA.

—

As to handguns — I still don't understand why people need most of these. They're purely for physical protection — target shooting is possible, but target shooting is more with rifles. I have a hard time believing that people need them hunting. And they are dangerous, especially as they're a lot easier to conceal than a M-16 up your pant leg. They're usually more subject to bans because police get shot at by them more than they get shot at by assault weapons.

I'm from (northern) Virginia/DC metro, and I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen a civilian with a gun in public and not within the parking lot of a shooting range. White male in his twenties with a handgun on his belt, and everybody was giving him the evil eye and a ten meter berth. Granted, I've walked past my share of Mp-5's in the hands of guards around triple letter agency's buildings, and sometimes in the subway system, but I have some confidence that they're not gonna start shooting up the place. That twenty year old...

These days I'm in NYC, and the only guns I've seen have been NYPD or National Guard. There is no one walking around with a gun as protection, and the crime stats are hard to beat. Now, there are incidents like the two police auxiliaries down in the village a while ago, but those things are by far the exception.

[Chodon]

There's no way I can start going point by point (silly me for studying for a final), but I do want to ask Chodon why he's so worried about being murdered.

I wouldn't call myself worried.  I carry a spare tire in my car, but I don't worry about getting a flat.  I have a first aid kit in my house, but I don't worry about cutting my finger.  It's just something I am prepared for.  I know being attacked is a possibility, so I take means to prevent it.  I know two women who have been raped.  I went to school with a guy who had his home invaded by 5 armed thugs.  He waited for them at the top of the stairs with a 12 gauge.  When he racked it they knew exactly what that sound was and promptly left his house.  It is simply a fact that there are people out there who would kill any one of us for little or no reason.  It's not likely we would run across them, but it is possible so I have mentally prepared myself for that possibility.  I think most of the posters here believe the world is a good place and they can solve issues with their wits instead of force.  This is true for most situations.  Unfortunately, not all.

[Mr. Tweedy]

As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal.  A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive.  Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me.  How big?  I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own.  The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army.  We want to keep the power distributed.

Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.

I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.

Wow.  That, that scares the hell out of me.  Do you even realize what you're saying?  Let me paraphrase: "Government are so big and so powerful that there's nothing anyone could possibly to stop them if they turned bad.  It would be stupid to try or even think about how one might try, and certainly stupid to be prepared.  And who's to say the citizenry would be right to resist anyway?  Average people aren't smart enough or good enough to be anything other than a disorganized mob.  Resistance is futile.  The only viable option is to just go with the flow, wherever it happens to lead."

The attitude of acquiescent helplessness you seem to be advocating is absolutely deadly.  Who said that?  Was it Einstein?  "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

EDIT: Nope, it was Edmund Burke.  Where'd I get Einstein?

Mr Tweedy— I believe the portion of US society that Simon was calling Barbaric were the people that are perpetuating the gun state in this society — mostly the NRA.

No, I'm pretty sure he was calling me a barbarian.  I think it's a good idea for average Joes and Janes to be packing heat in their purses and backpacks.  I do believe that was the attitude he referred to as "barbaric."  Besides, I support the NRA, as far as I am aware of their activities.

---------------------------

For the record: I live in a quite, middle-class neighborhood in the good part of town.  Earlier this year a police car chase ended, literally, within ten feet of my front door.  The suspect fled and ran about half a mile down the street, where he started shooting at the cops before they returned fire and shot him dead.  Turns out he was a drug dealer who was carrying the gun illegally.  The marks his car left in my front yard are still visible.  He ran down the street, but he could just as easy have ran into my house, where my family would have made convenient hostages.

This incident served to reinforce my views on gun ownership.

-----------------------

Thanks to Chodon for the insights and the stats.  Molon Labe.

[Chodon]

I have a question: how many people on this forum have:
1) Been properly trained in the proper handling of firearms
2) Have spent time at a gun range
3) Have handled a firearm
4) Have discharged a firearm

I think there is a lot of "magic" people place around firearms.  They see them portrayed in movies as these mystical objects that make mild mannered individuals into murdering psychopaths.  Like the "Chekov's Gun" thread, if there is a gun in a story it has to go off.  That's not what it's like in real life.  I know people who legally own and carry concealed weapons and have only fired at the range.  Hell, they never even had to pull it on anyone in decades of carrying.  I don't think the average person (especially in Europe) knows about gun ownership.

I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.

So you aren't scared of a government armed to the teeth, but you are scared of an armed mob?  I have two scenarios where an armed mob defeated the two biggest armies in the world.  Vietnam vs. USA and Afghanistan vs. USSR.   Right now where I live, I would actually agree with Czhorat, armed mobs are scarier than the government.  However, unlike Czhorat, I am not okay with saying I would prefer to be at the mercy of an armed mob or the government.  I trust neither.  Also, how soon we forget the lessons of (recent) history. 
1989 Romanian Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989  I work with 3 people who were in Bucharest when this went down.  One of them had a bullet crash through her window and go through the chair she was sitting in seconds after she got up. She was holding her infant son.  The other remembers trying to get to his aunt's house and walking past burned out APCs protesters destroyed with Molotov cocktails.  It is not at all uncommon for the populace to rise up against an oppressive government.  This happened less than 20 years ago!

[Simon]

Okay, everyone is talking about how guns are the root of crime.  Seriously?  Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?  There ARE gun laws in the US.  They don't work because criminals still get guns.  This is not a point of debate, it's a fact.  Then you say we need more non-functional laws to prohibit gun ownership?  Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?

I'll just pull up an Economist article at this point: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10259217.  I read this last week, and generally hold The Economist to higher standards than normal journalism.  According to that, the black market in guns in the US is highly inefficient, with the majority of gang-owned guns being semi-functional...  Illegal gun trading is not an excellent earner.  So saying "criminals will get guns and use them" is demonstrably flawed.  If you control the black-economy, and reduce the total supply, you can deal with specific instances of high, criminal gun ownership.  This is pretty straightforward black-economics, and to adopt a "criminals will always get guns" attitude is defeatist.

As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal.  A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive.  Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me.  How big?  I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own.  The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army.  We want to keep the power distributed.

Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.

I really don't understand the protection against the state side of gun ownership.  A successful revolution comes down to an absolute plethora of different factors, and numerous ones occur in different circumstances.  If I were to try to single out the single most important factor in holding a successful revolution, it would probably be having a major metropolitan area near the capital, that has become opposed to the regime (Bucharest in '89, Berlin in '89, Belgrade in '01 to name only a swarm of bees.)...  Uprisings that begin in the sticks nearly always get struck down (I've actually been stuck in one of these,  when I got caught up in the Ferghana province in Uzbekistan in 2004, the Uzbeks concerned were pretty well armed by the Kyrgyz across the border).  America is a big, big, big country so gun ownership anywhere outside the wider DC area would have absolutely sod all affect (Red Dawn fantasies to the contrary), and it still comes way down the list, somewhere far beneath a free press opposed to the regime.  And further, such uprisings are usually improvisational.  A well organised revolutionary mob is more than capable of taking on most governments (They bring horses, you bring marbles. They bring sticks, you bring bricks. They bring tear gas, you bring molotovs...).  Guns just turn the whole business into a Haitian style splatterfest.

But somewhere this idea has gained some momentum in the US that wider gun ownership means that the people would be more capable of taking down the largest military force on the planet (and the Viet Cong were anything but a mob, they'd spent the last few decades kicking shit out of the French).  It's always struck me as a bizarre fantasy - Lets imagine one particular type of oppressive regime, and a set of key circumstances when it might be taken down, then lets set all our laws of the moment to prevent this bizarre potential occurrence.

I think there is a lot of "magic" people place around firearms.  They see them portrayed in movies as these mystical objects that make mild mannered individuals into murdering psychopaths.  Like the "Chekov's Gun" thread, if there is a gun in a story it has to go off.  That's not what it's like in real life.  I know people who legally own and carry concealed weapons and have only fired at the range.  Hell, they never even had to pull it on anyone in decades of carrying.  I don't think the average person (especially in Europe) knows about gun ownership.

What magic?  It is a deadly weapon that if you point it at someone they feel threatened, and know you could end their life within seconds...  It's pretty straightforward.  I am glad that in a society where guns are abundant, most people who are stupid enough to carry one aren't likely to kill, or threaten to kill, anyone with it...  But that doesn't change the fact that there is an element of escalation with gun ownership, and that having epidemic gun ownership amongst criminals means the whole game is different.  I have not handled a gun, I have not shot a gun.  I do however live for on average 2 months of the year on the island of Crete, where rifle ownership is epidemic...  You wont find a Cretan roadsign without bullet holes making it look like a swiss cheese...  But on Crete these guns aren't part of the criminal economy, they're rifles owned by everyone (mainly bored people but some Mediterranean Marijuana growing mafioso), and this seems to work just fine.  They get pulled out at weekends, and weddings... They're part of the local character.  What I have a problem with is gun ownership as protection against some great unknown threat.

So I will say it again.  I consider widespread handgun ownership, with offensive guns owned by the populace to protect themselves from criminals who also own offensive guns, to be Barbaric...  There is no other suitable word.

[Czhorat]

Wow.  That, that scares the hell out of me.  Do you even realize what you're saying?  Let me paraphrase: "Government are so big and so powerful that there's nothing anyone could possibly to stop them if they turned bad.  It would be stupid to try or even think about how one might try, and certainly stupid to be prepared.  And who's to say the citizenry would be right to resist anyway?  Average people aren't smart enough or good enough to be anything other than a disorganized mob.  Resistance is futile.  The only viable option is to just go with the flow, wherever it happens to lead."

The attitude of acquiescent helplessness you seem to be advocating is absolutely deadly.  Who said that?  Was it Einstein?  "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

EDIT: Nope, it was Edmund Burke.  Where'd I get Einstein?

What I'm saying is not that a populace should be "helplessly acquiescent". What I am saying is that the state is powerful enough that an overthrow by the populace through force of arms is unlikely, difficult, and very, very bloody. Last century the United States government had policies and laws that were terribly discriminatory against African Americans and other minorities. The American civil rights movement, lead by leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, successfully fought these policies nonviolently. Mohandas Ghandi lead a successful resistance to British Colonial rule in India without creating crossfires in which mothers and their infant sons were almost (and I'm sure in many cases actually) shot to death. Nelson Mandela fought against a racist South African government without needing to call on armed mobs. An unarmed populace is not a helpless populace, nor is it a herd of sheep.

I wouldn't call myself worried.  I carry a spare tire in my car, but I don't worry about getting a flat.  I have a first aid kit in my house, but I don't worry about cutting my finger.  It's just something I am prepared for.  I know being attacked is a possibility, so I take means to prevent it.  I know two women who have been raped.  I went to school with a guy who had his home invaded by 5 armed thugs.  He waited for them at the top of the stairs with a 12 gauge.  When he racked it they knew exactly what that sound was and promptly left his house.  It is simply a fact that there are people out there who would kill any one of us for little or no reason.  It's not likely we would run across them, but it is possible so I have mentally prepared myself for that possibility.  I think most of the posters here believe the world is a good place and they can solve issues with their wits instead of force.  This is true for most situations.  Unfortunately, not all.

The problem that some of us have with this logic is that by allowing you access to firearms you are also increasing access to firearms for everyone else in society. You've never responded to the fact, brought up several times by several posters, that the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" have been purchased legally and changed hands illegally. In other words, it is the easy availability of legal guns that creates a supply of illegal guns. Your desire to have a firearm is creating the very threat which you fear.

[Chodon]

So I will say it again.  I consider widespread handgun ownership, with offensive guns owned by the populace to protect themselves from criminals who also own offensive guns, to be Barbaric...  There is no other suitable word.

There are barbarians out there no matter what.  If it's not guns, it's knives or samurai swords (as in the UK).  Sometimes one has to momentarily turn to barbarism to stop a barbarian.  I don't think you should be able to place your beliefs of right or wrong or martial prowess on me and my ability to keep myself safe.  I am a legal firearms owner.  I have never committed a crime except Toilet Papering a kid's house in 11th grade.
You never answered my question if you would bet your family's life on a prompt police response or the mugger's heart of gold. 

The problem that some of us have with this logic is that by allowing you access to firearms you are also increasing access to firearms for everyone else in society. You've never responded to the fact, brought up several times by several posters, that the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" have been purchased legally and changed hands illegally. In other words, it is the easy availability of legal guns that creates a supply of illegal guns. Your desire to have a firearm is creating the very threat which you fear.

I have answered the issue that illegal guns have been legally purchased originally.  I have said that this is evidence that gun laws do not work to prevent gun ownership.  If it were that easy we could pass laws against being stung by mosquitoes and bees.  It may sound ridiculous at first, but it is a direct parallel.  Insects don't care about laws and neither do criminals.  THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINALS. 

The right to defend one's self is just as much a right as free speech or freedom of religion.  In fact, it's the most important right because it protects all the other rights.  If your government decided to censor your free speech tomorrow what recourse would you have?  Protest.  Excellent first choice.  What if that protest is violently put down (Tienanmen Square)?  Well, I guess you're just going to have to deal with censorship.  What if they keep eroding freedoms?  Where do you draw the line and what can you do when they cross it? 

I also keep hearing the term "fantasy" used.  This is not a fantasy.  I do not revel in the thought of killing some attacker.  I recognize he is a person and has a family just like me.  If it's a question of him going home to his family or me going home to my family I know which one I'm going to fight for.  The rest of this board seems content to not fight.  They seem to think this attacker's life has as much value as theirs, so why should he not go home?  My answer: because he is a predator.  Every murder, every mass shooting, every robbery could be stopped if an armed individual was on hand to use legal force to stop the aggressor.  Czhorat and Simon seem to think a few murders with inferior weapons like knives and clubs are okay as long as our neighbor doesn't own a gun.  I do not see it that way.

[Simon]

You never answered my question if you would bet your family's life on a prompt police response or the mugger's heart of gold. 

This one I can answer in all good humour, athought I do feel that by moving into anecdotage we lose the meat of this discussion...  Ridiculous as it may sound, I have actually been mugged on six separate occasions (it probably comes down to walking along while looking at my feet too often).  Twice with a knife, once with a bottle, and the most dramatic was the above mentioned tube one which left me with twin black eyes and blood in my left ear (it's a great story that has served me well in numerous pubs, the hospital was initially convinced I had a fractured skull and I got a week off work because no one wanted to look at me, ask me for the full version over a beer).  I have fortunately never been mugged with a gun. 

No mugger has ever got their hands on my wallet, despite their best attempts.  You can usually out-think a mugger (the best, best thing I've found to do in a mugging is to step into oncoming traffic, because it will confuse the hell out of a mugger and bring a third party with a vehicle into the situation... I've got away with that twice).  I don't want to come out as a great macho man, but I am the sort of person who is convinced they can take on situations as they come along, and feel neither that I am depending on the police or the mugger...  I see no need to add guns to this.

[Simon]

I also keep hearing the term "fantasy" used.  This is not a fantasy.  I do not revel in the thought of killing some attacker.  I recognize he is a person and has a family just like me.  If it's a question of him going home to his family or me going home to my family I know which one I'm going to fight for.  The rest of this board seems content to not fight.  They seem to think this attacker's life has as much value as theirs, so why should he not go home?  My answer: because he is a predator.  Every murder, every mass shooting, every robbery could be stopped if an armed individual was on hand to use legal force to stop the aggressor.  Czhorat and Simon seem to think a few murders with inferior weapons like knives and clubs are okay as long as our neighbor doesn't own a gun.  I do not see it that way.

No, no and NO!  I'm not saying that its acceptable...  I'm saying that if you take guns out of the situation everything becomes a lot simpler.  A protective type guy can keep a baseball bat (or cricket, although they make a lesser weapon) under his bed, an idiot can keep a knife at hand.  Take guns away from both the neighbour and the criminal and it becomes a much more straightforward human interaction.  There are more ways to hold the upper hand on someone than lethal force.

Personally, I'm not the sort to even consider using weapons, it's all a bit vulgar and paranoid...  But that doesn't turn you into some sort of "sheep" - particularly if the criminal is unarmed as well!

[Chodon]

Simon, I think I finally got the divergence in our opinions.  You are looking at this issue as gun laws in the UK.  Do you think your muggings would have had the same result (you being relatively okay) if your assailant had a firearm?  In all likelyhood you would not be alive to post right now (which, believe it or not, would make me sad...I really enjoy discussions like this).  Firearms laws may work in the UK.  I haven't seen the data.  Your anecdotal evidence seems to say thay do, and I will accept that at face value.  However, here in the US the facts speak for themselves.  Criminals use firearms.  Why you you think I should be deprived of the right to defend myself from them?

It is a fact that in the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms.  In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."  The victim turned the tables on their attacker by the legal, judicious use of a firearm.  The statistics from Florida show that private citizens armed legally LOWER these murder rates.  Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.  As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.  As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.  221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.  That is .008%!  Why are we still arguing about the facts?  It is clear that more guns in the hands of private citizens means lower crime rates, fewer guns in the hands of private citizens means higher crime rates.  These are not opinions or anecdotes.  These are facts. 

[Simon]

Simon, I think I finally got the divergence in our opinions.  You are looking at this issue as gun laws in the UK.  Do you think your muggings would have had the same result (you being relatively okay) if your assailant had a firearm?  In all likelyhood you would not be alive to post right now (which, believe it or not, would make me sad...I really enjoy discussions like this).  Firearms laws may work in the UK.  I haven't seen the data.  Your anecdotal evidence seems to say thay do, and I will accept that at face value.  However, here in the US the facts speak for themselves.  Criminals use firearms.  Why you you think I should be deprived of the right to defend myself from them?

It is a fact that in the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms.  In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."  The victim turned the tables on their attacker by the legal, judicious use of a firearm.  The statistics from Florida show that private citizens armed legally LOWER these murder rates.  Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.  As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.  As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.  221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.  That is .008%!  Why are we still arguing about the facts?  It is clear that more guns in the hands of private citizens means lower crime rates, fewer guns in the hands of private citizens means higher crime rates.  These are not opinions or anecdotes.  These are facts. 

And I'm going to keep on referring to this attitude as barbaric.  In the mafia parts of Europe (Naples and southern Italy, Corsica, Crete, The Balkans), in Australia, Canada and most parts of the first world (I'm not sure about gun-crime in Japan and Korea, I'd have to look that up) gun crime is either a problem primarily internally among gangs, or a problem of heavily armed mafioso who keep out of sight...  Only in America have guns gained their lethal ubiquity in the criminal economy.

No where is the level of citizens paranoia so great that they all have to pack for "protection"...  It is that attitude that has lead to insanely lax gun laws, and those gun laws that have led to the impression of criminal ubiquity.  Checking out that paper I mentioned earlier http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=842472, it's abundantly clear that the gun economy is weak, and could easily be distorted...  You are operating on the assumption that the criminal gun economy is a given, and I'm saying that it is exactly people with your attitude that lead to the ubiquity.  You're ongoing effort to convince us that an increase in private gun ownership would reduce the number of such crimes, doesn't change the fact that criminals have far too much access to guns.  Even if your statistics were the case, the current gun laws are what has led to the level of gun ownership among the criminal classes.

I could go through an dissect your statistics (Correllation does not equal causation, and that Washington DC stat is especially lacking in meat) but the fact is each individual circumstance is an individual circumstance...  Different cultures react differently to weapons, and different groups will react differently to different behaviours.  But beyond this, the black economy in weapons, and the resulting insane attitude of self-protection it has resulted in in America... Is utterly utterly B...

Switzerland and Crete (armed for military and cultural/historical reasons respectively) are both societies that are armed to the teeth with rifles, but there is a big difference between a rifle and a handgun, and a huge difference in how your cultures react to them...  A gun should not be "protection".

[The Outlaw Kyle]

"If you reduce the supply of weapons..."

I think this is the crux of many of these discussions.  Two things I would like to add:

1. I feel that the UK, europe, and the rest of the world can do whatever it pleases with it's gun laws.  Ban them all, hand them out, I care not.  It's your country to run (or be run) as you will.  It seems to me, that everyone all over the world has an opinion about our (the us) gun laws.  To you I say: nuts.  If you don't like our laws, don't come here.  Don't tell us how to run our country.  But for the sake of argument...

2. My estimed fellow board member Chodon made the 100 milion guns quote.  That is incorrect.  There are almost 270 million.  Most stats put us at 90 guns for every 100 people.  How should we reduce this?  Masive sweeps, door to door searches, opressive laws?  Get this: when you pass a law, that means that you HAVE to enforce it.  Should the 70 year old lady get beat up for having a 80 year old revolver?  Gov't is force.  When you say "ban handguns" do you really know what that would entail?  If there 65 million handguns at 2 lbs each that's 65,000 TONS of guns to get rid of some how.  Just look how much it has cost Canada just to register 7 million with a 70% non-compliance.  What those of you who are advocateing for gun bans don't ever seem to realize is that it's simply not workable.  Even if you could wave a wand and take away all the guns in the world, all that would do would reduce the weak who now need not rely on physical strength for defence to mere chattle at the hands of the strong.  You, sir, are the barbarian.  Guns are Civilzation.  They are what seperate us from the beasts of the field.  Were it not for guns, we would have never progressed beyond chipping spear tips from flint.  And to keep guns in the hands of the establishment only is a recipe for tyranny.  If that yoke sits well on your sholders, then so be it.  For me and mine, we'll stay armed.

[Chodon]

A gun should not be "protection".

Then what should?  The statistics show a need to defend one's self from attack by firearm.  The options are to fight back or be a victim.  I don't care what choice you make.  I will not be a victim.  Some more interesting statistics from the National Center for Poilcy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html.

After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.(Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.

Your attempt to marginalize the US's gun laws by labeling them "barbaric" isn't very fitting, and the facts are at odds with your position.

I also agree wholeheartedly with TOK.  However, I feel I should disclose that he is my brother (literally), so I'm a little partial.