How do you feel about guns?

[TW Scott]

Guns and Statistics

I would like to recycle some numbers I found a couple years ago:

Funny how you didn't mention them before.

The US Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that a 1997 survey of state prisons indicated that 80% of the guns used in crimes surveyed came from "family, friends, a street buy, or illegal source." (see BJS-1)​

More than likely the last two if this is correct, but you must also factor in that the vast majority of them know to lie about the theft of a gun as that is often a whole new felony.

Of that 80% slightly over half of that result (39.6% overall) obtained their guns from "friends or family," while a slightly lower number (39.2% overall) obtained their guns from the "street" or other "illegal source." (see BJS-2)

many friends of criminals would be criminals by extension yes? So try closer to 60% being from 'illegal sources'.

It seems that during a period of "gun control" in the U.S., the criminals did, indeed, find their guns. They simply took them from people they knew who already had them. Should we impose penalties against crime victims, then? Cite someone whose gun is stolen for failing to secure a firearm?

Why? Why punish a victim? Do we punish a car owner when his car is stolen to commit a crime? Do we state that a rape victim was somehow irresponsible?

I would propose four measures of "gun control":

(1) Licensing ownership of guns.
(2) Registering all firearms.
(3) Mandatory education for shooters.
(4) Absolute responsibility of registered and licensed owners.​

Ok, you can propose away, but unabridged and uninfringed gun ownership is our very right.

Somebody breaks into your house while you're out, smashes into your storage, and steals your guns? Not your problem; just report it to the police.

Well this should be standard and is no great concession on your part.

Your kid gets hold of your gun and takes it to school? Your problem.

Well, if you have the safe mentioned above it shouldn't be your probelm, your kid obviously went against your wishes. Hell, unless you put the gun in his hands and told him to shoot people it shouldn't be your problem. Kids are not mindless automatons they can figure right from wrong just the same as we can.

You put a bullet into your neighbor's lawn while shooting at a burglar? Your problem.

How should this even be an issue?

Your kid shoots your brother while you're on a family hunting trip? It's going to be someone's problem, although I admit that one's stickier than other situations.

Again criminal intent would need to be proved.

Point being, no "accidents". None of this accidentally shooting a teacher because the manufacturer's representative made a mistake during a demo (happened 'round here several years ago); none of this cleaning the gun and accidentally putting a round into the neighbor's child; none of this leaving a loaded rifle around while your children are home alone with the result that your five year-old shot your three year-old to death for refusing to obey him. And, yes, that last one, as spectacular as it seems, did happen, and the prosecutors did not file any charges.

See in the first two of your examples there was no intent and thus in my opinion be no crime. Never seen a gun cleaning with a bullet in the gun, but then again I don't know myabe the idiots in your neck of the woods leave rounds in as they strip it down. As for the last, sometimes a prosecutor does not file charges for reasons of lack of intent, or even lack of actual crime. If the parent had the loaded gun in a gun safe and had every reason to believe the kids could not access it then there is NO crime.

Quite simply, let's have some real accountability in using guns.

Actually you're trying to add extra accountability.

That's the whole of my "gun control" policy; and no, I don't think people should have automatic assault rifles or grenade launchers. I mean, grenade launchers are problematic in, I would hope, an obvious way. But as to assault rifles: as Stephen Weaver points out in his article against gun control, you don't need them:

Embattled Rhodesia, fighting for its very life and ostracized by virtually the entire world, quietly adopted a policy change for its armed forces. As a result, the selector switches on thousands of FN-FAL rifles were deliberately switched from the full-auto mode to semi-automatic as a matter of standard procedure. The reason was the shortage of ammunition brought about by international sanction efforts. The effects were startling in that nothing changed as far as battle outcome in spite of a better-armed and equipped enemy in increasingly superior numbers penetrating Rhodesia from three fronts. The communist-trained and supplied terrorists maintained the full auto mode with their AK-47s right up until the end. When the final battles came the outnumbered and outgunned Rhodesians had never lost a single encounter; rather, their demise came at the negotiation table-which is a point for deep reflection.

What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting for home and hearth. ("Freedom's Last Stand")​

Really, an automatic rifle will not make much of a difference against tanks and airplanes. But in the meantime, gun owners can continue to be as creepy and frightened as they want.

First of all the guys articale is crap. An AK-47 versus a FN-FAL? Please. In a pinch you could use the FAL as a sniper rifle as it uses the 7.62N round aka .308 Winchester. That round can take down a deer in a single shot. As for the AK-47 it is reliable but the 5.45B round has probably the worst penetration and stopping power of any automatic rifle. Plus they said the selector switch was set to SA which means you could still flip it to FA when you need it. Finally, it does not matter if an assualt rifle can handle a tank if you take out the crew before they get in.

What? I don't think it's an unreasonable policy.

I respect you, but i am sorry you are just dead wrong​

 

[Baron Max]

Great post, TW Scott, great! Thanks,

Baron Max

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Anybody who buys a gun for selfdefense or defense against their own government should be forced to attend counseling.

 

[Destroyer]

Only people who don't want a gun should be allowed to have one(!)

 

[TW Scott]

Anybody who buys a gun for selfdefense or defense against their own government should be forced to attend counseling.

Okay, I could agree with the second depending on the nation in question.

However, why should a person interesting in Self-Defense have to attend counseling? Would you have this opinion if you lived in the the seedier parts of Detroit or Chicago? It is only common sense to want the ability to strike back at an attacker. You might not do it, but having the option is preferable to not having it. And before you start about martial arts, I will head you off. Martial arts take training, time, and some natural ability. Not to mention it still is reliant on you being powerful enough to hurt your attacker and skilled enough to defend your self. a 90 pound Black Belt will more than likely still lose to a 400 pound mugger with 'street fighting skills'. However that same 90 lb person can scare off ten or fifteen 400 pounders with one hand gun and just a few hours practice.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Okay, I could agree with the second depending on the nation in question.

However, why should a person interesting in Self-Defense have to attend counseling? Would you have this opinion if you lived in the the seedier parts of Detroit or Chicago?

Make the seedier parts unseedy.

 

[Oniw17]

Anybody who buys a gun for selfdefense or defense against their own government should be forced to attend counseling.

Counseling because there's something wrong with them or to know how/when to use the gun?

 

[TW Scott]

Make the seedier parts unseedy.

Can't do that if you dead form trying. Hello is any one in there. The people who control the seedier parts of those towns have a vested interest in maintaining status quo. Any attempt to clean up the area is met violence ranging form a beating severe enough to be hospitalized to just blowing up your home with you in it after they made you watch them rape your wife and daughters and for good measure raped you too.

It is a sad part of life that Violence is the Supreme Authority from which all other Authority is derived.

 

[Destroyer]

Can't the Police do anything about seedy areas?

 

[phlogistician]

Can't do that if you dead form trying. Hello is any one in there. The people who control the seedier parts of those towns have a vested interest in maintaining status quo. Any attempt to clean up the area is met violence ranging form a beating severe enough to be hospitalized to just blowing up your home with you in it after they made you watch them rape your wife and daughters and for good measure raped you too.
.

My god, your imagination really is a dank, fetid place isn't it? You really are a fearful gun stroker.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

And why did you let these places go so seedy in the first place?

 

[phlogistician]

And why did you let these places go so seedy in the first place?

So the 'God Guns and Guts' crew can go rent hookers.

 

[Baron Max]

And why did you let these places go so seedy in the first place?

Because the people living there allowed it to happen ....ie, they didn't give a shit about their own city/area.

Baron Max

 

[Nickelodeon]

Re: the thread. If guns were outlawed, would crime/murder rates go up or down? Just curious.

 

[wsionynw]

Okay, I could agree with the second depending on the nation in question.

However, why should a person interesting in Self-Defense have to attend counseling? Would you have this opinion if you lived in the the seedier parts of Detroit or Chicago? It is only common sense to want the ability to strike back at an attacker. You might not do it, but having the option is preferable to not having it. And before you start about martial arts, I will head you off. Martial arts take training, time, and some natural ability. Not to mention it still is reliant on you being powerful enough to hurt your attacker and skilled enough to defend your self. a 90 pound Black Belt will more than likely still lose to a 400 pound mugger with 'street fighting skills'. However that same 90 lb person can scare off ten or fifteen 400 pounders with one hand gun and just a few hours practice.

Sorry TW, but this is pure Hollywood and media fear mongering.

 

[Neildo]

Re: the thread. If guns were outlawed, would crime/murder rates go up or down? Just curious.

It's already been shown to go up. Hell, not only that, but even when guns have been outlawed, gun crimes have gone up as well, go figure, lol! Just check my links a page or two back from the BBC in regards to the UK.

- N

 

[Nickelodeon]

It's already been shown to go up. Hell, not only that, but even when guns have been outlawed, gun crimes have gone up as well, go figure, lol! Just check my links a page or two back from the BBC in regards to the UK.

- N

Is it specifically because guns were outlawed?

More recent:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/5348774.stm

From the Home Office:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:

* 16% reduction in the use of handguns
* 9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
* 6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences

Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year. (Source: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005)

Also of concern is a rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms in an attempt to boost their image or from a mistaken idea about self-protection

 

[TW Scott]

Sorry TW, but this is pure Hollywood and media fear mongering.

Actually it is real life, you know that thing the psychiatrist keep telling you about and that you should really get back to.

 

[TW Scott]

Is it specifically because guns were outlawed?

More recent:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/5348774.stm

From the Home Office:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

God I love the manipulations of statistics done here. Overall crime is up in numbers across the board but becuase the number of non firearms crimes rose more than the firearms crimes you get to say there was a reduction in the percentage of firearms crimes compared to the other ones.


In other words they can make 7 look bigger than 8 becuase that 7 was half of fourteen but the 8 is only 40% of 20.

 

[Oniw17]

Sorry TW, but this is pure Hollywood and media fear mongering.

Heh. Funny how I could go outside and point out probably 10 crackheads, even this late, who would rob me in a minute if they didn't know I had a gun. Gun crimes are very real, and very spread out. Where I'm living now is probably the second worst area that I've ever lived in, and the city's population is only about 13,000.