Firearms

[morriswalters]

Your arguing a point I didn't make. The point was the relative efficacy of the weapons all other things being equal. In point of fact most gun killings aren't set piece fights where both people are armed. It's not that knives are less deadly, they are less efficient. The stats I posted seem to have been ignored. Most homicides happen between people who know each other. They are close, add a gun and it is easier for people to die. The most killings in the crime data base are with guns, with the bulk of those with handguns. Knives are a distant second. It's arguable that if availability were the only metric involved than knives would be the leading method for murder. They are cheap, commonly available even for minors, and highly concealable. The stats don't support that. This link contains links to the tables which I'm quoting from, and have some interesting summations of the contained statistics. I simply tire of people saying things like knives are just as dangerous as guns. They aren't by any metric you can support. If you add a modicum of training and change the weapon the disparity grows. I will own this weapon if it is legal.

[EdgarJPublius]

You are making claims that the data just doesn't show. The only thing indicated by the fact that most murders in the U.S. are committed with guns is that people in the U.S. prefer to kill each other with guns. There are plenty of other nations where most murders are committed without guns.
In fact, according to this 2000 U.N. survey, there are only four countries where gun homicides outnumber other homicides.

[morriswalters]

I speak of the US because it is where I am most failure with all the variables. I wish, but don't demand, that if you post a long PDF document(504 pages in reader) that you would add some data to help locate the stats your are quoting. However it's time to let others have the field, I'm sure it is starting to boor people. Thanks for the discussion.

[Greyarcher]

I simply tire of people saying things like knives are just as dangerous as guns. They aren't by any metric you can support. If you add a modicum of training and change the weapon the disparity grows.

You just stated earlier in your post that knives were just as deadly as guns, so by your own words they're as dangerous using the metric of "deadliness". After that it's just a question of making the hole in the other person's guts, and the ease of that is all situation dependent: who the attacker is, who the victim(s) are, where they are, what the distance between them is, what the specific firearm is and how much extra ammo is being carried, etc, etc.

I've gone to a shooting range twice. My accuracy isn't anything unusual. I could probably kill as efficiently with a gun as a knife. All depends on the situation.

I will further add that if you are concerned about your co-workers and significant other having guns, then you need to get new peers and/or tone down your paranoia.

Another thing: some folks do own guns and really can't aim. They have the guns because they like them or it's a hobby or friends/family had them or whatever, but they don't go the range often and/or they shoot for fun without especially trying to improve their aim. Plus some only practice with stationary targets rather than moving targets.
At any rate, a number of gun owns probably won't have much better aim than mine.

Lastly: I'm moderately sure that if people with homicidal impulses thought "Kill" and then "Knives!" their ability to kill effectively wouldn't drop noticeably. It's just that people think "Kill" and then "Guns!" in the USA.

[morriswalters]

The point was the relative efficacy of the weapons all other things being equal.

It's not that knives are less deadly, they are less efficient.

I simply tire of people saying things like knives are just as dangerous as guns. They aren't by any metric you can support.

I used the term metric because guns and knives are not directly comparable, therefore their relative value as a weapon only partially relies on their deadliness. Their ability to kill depends on any number of factors.

Edit

As a loosely connected illustration of this point read this.

[idobox]

Hi everyone,

It is a surprise for me most of this post is about the danger of firearms, real or perceived, rather than the social implication of allowing people to be armed.

Sports and hunting are special cases, but otherwise, weapons are tools of homicide. What i mean is, people who buy a handgun, as much as I understand, do so because it gives them the power, even if it is only potential or theoritical, to harm people.

If the government allows citizens to carry weapons for self defence, it implicitelly recognize intimidation between citizens as legitimate. It implicitely recognize the right for a citizen to shoot and kill someone under certain conditions. So in a way, it installs them as judge and executionner, something that is normally forbidden in democracies.
A police officer is trained and learned, so that he will use only appropriate force, and will get in deep trouble if he starts shooting unarmed suspects.
On the other hand, a family father who believe his children are threatened might very well shoot a burglar, even if he is not really dangerous.

There is another issue. As mainy pointed out, mugging or burgling someone who owns a weapon is more dangerous.
It is a strong incentive for criminals to shoot first and ask questions later.
On the other hand, danger is not a very effective deterrent for a junkie who needs cash for his next fix, or for someone who needs to repay a loan shark, or anyone really desperate for some reason.

It would be nice to find data comparing gun ownership and crime rate, either in the same place over some time, or in different places. General crime, not only homicide.
Also a ban on weapons will automatically cause an immediate increase of cases of possession of illegal weapons. That should be counted for.

[Izawwlgood]

It would be nice to find data comparing gun ownership and crime rate, either in the same place over some time, or in different places. General crime, not only homicide.
Also a ban on weapons will automatically cause an immediate increase of cases of possession of illegal weapons. That should be counted for.

A) Such data exists, and it indicates that areas with higher gun ownership (that is, less gun regulation but high legally owned guns/capita) have low crime rates.
B) No, it will probably increase the value of guns on the black market.

[mmmcannibalism]

Sports and hunting are special cases, but otherwise, weapons are tools of homicide. What i mean is, people who buy a handgun, as much as I understand, do so because it gives them the power, even if it is only potential or theoritical, to harm people.

So (I want to be able to defend myself)=(I want the power to kill at my fingertips)?

If the government allows citizens to carry weapons for self defence, it implicitelly recognize intimidation between citizens as legitimate. It implicitely recognize the right for a citizen to shoot and kill someone under certain conditions. So in a way, it installs them as judge and executionner, something that is normally forbidden in democracies.

Being allowed to carry a gun is the recognition of your right to self defense. Using a weapon to intimidate someone(which certainly cannot be done with a knife ) is a crime because it is a threat of initiating force. Also, citizens are allowed to shoot and kill under certain conditions, specifically when they are defending themselves from an assailant.

A police officer is trained and learned, so that he will use only appropriate force, and will get in deep trouble if he starts shooting unarmed suspects.
On the other hand, a family father who believe his children are threatened might very well shoot a burglar, even if he is not really dangerous.

Although there is some legitimate concern about the above example; lets not ignore who started violating people's rights first in that scenario. Can you shoot someone just because they broke in, of course not. However, there is very strong reason to believe someone willing to break into a house is willing to use violence to not get arrested doing it.

There is another issue. As mainy pointed out, mugging or burgling someone who owns a weapon is more dangerous.
It is a strong incentive for criminals to shoot first and ask questions later.

So thieves will be nicer if they know their victims can't resist?

On the other hand, danger is not a very effective deterrent for a junkie who needs cash for his next fix, or for someone who needs to repay a loan shark, or anyone really desperate for some reason.

Assuming the junkie is at all capable of thought; they will probably run when faced with a gun. Desperate does not mean insane.

[Greyarcher]

It is a surprise for me most of this post is about the danger of firearms, real or perceived, rather than the social implication of allowing people to be armed.

Hm, yeah, surprising to me too in retrospect. People may have worked their way through that discussion in other threads. I know I've seen a number of the remarks you made already discussed in...maybe it was the "The right of the burglar" thread.

That thread is seven pages, so it covered a fair bit of discussion on firearms, lethal force, self-defense, risk of owning a firearm and the associated responsibility.

[Izawwlgood]

idobox, what exactly do you feel are the implications for allowing citizens to be armed?

[idobox]

A) Such data exists, and it indicates that areas with higher gun ownership (that is, less gun regulation but high legally owned guns/capita) have low crime rates.
B) No, it will probably increase the value of guns on the black market.

I have to admit it's fairly counter-intuitive. Why do people who live in low-crime areas feel the need to have guns?

So (I want to be able to defend myself)=(I want the power to kill at my fingertips)?

Not exactly. But if you choose a gun rather than a taser or pepper spray, you're choosing a mean of defence that is more likely to cause death.
(I want a gun)=(I want a tool designed to kill things)

Being allowed to carry a gun is the recognition of your right to self defense. Using a weapon to intimidate someone(which certainly cannot be done with a knife ) is a crime because it is a threat of initiating force.

The point was made that criminals are more intimated by people carrying guns, which is pretty obvious. It's a form of legal intimidation.
I know I wouldn't get into a fight as easily with someone carrying a gun.
And is the right of self-defence fundemental? I'm French, the constitution of my country grants me the right to be safe. It's an important nuance.
If I had to resort to self-defence, it would be a failure of the state. And if the crime rate increases, I sure hope my government will do something rather than let ME solve the problem with violence.

Also, citizens are allowed to shoot and kill under certain conditions, specifically when they are defending themselves from an assailant.

My point. Allowing citizens to kill people is, at least, a touchy moral and social question.

So thieves will be nicer if they know their victims can't resist?

It's a simple assesment of risks.
It would be just crazy to risk prison for life by shooting someone who doesn't threaten you.
It's not that crazy if that someone can potentially kill you.

Assuming the junkie is at all capable of thought; they will probably run when faced with a gun. Desperate does not mean insane.

What would a junkie with a gun do?
I don't say every junkie will kill people to get a fix, just that they evaluate risk very differently.

[Izawwlgood]

I have to admit it's fairly counter-intuitive. Why do people who live in low-crime areas feel the need to have guns?

For a variety of reasons I'm sure. Perhaps sporting? Perhaps they're just gun nuts. For whatever their reasons, the argument that guns = moar murder! is simply incorrect. The argument that guns = moar gun murders! is also incorrect.

The point was made that criminals are more intimated by people carrying guns, which is pretty obvious. It's a form of legal intimidation.
I know I wouldn't get into a fight as easily with someone carrying a gun.

This is a point in favor of allowing citizens to hold guns. I'm curious still what you consider to be the ramifications of allowing this.

[PhatPhungus]

I think the difficulty of use of a gun is largely irrelevant, because criminals who use guns generally already know how to use them.

In any case, I still feel like people either need to justify legalizing nukes and c-4, or explain to me what the important difference is between those and automatic weapons.

[idobox]

idobox wrote:
The point was made that criminals are more intimated by people carrying guns, which is pretty obvious. It's a form of legal intimidation.
I know I wouldn't get into a fight as easily with someone carrying a gun.

This is a point in favor of allowing citizens to hold guns. I'm curious still what you consider to be the ramifications of allowing this.

It's like if the government said "don't commit crimes, or people will shoot you" rather than "don't commit crimes, or specially trained professional will arrest you, and other professionnal with strong legal knowledge will decide what is the legal punishment".
The first one might be more effective (or maybe not), it doesn't mean it's morally better.

Enforcing law by threat of physical violence commited by citizens is not my idea of a high level of civilization.


Just to be clear, my point is not that all form of self defence should be banned.
I have a problem with people using violence to defend themselves. I also have a problem with people dying because they can't protect themselves.
How much violence is saving x lives worth? That is not simply a question of the efficiency of slef-defence as a law enforcment mechanism, it's also a question of the accetable cost in term of society.
A bit like people dying because of vaccines, or deciding to let companies exploit asian children or forbid that and make them loose their job.

[mmmcannibalism]

Not exactly. But if you choose a gun rather than a taser or pepper spray, you're choosing a mean of defence that is more likely to cause death.
(I want a gun)=(I want a tool designed to kill things)

Guns have greater range and effectiveness then either of those.

And is the right of self-defence fundemental? I'm French, the constitution of my country grants me the right to be safe. It's an important nuance.
If I had to resort to self-defence, it would be a failure of the state. And if the crime rate increases, I sure hope my government will do something rather than let ME solve the problem with violence.

Right to life implies right to self defense(this is independent of whether you are allowed to have a gun for that purpose). I think your mistaking the gun owner attitude of "if someone attacks me I have the right to stop them" with "there is crime, lets go shoot some bad guys".

The point was made that criminals are more intimated by people carrying guns, which is pretty obvious. It's a form of legal intimidation.

How does telling a criminal you won't let yourself be robbed legal intimidation? Does this mean if someone is robbing my house and I say I'm calling the cops it is legal intimidation?

It's a simple assesment of risks.
It would be just crazy to risk prison for life by shooting someone who doesn't threaten you.
It's not that crazy if that someone can potentially kill you.

Alternatively, someone is far less likely to rob someone if they know there is a good chance of being shot.

What would a junkie with a gun do?
I don't say every junkie will kill people to get a fix, just that they evaluate risk very differently.

This has been discussed a few times in the thread; however, a little nuance here. If we have someone desperate enough to kill someone; I don't see them only deciding on the killing if they have a gun.

edit--

I have a problem with people using violence to defend themselves. I also have a problem with people dying because they can't protect themselves.

So we should defend ourselves through means that don't include violence? How exactly do I stop a mugger without resorting to violence or the threat thereof.

[Izawwlgood]

@PhatPhungus: Criminals know how to use guns? So, drive bys hitting innocent targets really far away is because criminals are 'decent shots', right?

As for the difference between explosives and automatic weapons, I'm not sure there's much to say; one results in an explosion, the other shoots bullets rapidly. Are you suggesting that possession of an automatic weapon is as dangerous as possession of a nuclear weapon, or even possession of a 'comparable' (for whatever your metric is in this regard) amount of C4? Because I'd disagree.

A bit like people dying because of vaccines, or deciding to let companies exploit asian children or forbid that and make them loose their job.

This is a tangent I can't even begin to address, because I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It's like if the government said "don't commit crimes, or people will shoot you" rather than "don't commit crimes, or specially trained professional will arrest you, and other professionnal with strong legal knowledge will decide what is the legal punishment".
The first one might be more effective (or maybe not), it doesn't mean it's morally better.

I don't think there's a moral difference; I think there's a philosophical one. In the former, you notify both criminals and civilians alike that protection against harm is legal and acceptable, in the latter, you tell everyone not to worry, because the government and it's legal system will protect you. Personally, I find the former to be more reassuring, and the latter to be alarming in a number of ways.

Enforcing law by threat of physical violence commited by citizens is not my idea of a high level of civilization.

Conversely, belief that the government is always right, and will always do the right thing, is not my idea of a mentality I want my peers holding. I for one don't trust police officers to arrive at a moments notice, all the time, anywhere, to assist me, and while that doesn't mean I carry a gun, it means I think it's important to recognize that in reality, the law ISN'T there when you need it most. I personally avoid violence, but find those who deny or abhor it's existence to be practicing a rather disconnected futile intellectual analysis of reality.

How much violence is saving x lives worth? That is not simply a question of the efficiency of slef-defence as a law enforcment mechanism, it's also a question of the accetable cost in term of society.

That's a good question, and I don't have a good answer. Obviously the loss of a single person due to accidental discharge of a legally owned weapon is one loss to many, and obviously the cost of personal sanity walking around perpetually aware of who is near you, either to protect your own gun, or out of fear that they may have one, is something to consider. But I grew up around guns, and while their presence in a room certainly changes the ambiance, so too does working around heavy machinery, or expensive lab equipment, or standing in a museum with priceless art inches away.
Personally, I'd rather people get educated about guns and how to use them, than everyone view guns as Hollywood portrays, and trust that police officers will only use them to protect us the moment we need the threat of their force levied.

[Greyarcher]

So (I want to be able to defend myself)=(I want the power to kill at my fingertips)?

Not exactly. But if you choose a gun rather than a taser or pepper spray, you're choosing a mean of defence that is more likely to cause death.
(I want a gun)=(I want a tool designed to kill things)

Practically similar. It's "I want a tool that can best stop someone". Tasers and pepper spray really can't match a firearm in that regard.

Also, citizens are allowed to shoot and kill under certain conditions, specifically when they are defending themselves from an assailant.

My point. Allowing citizens to kill people is, at least, a touchy moral and social question.

I don't know about "touchy". I suppose it would be controversial in some places though

And is the right of self-defence fundemental? I'm French, the constitution of my country grants me the right to be safe. It's an important nuance.
If I had to resort to self-defence, it would be a failure of the state. And if the crime rate increases, I sure hope my government will do something rather than let ME solve the problem with violence.

Certainly, self-defense I'd say it's fundamental; the idea that people would not be permitted to defend themselves--or others--from attackers is terrible.

As an aside, unless you have personal bodyguards that follow you 24/7, there is only one person who will definitely be there to defend you if you're in a dangerous situation. And that's you. Police don't replace self-defense: they just make a climate where it isn't necessary that often.

So thieves will be nicer if they know their victims can't resist?

It's a simple assesment of risks.
It would be just crazy to risk prison for life by shooting someone who doesn't threaten you.
It's not that crazy if that someone can potentially kill you.

You could also say it's just rob people when any robbery could get you shot by armed citizens. Or say it's crazy to shoot every citizen you rob because you're worried they're armed--unless their property is really worth all the years in prison you get for robberies and murders.

[HungryHobo]

So in a way, it installs them as judge and executionner, something that is normally forbidden in democracies.

I'm not sure about other ideologies but the libertarian standpoint is that you can't give powers/rights to others which you yourself do not to some extent have yourself.

Can you give your neighbour the right to beat me up and take my stuff for no reason? no
Can you and 20 of your friends give the right to beat me up and take my stuff for no reason? no
Can you and 20000 of your friends give the right to beat me up and take my stuff for no reason? no
etc

now of course governments still do that kind of stuff but I'd prefer a world where they didn't.

If you and millions of your countrymen can get together and give a load of men in uniform the right to shoot people to defend you then you must, under some circumstances have the right to use force to defend your own life.

In most countries the circumstances under which you can use force or deadly force are very restricted, someone has to be actively trying to hurt, kill or rape you rather than just pissing you off or trying to take some of your stuff but most countries have some kind of provision for that.

[idobox]

Not exactly. But if you choose a gun rather than a taser or pepper spray, you're choosing a mean of defence that is more likely to cause death.
(I want a gun)=(I want a tool designed to kill things)

Guns have greater range and effectiveness then either of those.

Is a gun really more effective than taser? Honest question.
Anyway, you accept the idea of using it on someone and killing him.
If every legal gun was replaced by tasers, there would be less dead criminals. People would feel less safe.
People who buy guns rather than tasers trade safety for a higher death toll. It is a moral decision.

Right to life implies right to self defense(this is independent of whether you are allowed to have a gun for that purpose). I think your mistaking the gun owner attitude of "if someone attacks me I have the right to stop them" with "there is crime, lets go shoot some bad guys".

I don't agree. Right to life does not imply the right to kill to save your life.
You are not allowed to kill someone to steal his liver for a transplant.
If you are allowed to kill a criminal to save your life, it means a criminal hasn't the same right to life as someone who is potential organ donor.
It is a SOCIAL and MORAL choice.

Once again, I'm not saying a victim's life has the same worth as its killer's life or anything. I'm saying it's a social choice how much violence you allow.

The point was made that criminals are more intimated by people carrying guns, which is pretty obvious. It's a form of legal intimidation.

How does telling a criminal you won't let yourself be robbed legal intimidation? Does this mean if someone is robbing my house and I say I'm calling the cops it is legal intimidation

Saying you're going to call the cops is a form of intimidation. Putting barbed wire around your house is a form of intimidation. Holding someone at gunpoint is a form of intimidation. But they are not the same thing.
By having a gun, you switch from a "don't attack me or you'll have trouble with the police" defense strategy to a "don't attack me or I'll shoot you" defense strategy. It might be more efficient, but it is also more violent.

Alternatively, someone is far less likely to rob someone if they know there is a good chance of being shot

True.
So, how many burglaries avoided?
how many more causalties during burglaries?
how many avoided burglaries is one causalty worth?
Again, SOCIAL and MORAL question.

So we should defend ourselves through means that don't include violence? How exactly do I stop a mugger without resorting to violence or the threat thereof?

I'm not a zero-violence proponent.
I prefer not to use violence, because I think violence is bad. But there are worse things, like being dead, for example.
By killing gang members, I will reduce drug deals and avoid a number of murders. So, I'll save lives. But it is a level of violence that society and law do not accept.
Again, it's a question of how much violence is considered moral.

[mmmcannibalism]

Is a gun really more effective than taser? Honest question.
Anyway, you accept the idea of using it on someone and killing him.
If every legal gun was replaced by tasers, there would be less dead criminals. People would feel less safe.
People who buy guns rather than tasers trade safety for a higher death toll. It is a moral decision.

Consider, if a suspect is armed with a gun do the police subdue them with their tasers or with their own guns? The answer would seem to imply which is more effective. Buying a gun over a taser is the decision that effective self defense is a greater philosophical right then the right of a robber to be stopped in the least harmful way possible.

I don't agree. Right to life does not imply the right to kill to save your life.
You are not allowed to kill someone to steal his liver for a transplant.
If you are allowed to kill a criminal to save your life, it means a criminal hasn't the same right to life as someone who is potential organ donor.
It is a SOCIAL and MORAL choice.
Once again, I'm not saying a victim's life has the same worth as its killer's life or anything. I'm saying it's a social choice how much violence you allow.

Strawman
Right to life implies the right to defend that life against destruction. This is not the same as saying right to life implies right to go murder people.

You are allowed to kill a criminal to save your life because they are through their actions violating your right to life.

[idobox]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you live in the USA or other countries that were colonized less than 500 years ago?
I am under the impression, that people from "old" countries trust their government more, and rely less on themselves, than people from countries that were still being pioneered a century or two ago.

I have trouble keeping up with everyone, I'm not typing fast enough.

Consider, if a suspect is armed with a gun do the police subdue them with their tasers or with their own guns? The answer would seem to imply which is more effective. Buying a gun over a taser is the decision that effective self defense is a greater philosophical right then the right of a robber to be stopped in the least harmful way possible.

That is what I call a moral choice. If you prefer the word philosophical, or ethical, or wathever, it doesn't bother me.
Also, I'm really not sure a gun is more effective than a taser. Someone with a bullet in the arm is still dangerous. Someone tased is drooling on the floor. It is also easier to protect yourself from a taser.
Seriously, I suppose taser companies have stats on that.

You are allowed to kill a criminal to save your life because they are through their actions violating your right to life.

I am not allowed to shoot a criminal who tries to kill me if there is another way to stop him. It's a crime called something like "use of disproportionate force".
If you switched from fireamrs to tasers, how many criminals lifes would be saved? how many victims lifes? how many dead criminals are worth one saved victim?

This is a tangent I can't even begin to address, because I'm not sure what you're trying to say

This is the kind of choice lawmakers do every day.
If you allow stem cells therapy, you save people, at the expense of human embryos. Is an adult human life worth an embryo's?
If you forbid coal plants, you reduce respiratory problems, but the country blacks out. How many lifes a year is electricity worth?
If I build an hospital, workers might die on the construction site. How many dead workers are all the saved lives worth?

Sometimes these choices are easy, sometimes not. But it's the kind of choices that we have to do all the time.

Conversely, belief that the government is always right, and will always do the right thing, is not my idea of a mentality I want my peers holding. I for one don't trust police officers to arrive at a moments notice, all the time, anywhere, to assist me, and while that doesn't mean I carry a gun, it means I think it's important to recognize that in reality, the law ISN'T there when you need it most. I personally avoid violence, but find those who deny or abhor it's existence to be practicing a rather disconnected futile intellectual analysis of reality.

I don't live in the happy world of care bears.
Police or the government are not always right. But they are probably more competent than you and I on law enforcement.
And if they don't do their job right, it is our duty to make them change.

[PhatPhungus]

@PhatPhungus: Criminals know how to use guns? So, drive bys hitting innocent targets really far away is because criminals are 'decent shots', right?

As for the difference between explosives and automatic weapons, I'm not sure there's much to say; one results in an explosion, the other shoots bullets rapidly. Are you suggesting that possession of an automatic weapon is as dangerous as possession of a nuclear weapon, or even possession of a 'comparable' (for whatever your metric is in this regard) amount of C4? Because I'd disagree.

Criminals also often don't particularly give a shit if they hit someone they don't know accidentally. I'm not saying that all criminals are good shots, I'm saying that they know how to use their weapons, and some of them are good shots.

I'm not suggesting that possession of an automatic weapon is as dangerous as possession of a nuke or C4, I just would like you to draw a line and give a justification for putting the line there.

Also, if you accept that guns are more effective than knives for self defense, then you have to accept that they are also better for criminals.

[Greyarcher]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you live in the USA or other countries that were colonized less than 500 years ago?
I am under the impression, that people from "old" countries trust their government more, and rely less on themselves, than people from countries that were still being pioneered a century or two ago.

Younger country here! But age of the country isn't the same as age of the government, so I don't see why that would be. And, in a way, the US government is around the same age as France's government: France kept bouncing between a monarchy, a republic, and Napoleon, while the USA took many years to actually become the United States. I think the USA's mistrust for government is a specific historical legacy that isn't related to age.

Also, I'm really not sure a gun is more effective than a taser. Someone with a bullet in the arm is still dangerous. Someone tased is drooling on the floor. It is also easier to protect yourself from a taser.

I'm not sure about range, but number of shots is a problem for effectiveness. Tasers usually only have one shot. I see one type that gives three shots, but it looks like it's not available for civilians to buy.

Ironically, the first google result I found was for the XREP, which is a taser shell for a shotgun. Civilians can't purchase that either though.

Also, if you accept that guns are more effective than knives for self defense, then you have to accept that they are also better for criminals.

Not really. Someone defending themselves wants distance from danger, and a firearm allows defense from a distance. An attacker/criminal doesn't necessarily want or need distance like that because their intention is to deal damage or threaten, not defend themselves.

[omgryebread]

Not really. Someone defending themselves wants distance from danger, and a firearm allows defense from a distance. An attacker/criminal doesn't necessarily want or need distance like that because their intention is to deal damage or threaten, not defend themselves.

Yes, the attacker's intention is to deal damage or threaten, but you cannot assume they do so without regard to their own safety. Generally, a knife is more dangerous to use in a mugging, because you have to be closer to threaten to the person. Guns are more effective for crimes because they allow crimes to be commited with a lower cost (in the case of mugging, most of the "cost" is in the form of risk).


Another argument that is repeated is that guns are not more lethal than knives so they should be legal. This is true in some senses. Yes, a person with a knife within 20 feet is dangerous to a person with a gun. Though that would imply that said gun owner would be better served by using a knife then. Provided good training with whatever weapon, they are better off with the gun, of course. Untrained, I would guess the knife, though I've never fired a handgun personally. Either way, this argument seems to assume that all legal and responsible gun owners are well-trained and could use their gun effectively to prevent themselves from being robbed, so it's effective and helpful, but criminals can't, so guns aren't dangerous.


Secondly, the cost of a knife fight is likely to be higher for the winner than that of a gun fight. Two people at a decent distance with handguns, one trained and one untrained, I'm guessing one is going to walk away dead, and the other unharmed. An "expert knife fighter" is going to get cut. A lot. Doesn't matter who he's fighting. I put that in quotes because there's honestly not a ton of advantage in any sort of knife fighting techniques. So even a well trained criminal is going to incur a large cost by attacking someone else if he only has a knife. Unless game theory is wrong, that's going to make some criminals think twice, and not go mug people. (Or whatever other crime they're going to do.)

There's no evidence that limiting guns will decrease crime. In fact, most evidence suggests the opposite (though I'd dispute how valid some of those claims are, for reasons already stated). But there is evidence that crimes with guns involved tend to be more fatal. Generally speaking, more fatality is a bad thing. I'd rather a bank be robbed with no one dying than for it to be robbed without anyone dying.


I'll admit that the deterrence inherent in a gun-owning society probably does lower crime. I would argue that effective policing has a far larger effect on crime. That's a separate issue and not an either-or though.


All in all, I'd say that keeping guns away from sane people with no criminal record does strike me as something unneeded and bad. While gun control would, in my estimation, probably have a positive effect, its cost/benefit ratio isn't as good as effective policing or education or a bunch of other stuff that government should spend time and money on.

[Thesh]

I think it's best to say that gun control laws don't seem to correlate to crime rates. In 1976, Washington DC enacted the strictest gun control laws in the country. These laws were repealed in 2008. I see no evidence that these laws affected murder rates or violent crime:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Also, see how little the 1995 firearms laws had an effect in Canada; basically the trend in homicide rates continued:

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57#M_4

The laws that some people say correlates is when states enact concealed carry laws. Sometimes it doesn't seem to correlate, however, but it doesn't seem to cause an increase in murder rates. My best guess is concealed carry provides a deterrent, but doesn't have a huge effect on crime.

[Greyarcher]

Not really. Someone defending themselves wants distance from danger, and a firearm allows defense from a distance. An attacker/criminal doesn't necessarily want or need distance like that because their intention is to deal damage or threaten, not defend themselves.

Yes, the attacker's intention is to deal damage or threaten, but you cannot assume they do so without regard to their own safety. Generally, a knife is more dangerous to use in a mugging, because you have to be closer to threaten to the person. Guns are more effective for crimes because they allow crimes to be commited with a lower cost (in the case of mugging, most of the "cost" is in the form of risk).

Hmm, I'm not sure how many situations would involve a significant risk difference. I mean, a lot of people wouldn't resist a robber with a knife or a gun. But if the robber picked a tough target and/or a bad location, a gun might be better; if the robber was breaking & entering a gun might be better there too. Someone just going nuts and killing people in a crowd, well, that would depend on the firearm and how tightly packed the crowd was.

I agree that in some situations a gun is superior. But then again, for a mugging, arguably just punching the victim, grabbing their stuff, and running can be as efficient as a gun or knife. So it's the usual: "depends on the situation".

Another argument that is repeated is that guns are not more lethal than knives so they should be legal. This is true in some senses. Yes, a person with a knife within 20 feet is dangerous to a person with a gun. Though that would imply that said gun owner would be better served by using a knife then. Provided good training with whatever weapon, they are better off with the gun, of course. Untrained, I would guess the knife, though I've never fired a handgun personally. Either way, this argument seems to assume that all legal and responsible gun owners are well-trained and could use their gun effectively to prevent themselves from being robbed, so it's effective and helpful, but criminals can't, so guns aren't dangerous.

Well, the 20 foot rule is basically a "this is the danger zone" guideline. IIRC, they got that number by having ready people try and pull their gun out of its holster and get off a shot at a target that suddenly came at them at a running person's speed. But it's not like all--or even most--situations will be like that.

Not sure what argument you're talking about in the latter half there. I'd guess it's closer to: a firearm can substantially improve a person's ability to defend themselves from danger, and it doesn't necessarily make criminals more dangerous by an amount that warrants preventing firearm ownership. (And from there it gets into a discussion of gun control effectiveness, and the other reasons for permitting gun ownership get raised, etc.)

[idobox]

Criminals also often don't particularly give a shit if they hit someone they don't know accidentally. I'm not saying that all criminals are good shots, I'm saying that they know how to use their weapons, and some of them are good shots.

There is a whole spectrum of criminality between apple thief to evil genius bent on world domination. I might be a little too optmistic, but I think most criminals don't like killing people. They do it when they need to do so, but probably avoid to shoot randomly if they don't see a clear advantage in doing so.
Of course, there are some sociopaths and paranoids, but I sure hope they are not the bulk of criminals.

Younger country here! But age of the country isn't the same as age of the government, so I don't see why that would be. And, in a way, the US government is around the same age as France's government: France kept bouncing between a monarchy, a republic, and Napoleon, while the USA took many years to actually become the United States. I think the USA's mistrust for government is a specific historical legacy that isn't related to age.

300 hundreds years ago, France was a densely populated country with a strong centralized power and a long tradition of law enforcement.
300 hundreds years ago, many parts of USA were largely unpopulated, law enforcement deficient, and weapons were the main defence mechanism. Also the country was ruled by an overseas power. I have a foreigner's point of view, but it seems like Texas, Arizona, and generally what once was the "far west" care much more about firearms than the old colonies.
The state changed a few times in France, but cities, farms, roads, police forces have been there for a long time. During that time, the USA build cities, farms, roads and hired policemen.

Once again, I might very well be wrong, since it's just an undocumented feeling, but I believe people have more guns in central and south America, in south Africa, in the middle east, and in Australia than in Europe, east Asia and India. Recent war zones, of course, are a special case.

All in all, I'd say that keeping guns away from sane people with no criminal record does strike me as something unneeded and bad. While gun control would, in my estimation, probably have a positive effect, its cost/benefit ratio isn't as good as effective policing or education or a bunch of other stuff that government should spend time and money on.

How do you decide who is sane enough and apt to own a gun?
If someone is a member of a radical party, for example an independentist or racist party, would he be allowed to have gun? a machine gun?
Should a perfectly sane, but blind, person be allowed to carry a gun?

Also people can change pretty fast. Take a perfectly sane, calm and polite person. Add a doctor who makes a mistake and kills that person's child. If you let that person carry a gun, you know there is a possibility he will kill the doctor.

[Izawwlgood]

Also people can change pretty fast. Take a perfectly sane, calm and polite person. Add a doctor who makes a mistake and kills that person's child. If you let that person carry a gun, you know there is a possibility he will kill the doctor.

This is a straw man. Your hypothetical man also has access to a knife, and a car. Cars kill tons of people; should we limit anyone who has experienced loss of any kind, or who has a belief system you disagree with, ability to get their hands on cars?

Simply put, the presence of guns does not = murderous rampages. Similarly, the absence of guns does not = no murder.

[idobox]

This is a straw man

Just to be sure, what is the meaning of this expression? In French, a straw man is a person acts as a legal facade for something else, like someone legally owning a business that really belongs to the Mafia. And this definition doesn't really fit.

Your hypothetical man also has access to a knife, and a car. Cars kill tons of people; should we limit anyone who has experienced loss of any kind, or who has a belief system you disagree with, ability to get their hands on cars?

I would be very worried to see this man holding a knife or driving anywhere near his potential victim. But you can't ban knives, because they have many other uses than just stabbing people, while guns have little use outside shooting people.
Banning guns won't stop murders, it will make them more difficult.
It's something to shoot or stab someone in a fit of rage. It's something entirely different poison its coffee, or stalk him until you get a chance to run him over, or any elaborate murder scheme.
Also, I wonder what is the most dangerous : a single gunshot, followed by regret, or a single stabbing of slashing, followed by regret.
A bullet in the head is pretty fatal, as well as a severed artery.

By the way, in France, I'm not allowed to walk in the street with a baseball bat, because it is considered a weapon. I need to put it in a closed bag. Cops really told me that in the street.
Apparently it is more difficult to attack someone if you first need to unzip your first bag.
And I am not sure France is much more dangerous than USA (ok, social conditions are different).

Also, I keep hearing from totally unreliable sources that you have a higher of getting killed if you own a weapon. Any idea where to find that kind of statistics? the police? pro gun-control activists?

[Thesh]

Well, the one study showed that more gun owners get shot than non gun-owners (the study I found in a quick search was from Philadelphia only). That doesn't mean that owning a gun increases your likelihood of getting shot, it could simply mean that people who are more likely to get shot are more likely to buy guns. Just trying to correlate the number of shooting victims that are gun owners doesn't tell you much. They need to look at the circumstances surrounding each case, such as the crime rate in their local neighborhood, the circumstances surrounding the shooting (e.g. almost all victims of gang hits are going to have guns), whether the fact that they owned a gun played any role in the shooting, etc.

[Hemmers]

This is a straw man

Just to be sure, what is the meaning of this expression? In French, a straw man is a person acts as a legal facade for something else, like someone legally owning a business that really belongs to the Mafia. And this definition doesn't really fit.

Yes a little confusing. You're thinking of things like straw purchases where someone with no criminal record buys things on behalf of criminals.
I think what Izawwlgood means is the argument has no substance. It is a fallacy and easily knocked aside (like a straw man) for the reasons Iz lists below.

Your hypothetical man also has access to a knife, and a car. Cars kill tons of people; should we limit anyone who has experienced loss of any kind, or who has a belief system you disagree with, ability to get their hands on cars?

I would be very worried to see this man holding a knife or driving anywhere near his potential victim.

What, that person should move away? Or avoid driving through town in case they come across that Doctor? Stay away from them for life? You don't need a weapon to kill someone. A couple of well placed punches will do it, or throw them into the road, push them through a shop store window onto broken glass.

But you can't ban knives, because they have many other uses than just stabbing people, while guns have little use outside shooting people.

Sorry, but that's just plain ignorant. First of all, Target Shooting is an Olympic Sport. Secondly, plenty of people shoot live quarry for pest control and food. These are all legitimate uses.

In the UK landowners have a legal requirement to control pest and invasive species on their land.
Traps and disease (e.g. Mixy) are inhumane and poison is non-species specific.
Poison laid for rabbits or grey squirrels could also be picked up by otters (protected), voles, field-mice, red squirrels (protected), etc.
Shooting is frequently the most effective, safest, discriminatory and humane way of controlling pests.

Banning guns won't stop murders, it will make them more difficult.

Well, ironically if the guy that walked into that Florida School Board meeting had had a knife, he may actually have done some damage. If he'd launched himself over the desk it would have taken one stab wound to kill the Chairman, or he might have stabbed the woman who had at him with her handbag. As it is he loosed off half a dozen shots at really quite close range and missed every time.
Plus, as I keep saying. CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS. Even if you kill illegal imports, and even manage to stop any White->Black market movement, they're just too easy to make with basic workshop tools. If Pakistani tribesmen can do it with hand files, treadle lathes and bits of scrap metal, how on earth do you intend to stop an organised criminal syndicate setting up factories in back garden sheds in nations where hobby lathes, pillar drills, milling machines and steel billet are readily available?
It can't be done, end of discussion.
The question then, is whether it's worth banning private, legal ownership if the crims will have them anyway?

Also, I wonder what is the most dangerous : a single gunshot, followed by regret, or a single stabbing of slashing, followed by regret.

Well, actually if you look at the number of current and former gang-members in LA who show off their 4/5/6 bullet scars to the media whenever these "Person x on gangs" programs come around, it's remarkable how survivable gunshot wounds actually are with prompt medical treatment. Just as much so as with knife wounds.

Also, I keep hearing from totally unreliable sources that you have a higher of getting killed if you own a weapon. Any idea where to find that kind of statistics? the police? pro gun-control activists?

Like you say, unreliable sources. The issue is that the stats very rarely distinguish people carrying criminally owned firearms from people carrying legal CCWs, and also very rarely distinguish between actual criminal homicides and criminals getting shot in the process of committing a crime (and lets face it, who cares about the latter? They won't reoffend, they won't cost the taxpayer money in court and prison costs, and I'd rather the perpetrator died than an innocent member of the public).
Unless you analyse it literally on a case-by-case basis, there's no way of telling whether the fact that the deceased was carrying a firearm is even relevant, whether their attacker knew they were armed or not, etc, etc.

As for "weapons", everyone owns weapons. I have half a dozen within arms reach of me. Presumably you mean a firearm?

The issue here is that uses are being mixed up. Are we talking about owning firearms or carrying firearms as Right-to-Carry? I suspect you are talking about the latter, as are some people - but then some of us were talking about the former (seeing as RTC doesn't exist in Europe), and the conversations are being mixed.
Owning a firearm does not make you more likely to die of gunshot wounds.
Carrying a firearm might, just as carrying a knife might make you more likely to get stabbed.

By way of example, I have a firearm in my house. But it's stored in a steel cabinet behind two locks, with the ammo behind a separate lock. It's stored bolt-out.
If someone broke in, I'd have to open my combination safe to get my keys, unlock three separate locks, dig my bolt out my bag, attach the sights, load it and then bring this long, heavy rifle to bear. Yeah, that's UK gun laws for you.

In reality I would most likely just grab the hockey stick in the corner of my room along with a handy can of deodorant or bug killer. Wait for them to come up the stairs, spray to the face, swing the stick, they'll probably break their neck on the way back down the stairs. Harsh, maybe, but they shouldn't be in my house (and at night, in the dark, I'm not going to take the risk of waiting to find out if they're armed, whether with knife, bat or firearm).

[Izawwlgood]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Basically, you're attempting to demonstrate something unrelated to the issue of gun violence is true. That a hypothetical individual may be upset when a doctor fails to cure his son, and go and shoot the doctor, is pretty irrelevant to the argument because A) the man still has access to a number of things that are just as deadly as guns, and B) it is a hypothetical scenario with no statistical backing.

Apparently it is more difficult to attack someone if you first need to unzip your first bag.

Yeah that is weird. Also, presumably a baseball bat can't hurt someone if it is currently inside of a bag when it hits them

Banning guns won't stop murders, it will make them more difficult.

Not necessarily, which is a point we keep circling around. Banning guns will simply mean there's a market for illegal guns, and as evidenced by the multiple cities in America that have had incredibly tight gun control laws, more laws does NOT mean less guns, or even less gun related deaths. And again (seriously, I've repeated this point like four times now, and I know it's been cited a whole bunch in this thread), less guns does NOT mean less gun deaths.

Considering England recently replaced breakable bar glasses with unbreakable plastic ones to prevent drunken fights from resulting in getting stabbed with shattered glass, I'm inclined to believe the availability of an obviously dangerous item has little bearing on perpetuated violence.

[Hemmers]

Considering England recently replaced breakable bar glasses with unbreakable plastic ones to prevent drunken fights from resulting in getting stabbed with shattered glass, I'm inclined to believe the availability of an obviously dangerous item has little bearing on perpetuated violence.

Yeah, that was a little overhyped. I've yet to come across one!

Pubs still use glass, and clubs went over to disposable plastic cups years ago. Very few businesses wanted to shell out for those unbreakable laminate things.
Plus, pretty much every alcopop you can name comes in a glass bottle, so the drinking glasses are the least of their worries.
They're a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[HungryHobo]

a straw man argument is where you argue against a position which you yourself have created which is artificially weak, as it were, creating the weakest possible argument for the other side and then arguing against that no matter how unlikely or how unrealistic.

Very very few doctors are killed by family members of patients they've failed to save even in cases of negligence or incompetence.
It's not a real scenario, in reality people with no mental problems rarely just decide to start slaughtering people.
thus your argument is a straw man.

but to address the argument anyway :if you were the doctor and such a person was out to kill you and as you walked home they stepped out of an side street with a knife, a hammer or indeed any weapon you can think of ,including a gun : legal or illegal since such a person at this point is less than concerned with legal consequences, what would you prefer to have?

1:a phone to call the police so they can be on the scene withing half an hour to recover your corpse because in a nice society you shouldn't need to defend yourself.
2:the most effective weapon you can legally get hold of to defend yourself.
3:a less effective weapon.


I think the plastic glasses are more about broken glass on the floor.
I've never known anyone attacked with a broken glass or bottle but I've seen a few friends get broken glass in their feet and one guy who fell on a shard and got a nasty cut.

[idobox]

Well, the one study showed that more gun owners get shot than non gun-owners (the study I found in a quick search was from Philadelphia only). That doesn't mean that owning a gun increases your likelihood of getting shot, it could simply mean that people who are more likely to get shot are more likely to buy guns. Just trying to correlate the number of shooting victims that are gun owners doesn't tell you much. They need to look at the circumstances surrounding each case, such as the crime rate in their local neighborhood, the circumstances surrounding the shooting (e.g. almost all victims of gang hits are going to have guns), whether the fact that they owned a gun played any role in the shooting, etc.

With all the political pressure you have in USA on the subject, I would be surprised if no one conducted a study on the subject.

What, that person should move away? Or avoid driving through town in case they come across that Doctor? Stay away from them for life? You don't need a weapon to kill someone. A couple of well placed punches will do it, or throw them into the road, push them through a shop store window onto broken glass.

Well, there are restraining orders. And forbiding someone who hates you to wave a butcher's knife under your nose doesn't seem like a big restriction of freedom.
Of course, there are other ways to kill someone. A firearm is only an efficient one. I don't think people should wander the streets holding katanas or crossbows either.

Sorry, but that's just plain ignorant. First of all, Target Shooting is an Olympic Sport. Secondly, plenty of people shoot live quarry for pest control and food. These are all legitimate uses.

Do you really to have your Target Shooting gun at home? Would it be that difficult to let it at the club?
If a gun is not dangerous, like a BB gun or something, it shouldn't be, and I think isn't, considered a weapon.
And do you know many people who hunt squirrels with a revolver, or a submachine gun? In France, again, hunters are allowed to own guns with a limit of three rounds in semi-automatic. They are unconeilable, slow, and you only have two or three shots. Clearly not as efficient to kill someone as a pump action, or a AK-47.

And I am not saying all guns should be banned. I'm saying having guns "for self-defence" should be banned. I consider having people wondering with weapons designed to shoot people (so not hunting rifles), bought with the idea they could be used to shoot people (for self-defence), is unsound.

CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS

Gangsters will always have guns. Most "small" criminals don't in France (although, they are getting more and more). Because it's risky to have them, and not very useful.
Also, prisons are filled with honest people who lost their tamper or did mistakes. Most of them wouldn't have guns.

As for "weapons", everyone owns weapons. I have half a dozen within arms reach of me. Presumably you mean a firearm?

You can kill people with a butcher's knife, but a butcher's knife is designed to cut meat. You would be using a tool as a weapon.
You can knock a nail with the handle of a handgun, but a handgun is still designed to shoot people.

Yet, a butcher's knife is a tool, and a handgun is a weapon.

By way of example, I have a firearm in my house. But it's stored in a steel cabinet behind two locks, with the ammo behind a separate lock. It's stored bolt-out.
If someone broke in, I'd have to open my combination safe to get my keys, unlock three separate locks, dig my bolt out my bag, attach the sights, load it and then bring this long, heavy rifle to bear. Yeah, that's UK gun laws for you.

In reality I would most likely just grab the hockey stick in the corner of my room along with a handy can of deodorant or bug killer. Wait for them to come up the stairs, spray to the face, swing the stick, they'll probably break their neck on the way back down the stairs. Harsh, maybe, but they shouldn't be in my house (and at night, in the dark, I'm not going to take the risk of waiting to find out if they're armed, whether with knife, bat or firearm).

I'm worried about people having access to lethal weapons as a mean of self-defence. If you encase a rocket launcher in clear plastic, rendering it forever unusable, I have no problem with you having it in your living room.
If you have a revolver readily accessible, you can use it when you think you are threatened, or if you're really pissed off. That is a problem for me.

Finally, if someone broke in, I probably wouldn't fight back. I don't want to get hurt, and I don't want to risk injuring or killing someone. My laptop and my watch are not worth it.

Not necessarily, which is a point we keep circling around. Banning guns will simply mean there's a market for illegal guns, and as evidenced by the multiple cities in America that have had incredibly tight gun control laws, more laws does NOT mean less guns, or even less gun related deaths. And again (seriously, I've repeated this point like four times now, and I know it's been cited a whole bunch in this thread), less guns does NOT mean less gun deaths.

Banning guns will mean it will be more difficult and expensive to get guns. You don't smuggle an AK-47 as easily as a small quantity of drugs, and a good quality hand made gun built illegally in the USA will probably be quite expensive.

Also, if the jail time is 5 years for a car robbery and 15 years for an armed car robbery. Why would a criminal risk the additional 10 years?

but to address the argument anyway :if you were the doctor and such a person was out to kill you and as you walked home they stepped out of an side street with a knife, a hammer or indeed any weapon you can think of ,including a gun : legal or illegal since such a person at this point is less than concerned with legal consequences, what would you prefer to have?

I live in a country where it is not easy to get a firearm. If I wanted to kill someone, I would have big trouble finding a gun.
Of course, if someone intended to kill me, I would want the most effective defense.
You could consider that a case of reversed not-in-my-backyard. People agree the country need a new, let say, power plant, but they oppose it when it really interferes with their lives. I don't want people carrying guns, but if I needed one badly, I sure would want one.
That doesn't mean society and politics should allow it. The same way the government takes action, and displease people by building a power plant, an airport or a highway, they must not consider only the lives saved by guns, and consider the greater good.

Having a more violent and individualistic society is a cost, and has a lot of hard to measure consequences.
I feel like many people on this thread consider this cost to be very low, or even null, compared to the lives saved and freedom. But I feel it's a big cost, I don't care much about the freedom to bear arms, and it's not very clear wether guns are a statistically efficient mean of self defence or not.

[Izawwlgood]

Banning guns will mean it will be more difficult and expensive to get guns.

Because banning drugs means people don't use, right?

[idobox]

Banning guns will mean it will be more difficult and expensive to get guns.

Because banning drugs means people don't use, right?

No, it makes them nore expensive a difficult to get.
Netherlands is not far away from France, and people go there to get stoned. So I guess canabis there is either higher quality or cheaper, because the police doesn't really bother people smoking in France.

[Izawwlgood]

I'm not sure it necessarily makes it more difficult, but it certainly means more money ends up in the wrong hands. If procuring a gun was approximately as difficult as procuring drugs, all you've really done is shift non-government/law enforcement gun ownership solely into the hands of people who are engaged in black market activities.

Who would you rather have in possession of a gun, a pimp, a drug dealer, or an individual protecting their family? Of those three, who do you think is more likely to use a gun irresponsibly, or even violently? Furthermore, and this is just speculation now, of those three, who do you think is more likely to use a gun defensively?

[HungryHobo]

Having a more violent and individualistic society is a cost, and has a lot of hard to measure consequences.

I don't consider a violent society a good thing but I'm all for individuality.

we don't all yearn for the hive mind or want to make everyone work only for "the greater good".
Never trust a politician who talks about "the greater good" since they normally mean "Their greater good" or only the greater good of people they like.

I don't know about you but despite living in a country where guns are quite tightly regulated I could get one if I really needed it fairly easily.

[omgryebread]

Who would you rather have in possession of a gun, a pimp, a drug dealer, or an individual protecting their family? Of those three, who do you think is more likely to use a gun irresponsibly, or even violently? Furthermore, and this is just speculation now, of those three, who do you think is more likely to use a gun defensively?

Maybe I'm unsure of what you're trying to say, but to answer the last question, I'd think the drug dealer or pimp is far more likely to use the gun defensively, since they have the more dangerous situation. (If you extend defensively to mean using it to threaten aggressive people, then the pimp will probably use his gun the most. In a somewhat twisted logic, I almost am glad that pimps generally carry guns.)


I feel the discussion over the morality of gun ownership is a bit misguided. Whether or not it's a good thing that people have guns is quite a different issue from whether or not we should ban guns. Speaking personally, I would love to see less people with guns, especially given that I can't own one (most sensible people on both sides of the issue would not support my right to own a gun, as someone who has been involuntarily hospitalized for a mental disorder in the past). Other people having guns around me makes me uncomfortable. That being said, I don't think it's feasible to ban handgun ownership in the US. I don't know enough statistics about other countries, but as a very general rule I'd be willing to say that enforcing gun bans is a large cost with insufficient return.

I will note that the involvement of firearms makes crime more lethal. Regarding the number of crimes as a whole, the data are suspect, but a crime with a gun is more likely to be lethal. All in all, a crime in which no one dies is better than a crime in which someone dies. You could argue about effectiveness of the gun in actually stopping the crime (In many cases, it's clear that an attempted crime in which someone dies is better than a committed crime in which no one does. Shooting someone to stop, say, a rape or a violent assault is acceptable in my book) but I really doubt one could pull meaningful data out of any study on that.

So I'm willing to assume that gun control would not raise the crime rate, and would lower the death rate. (Even if you disagree, accept that for argument right now.) However, I would argue that you incur costs in several ways. Firstly, I'd argue that police resources are better spent cutting off crime closer to the source. Breaking up a drug cartel is far more effective at stopping crime and violence than taking the guns from said drug cartel.

The second cost is that there would be some gun owners who would still want to own guns even without intent to use them to commit crime. Right now, these people have strong incentives to follow gun safety laws. They are immune to prosecution if they keep their gun disassembled and locked away. If you are able to prosecute them for owning a gun, you remove their incentive to keep it locked up. While you have achieved your goal in many households of banning guns (thereby, arguably, making society a bit safer) you've achieved the opposite effect in a few homes.