Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."

More like "my ability to exercise my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason I see fit is more important than disarmament due to a statistically insignificant number of people misusing them".

The gun death rate is statistically insignificant?

CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.

Well, that's per year, if you live to 100 you would have had roughly 1% chance of being killed by a firearm.

Acceptable risk imho.

AdeptSister wrote:I can only find the 2014 CDC numbers: Homicide are 5 with Gun Homicides are 3.4.

So is the argument is that Homicides are statistically irrelevant?

Deaths involving a firearm are statistically insignificant, especially when a person is using it as the basis of an argument to strip the Constitutional rights of the entire population of the US.

Again, the figure of concealed carry exists in most developed countries. With my background I could perfectly apply for one, I just don't want much less need to.

And?

Aye, the US has a violence issue in general, and even if we took all the guns away, the US would still have dramatically more issues with violent crime than other developed nations. This is largely centered around poorly serviced areas of economic disparity. The underlying socioeconomic issues in these areas need to be resolved, everything else is just a symptom, and outside these areas (not all of which are urban mind you) issues with violent crime arent all that much different on average than other developed nations.

That said, as noted, violent crime is pretty much at an all time low and decreasing every year, while the number of firearms in circulation and available to the population is at an all time high. While I wont attempt to endorse the idea that some do there that more guns decrease crime, it does seem to disprove the idea that more guns makes society less safe too.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Thank you for your honesty.

Cities like Chicago have had persistent issues for years with gangs and the local authorities have yet to come up with viable solutions to make a dent in the problem. Once the demand for guns and violence is created a means to supply it will develop. The gangs manage to get their hands on illegal drugs that are far more restricted than guns because the demand for drugs, whether for sale or use, is there so they find a way to get them and the ensuing black market leads to violence. Heroin is illegal everywhere and can't be legal purchased but you can find it in every major city. That's a problem that can't be blamed on more permissive heroin laws in rural and suburban areas. Just like narcotics didn't create a market themselves, neither do guns, but unlike narcotics there are legal protections that allow the purchase and ownership of guns. So while you can make narcotics illegal everywhere you can't make guns illegal everywhere but even if you could those laws wouldn't mitigate the gang violence any more than the drug laws.

Here are some articles that highlight the problems in Chicago and the failed policies that contribute to them:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/is_chicago_s_ghastly_murder_rate_the_result_of_its_1990s_anti_gang_policies.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/18/us/chicago-murder-problem.html?_r=0
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-chicago-violence-kass-0831-20160830-column.html
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/January-2012/Why-Are-There-So-Many-Gang-Members-in-Chicago/

Its also interesting in that if you exclude a few square blocks, the crime rate in Chicago is no greater then any other metro area in the US.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Seriously, does the rest of the world think half of Americans have a revolver on their hip waiting to shoot someone for littering?

The fun fact is that once you get out of certain areas of the US (Chicago, D.C., Detroit, etc.) the murder rate is about the same as western Europe. My little area (about the size of a European country) is actually lower, despite having more guns per capital than Chicago.

Yes, rural US murder rate is only slightly higher than that of Western Europe taken as a whole.

It just turns out that most murders in Europe also happen in poor urban neighborhoods with drugs and other illegal activities usually playing some part. That's not apples to apples.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, the US has a violence issue in general, and even if we took all the guns away, the US would still have dramatically more issues with violent crime than other developed nations. This is largely centered around poorly serviced areas of economic disparity. The underlying socioeconomic issues in these areas need to be resolved, everything else is just a symptom, and outside these areas (not all of which are urban mind you) issues with violent crime arent all that much different on average than other developed nations.

That said, as noted, violent crime is pretty much at an all time low and decreasing every year, while the number of firearms in circulation and available to the population is at an all time high. While I wont attempt to endorse the idea that some do there that more guns decrease crime, it does seem to disprove the idea that more guns makes society less safe too.

This. Deal with poverty and the crime rate drops significantly.

FWIW I think it was a mistake to let guns become so proliferated as they are in the US today, but also that the gun genie is out of the bottle already. There's simply no practical way to enforce a ban, even if people wanted it, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.

Anarcho-capitalist? Personally I think that the person who is unwilling to give up any amount of liberty for security better be very strong (or have strong protectors) because a society who make that choice is a society where the strong will be free to prey upon the weak.
I know saying otherwise is a popular opinion but really I think here it's a question that require moderation and finding the right place where to put the cursor between liberty and security is important.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.

Well, that's per year, if you live to 100 you would have had roughly 1% chance of being killed by a firearm.

Acceptable risk imho.

How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?

Yes. DHS "security" can definitely be toned down, and eliminate the arbitrary "no fly" lists too. Also get rid of the "Patriot Act" while we're at it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?

Personally speaking, given the hilariously ineffective nature of many of these things and creepily 1984 nature of others, there is a whole lot of laws, agencies, and programs that I would love to see go bye-bye.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, the US has a violence issue in general, and even if we took all the guns away, the US would still have dramatically more issues with violent crime than other developed nations. This is largely centered around poorly serviced areas of economic disparity. The underlying socioeconomic issues in these areas need to be resolved, everything else is just a symptom, and outside these areas (not all of which are urban mind you) issues with violent crime arent all that much different on average than other developed nations.

That said, as noted, violent crime is pretty much at an all time low and decreasing every year, while the number of firearms in circulation and available to the population is at an all time high. While I wont attempt to endorse the idea that some do there that more guns decrease crime, it does seem to disprove the idea that more guns makes society less safe too.

This. Deal with poverty and the crime rate drops significantly.

FWIW I think it was a mistake to let guns become so proliferated as they are in the US today, but also that the gun genie is out of the bottle already. There's simply no practical way to enforce a ban, even if people wanted it, which doesn't seem to be the case.

aye, trying to collect several hundred million unregistered firearms across a continent sized nation would take multiple lifetime's worth of work

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?

Yes. DHS "security" can definitely be toned down, and eliminate the arbitrary "no fly" lists too. Also get rid of the "Patriot Act" while we're at it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on all those points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.

Anarcho-capitalist? Personally I think that the person who is unwilling to give up any amount of liberty for security better be very strong (or have strong protectors) because a society who make that choice is a society where the strong will be free to prey upon the weak.
I know saying otherwise is a popular opinion but really I think here it's a question that require moderation and finding the right place where to put the cursor between liberty and security is important.

Anarcho capitalism is a few steps further than I would personally want things to go. I want a state that is capable of doing the few things that benefit all that are beyond the ability of individuals to do and act a referee for the markets not a participant. A strictly limited government not the absence of one.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.

This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.

 Henry wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.

This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.

I do. I'm not passing judgment on other cultures, just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't make their culture invalid or wrong. I am fond of the society and culture that we have here in the US and I would defend it as being a worthwhile structure based on reasonable and positive core values. While I would personally be pleased to see more countries adopt American ways I am not in favor of nations exporting forced cultural changes on other nations. Culture should be left to change organically. I want everyone to be as happy with the society in their country as I am with mine or even happier.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.

Well, that's per year, if you live to 100 you would have had roughly 1% chance of being killed by a firearm.

Acceptable risk imho.

How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?

I'm not even American and I'd be happy to see a lot of those anti-terrorist laws be put to death

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Henry wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.

This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.

I do. I'm not passing judgment on other cultures, just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't make their culture invalid or wrong. I am fond of the society and culture that we have here in the US and I would defend it as being a worthwhile structure based on reasonable and positive core values. While I would personally be pleased to see more countries adopt American ways I am not in favor of nations exporting forced cultural changes on other nations. Culture should be left to change organically. I want everyone to be as happy with the society in their country as I am with mine or even happier.

This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Crispy78 wrote:

This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Pretty basic concepts.

Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable. Having that right massively restricted is a loss of freedom. Basic freedom of choice, to own or not own the means of defense is taken away from you. When you are forced to rely on the gov't for your protection, you have lost some freedom.

For many (even in the US) that is perceived as not a big deal.

What I've seen advocated in this topic and in other places is further restricting (or even taking away) a right because some others have used a gun to do bad things. Again, for some, that is a 'good thing'. For others, having that right forcibly taken away is a loss of freedom they do not accept.

 CptJake wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Pretty basic concepts.

Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable. Having that right massively restricted is a loss of freedom. Basic freedom of choice, to own or not own the means of defense is taken away from you. When you are forced to rely on the gov't for your protection, you have lost some freedom.

For many (even in the US) that is perceived as not a big deal.

What I've seen advocated in this topic and in other places is further restricting (or even taking away) a right because some others have used a gun to do bad things. Again, for some, that is a 'good thing'. For others, having that right forcibly taken away is a loss of freedom they do not accept.

Also... keep in mind that when the framers added the 2nd amendment, in the back of their mind they were trying to avoid scenarios where the British empire passed the Coercive Acts
in 1774 in response to the 1773 Boston Tea Party, which led up to guns and black powder confiscations by the Red Coats.

And, also the lessons learned from the The British 1689 Bill of Rights.

Crispy78 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Henry wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.

This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.

I do. I'm not passing judgment on other cultures, just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't make their culture invalid or wrong. I am fond of the society and culture that we have here in the US and I would defend it as being a worthwhile structure based on reasonable and positive core values. While I would personally be pleased to see more countries adopt American ways I am not in favor of nations exporting forced cultural changes on other nations. Culture should be left to change organically. I want everyone to be as happy with the society in their country as I am with mine or even happier.

This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Throughout US history the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has been protected by Federal and state laws. That's a freedom we've always valued and been entitled to exercise. I don't see any compelling reason to give up that freedom and see my children and grandchild not have the same rights as me, and previous generations. While in some areas and respects citizens are more free now then previously in other respects people are less free. I would like to see the additional restrictions on personal liberty repealed and don't want to impose any more. Losing the right to keep and bear arms would mean that future generations would have tangibly less rights and freedom than previous generations and I strongly believe that future generations deserve to be as free as any previous generation of Americans.

One of the primary responsibilities of the government is to protect minority rights and the most important minority is the individual. Firearm ownership is an integral part of individual liberty and self reliance because it grants individuals the ability to protect their exercise of other rights and enables them to be more self reliant.

 CptJake wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Pretty basic concepts.

Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable.

Only if you assume that (a) the most effective tool is a firearm and (b) you're defending yourself from someone who does have one. I get that point of view - bad people have guns so good people should also have guns.

If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. If your aggressor has field gun, armoured vehicle or a drone, you still can't defend yourself with a gun.

Herzlos wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Pretty basic concepts.

Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable.

Only if you assume that (a) the most effective tool is a firearm and (b) you're defending yourself from someone who does have one. I get that point of view - bad people have guns so good people should also have guns.

If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. If your aggressor has field gun, armoured vehicle or a drone, you still can't defend yourself with a gun.

A gun as the tool has ZERO to do with what (if anything) an attacker has. I'll choose a gun in a fist or knife fight any day. And the firearm IS the most effective tool for the vast majority of cases. It allows my 5'3" wife a chance to stand up to a 6'4" guy (even if that guy is unarmed). A gun works against guys with baseball bats or screwdrivers. A gun works against guys with brass knuckles.

If my aggressor has a field gun, armored vehicle, or drone a gun is still infinitely better than being unarmed. And that field gun needs ammo, the armored vehicle needs ammo, gas, parts, the drone operator and the analyst looking at the 'take' are also vulnerable to a rifle. You can what if all you want. A gun armed person in the vast majority of cases is better able to defend against a threat than a person without the gun. Hence the reason police forces and militaries have them.

And again, the 'bad guys' take many forms, which is why we have the 2nd amendment.

Herzlos wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Pretty basic concepts.

Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable.

Only if you assume that (a) the most effective tool is a firearm and (b) you're defending yourself from someone who does have one. I get that point of view - bad people have guns so good people should also have guns.

If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. If your aggressor has field gun, armoured vehicle or a drone, you still can't defend yourself with a gun.

It is worth bearing in mind that the differences between the two sides of the Atlantic make it difficult to argue that ideals work regardless of where you live.

Taking the differences between US and UK for example, the proliferation of guns in the US means that should they try counter criminal measures used in the UK they would find them much less effective and possibly impotent. Meanwhile the paucity of weapons in the UK means that US measures would cause pandemonium on the UK streets.

This is why the "use a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" simply gets no traction over here. In Europe the idea is laughable. In the US you can see how it makes sense.

It would be an interesting experiment to see the effect upon crime if all the guns in the US disappeared over night, or if everyone in Europe suddenly got access to firearms similar to the US, but that's an impossible scenario.

This was the sort of direction I was going down when I asked Prestor Jon the previous question and he gave an excellent reply.

Herzlos wrote:
If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.

Maybe if you were dealing solely with people, but in many areas of the US you still need to be able to defend yourself from wildlife. A baseball bat isn't going to do you any good if you are facing an angry bear, alligator, or pack of wolves and you can forget running as they are all much faster than you. People forget that for much of it's history the US has largely been a frontier state, once you are away from the large cities guns play a vital role in survival both in defending oneself and providing food.

In some areas we're not all that far removed from the old west, there's a few areas of the US that didn't have electricity until 30 years ago. People were brought up with the understanding that the nearest help could be days away and that you need to be able to fend for yourself against any threat. In the cities you might have a fairly quick response time but in rural areas help could still be hours away. Self reliance is something that's been ingrained in a large portion of our country and guns are a part of that. I wouldn't want to live in the Australian outback or in the wilds of Africa without a firearm as there's a lot of dangerous wildlife to deal with and the police aren't a stone throw away.

It's true that not everyone "needs" a gun in their daily life, but being a frontier nation has created a mindset where it's an accepted and embraced part of our culture. There's other places that might not understand the "need" to have a car when public transportation is available but when it's something that you are raised and brought up with it's usually viewed as being integral to your lifestyle.

I don't own a gun but I live in the city, however if I were living in a more rural area I'd certainly own one.

I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.

It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.

Herzlos wrote:
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.

I've come close to bear, cougar and bobcats in my back yard and I'm glad I had a firearm to hand!

Crispy78 wrote:


This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Well, see, it goes back to when we were colonies and someone tried to take our guns away so as to keep us under their control...

Once I was attacked by this ancient ferocious monster, then I realized it was just TBone trying to bite me with his three teeth.

 Frazzled wrote:
Once I was attacked by this ancient ferocious monster, then I realized it was just TBone trying to bite me with his three teeth.

For some reason I have an image in my head of a near toothless weiner dog festooned with firepower Dino Riders style terrorizing neghborhoods...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Once I was attacked by this ancient ferocious monster, then I realized it was just TBone trying to bite me with his three teeth.

For some reason I have an image in my head of a near toothless weiner dog festooned with firepower Dino Riders style terrorizing neghborhoods...

This image is completely accurate. He strode the neighborhood like a colossus, reigning terror and destruction upon all who stood between him and his prey*



*and by prey I mean bugs, He ate bugs like popcorn. And bythose who stood between him I mean hordes of small children, large children, cute ladies, and old people who would always swarm him and smother him with pets and hugs.

Haha, thats awesome

 don_mondo wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:


This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?

As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...

Well, see, it goes back to when we were colonies and someone tried to take our guns away so as to keep us under their control...

Touche!

What can I say? Throw our tea in the ocean and gak gets real...