Guns

[TheButterZone]

I think guns should only be taken away from cops and require everyone else to be armed.

Indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_%28Common_Law%29

Law enforcement officers should only be able to write reports, investigate crimes, and take suspects into custody. Especially since SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled LEOs have no duty to protect anyone and cannot be held liable for practically any failure to do anything. Everyone has the right, and responsibility to defend themselves and others (even if that's illegal in criminal utopias like NYC, DC, Chicago, NJ, Hawaii, major metro areas in California, and most of the rest of the world). If LEOs need the option of lethal force, there would be no shortage of assistance around, unless they go to bum fuck egypt without requesting the help of citizens.

[1713497455]

1713497455

[1713497455]

1713497455

[myrkul]

I think guns should only be taken away from cops and require everyone else to be armed.

Indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_%28Common_Law%29

Law enforcement officers should only be able to write reports, investigate crimes, and take suspects into custody. Especially since SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled LEOs have no duty to protect anyone and cannot be held liable for practically any failure to do anything.

That would certainly help bring back the "friendly neighborhood police officer"

[Brunic]

Woah guys, calm down. I'm not here to start a war, but to offer a different perspective.

Your thoughts (and feelings) are irrelevant to all the people saved by firearms each and every day:

And your thoughts and feelings are irrelevant to the people killed by firearms each and every day. I mean, I know our "gun culture" is really different than yours, and it's like arguing what is the best religion between christians and muslims. It's not going to give anything except a stupid war.

This is nothing but circular logic and is a complete fallacy. IE guns are dangerous to own because guns are dangerous. Additionally Canada has some of the most nonsensical gun control laws on earth, and BTW your country is not a "no-firearms" country.

And these laws work. It's not perfect, we don't live in a perfect world, but the gun control laws have an effect. I would say that gun control law needs a well-trained and efficient police force to make a visible effect on the society. If the police force was lazy and corrupted, maybe having no gun control could be better. But with a competent police force, I think "normal" citizen shoud limit their role to being only an observer of crime, and call the police force ASAP when they witness something.

Yeah, I know we permit firearms, but they are heavily controlled. But we're having a national conflict on that right now. Our provincial government is currently suing the Canadian governement about the gun registry, it's a real shitfest.

WTF is a "normal" citizen?

An everyday normal guy if you prefer.

Regular people get killed all the time for little to nothing. As far as "only the paid people" to deal with it, I assume you mean police. First of all ask the murderer if they don't mind waiting while the police drive to your location, additionally in the USA the police are nothing more than a state sponsored gang, I wouldn't even WANT to call them even if my life was in danger. There is a very long list of victims further victimized by police arriving after the fact when they wanted nothing but help.

No, for "paid people", I meant criminals like hitmans or member of a criminal gang. Those type of guys have money on the line when they attempt homicide (like for drug market control, etc). These guys are dangerous and that's why if you want a good gun control, you need an effective police force to fight against those gangs.

Sure, if you have a shitty police force in the US, the situation is different and I can understand the need of owning a gun. Still, I think it could be better to invest in a police force that's efficient and trusted by the citizens than letting those citizens arms themselves to do the police job.

Most of this is simply your opinion with no backing in reality. It only takes a half a second to lift and point a gun if it is near by and someone breaks down your door. In reality you would have PLENTY of time to get your firearm if you were in your home and it is loaded near by. Not every criminal is a Navy Seal, believe it or not a lot of them are moronic animals that don't think more than 2 seconds ahead (shocking I know). As far as guns being a status symbol, as any gun owner knows you don't parade around with your gun as it is your responsibility if it is stolen. Having a gun as a "social status" symbol is pointless. This is nothing but a cluster of your unbacked French Canadian pacifist opinions. If you want to be unarmed fine, but I find it disgusting that you ask other people to put themselves at risk so you can give yourself the illusion of safety.

Dude, I live here and that's my reality. Gun-related crime are rare...really rare. Look:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm


My French Canadian pacifist opinion is backed by the French Canadian situation. But sure, maybe I misunderstand the US situation and their citizens needs guns because they don't feel safe in their country.

[TheButterZone]

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

Your inherent human right to self-defense is infringed, and you are effectively rendered defenseless against violent criminals. That is NOT acceptable, no matter where you live.

[Equilux]

It's true that criminal can get hold of guns regardless of gun the gun laws for the lawabiding citizens. There is a tremendous amount of how difficult it becomes even for criminals, esspecially the much more common small time crminal.

When you give a person a gun and do background checks on him, and make him do all the paperwork, what you are actually asking from this person is that he acts responsible with the power he now wields for every second of every day, year after year, for as long as he is alive. For some people thats enirely possible. For many people however somewhere in their lives are at least on or more events where they act irrational. When you are extremely angry, afraid, jealous, depressed, or whatever. The chance becomes for irrisponcile behavior becomes even greater when you add the perfectly legal substance of alcohol to the mix. What you have now, in the perspective of an entire lifetime, a fairly likely event that is possibly dangerous, and now you are adding the free acces to a gun. Decades of voilent-crime statisics show that this is a very bad idea.

The moments where a gun is a very dangerous object far outweigh the moments it prevents danger. Both in frequency as in severity.

What is mostly overlooked in the pro-gun argument is that people are just people, and the amount of people who are -unlike most of the people here- pehaps not particularly bright, or not (fully) aware of the responsibility it actually takes to be able to point a kiling device at someone, are the vast majority of the people who'll have and use a gun. That should clearly be a bad idea. And unsurprisingly almost ever piece of credible information supports this.

[caveden]

OP, I used to be against armed civilians for years, probably due to all the propaganda I used to listen to.

But once you dig more into the subject, you understand that not only there's no conceivable ethical justification to the use of violence against someone that's merely bearing a gun, as there are also studies showing that a society gets safer once it gets more armed, and get less safe once it gets less armed. Instead of comparing different societies with several different variables that may influence in violence rates, if you compare the same society before and after a legislation change that decreases or increases the amount of guns in the hands of civilians, you'll probably reach the conclusion that "More Guns, Less Crimes".

[caveden]

Normal citizens are rarely the target of the guns.

Say that for yourself.
I have several friends who have been threaten by armed criminals. Friends who had armed criminals entering their homes, robbing them on the street during daylight, flash kidnapping them at night. I have multiple friends who have been the target of guns multiple times in their lives. When I was in high school I was robbed by a criminal with a knife, in front of the school. And my mother once was surrendered by criminals that waited her get back home, put a machete on her throat and demanded her money.
And important remark: all this happened in a country with draconian gun laws. A civilian bearing a gun on the streets is always illegal. And even civilian legal ownership of firearms is extremely difficult to obtain.

I bet that if my mother was allowed to bear a gun with her all the time, those criminals wouldn't have dared to threat her like that. At most, they would try to break into the house while nobody was there. Same thing's valid for most cases.

Sometimes I make a comparison that's not very popular, but IMHO it makes some sense: individuals bearing guns are comparable to states which have weapons of mass destruction. No single state with such weapons has ever been military attacked. India and Pakistan used to make war, once both got nukes, both got "calm". I bet the cold war wouldn't have remained cold if it wasn't for the fact that both sides had nukes. Going to war against a state which has weapons of mass destruction is almost suicide, even if you're also a state with such weapons. Trying to assault/rob/etc somebody with a pistol on his waist is also very dangerous, potentially suicidal, even if you also have a gun (okay, okay, I know ambushes and alike remain possible but these are premeditated murders, not general for-profit aggression... it's more rare).

[FirstAscent]

What is mostly overlooked in the pro-gun argument is that people are just people, and the amount of people who are -unlike most of the people here- pehaps not particularly bright, or not (fully) aware of the responsibility it actually takes to be able to point a kiling device at someone, are the vast majority of the people who'll have and use a gun. That should clearly be a bad idea. And unsurprisingly almost ever piece of credible information supports this.

I'm quite certain that the people here are equally vulnerable to what you have said in the same proportion as the rest of the population. There is no need to convince the members that post here that they are special.

[grondilu]

I carry most every day, but i can understand your uneasiness. Think about this.
To carry has cost me about $1200 in classes and equipment. It took about 4 months of waiting, I had to submit multiple sets of fingerprints to the FBI and states of Wisconsin and Utah. I had background checks for criminality, mental illness, drug abuse, etc.. And each handgun I buy involves another raft of paperwork
Now, it is not sensible to think that I went through all that so I could murder someone. Indeed, IMO you are safer when you see someone carrying nearby.  
Pepper-spray or mace or stun guns would never do in a gunfight. Using anything like that is a good way to get killed. As counterintuitive as it is, if everyone has a gun, peace breaks out. I saw it myself in Croatia during the war. The Serbs were slaughtering the Croats until the guns showed up. Suddenly they did not want to fight.

Great post.

[Explodicle]

What is mostly overlooked in the pro-gun argument is that people are just people, and the amount of people who are -unlike most of the people here- pehaps not particularly bright, or not (fully) aware of the responsibility it actually takes to be able to point a kiling device at someone, are the vast majority of the people who'll have and use a gun. That should clearly be a bad idea. And unsurprisingly almost ever piece of credible information supports this.

I'm quite certain that the people here are equally vulnerable to what you have said in the same proportion as the rest of the population. There is no need to convince the members that post here that they are special.

Indeed. WE'RE smart enough to make laws for the rest of you idiots who can't be trusted with pointy things. Everyone finds themselves in the smarter half of the population. There is a word for this: paternalism.

I think the important question isn't "should these people have guns?", it's "will the rules we create save more lives and respect human rights?" It's the effect of a law, not its intent, that matters.

Personally I don't see the millitia/revolution argument as relevant. A modern insurgency would have no trouble acquiring guns, and they could even get the job done with just IED's and cell phones.

[caveden]

Personally I don't see the millitia/revolution argument as relevant.

Sometimes the general case of "defense against state abuses" is quite relevant, even if we're not talking about revolutions.

For ex., some months ago, maybe an year already, the state of São Paulo in Brazil proceeded to evict hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, living illegally for years in a land they apparently didn't own. Putting aside whether they were legitimate owners of those houses or not, it is a fact that police brutality during such eviction process was shocking. Among many atrocities, some people even got killed by the police if my memory doesn't betray me. It was on the national news for a while.

I bet with you that, if 20% of those people had guns in their homes, at least the eviction process would have been conducted in a much more civilized manner. The police wouldn't dare to do it the way they've done it.

[FirstAscent]

I bet with you that, if 20% of those people had guns in their homes, at least the eviction process would have been conducted in a much more civilized manner. The police wouldn't dare to do it the way they've done it.

Way too many assumptions in that paragraph...

[myrkul]

Sometimes I make a comparison that's not very popular, but IMHO it makes some sense: individuals bearing guns are comparable to states which have weapons of mass destruction. No single state with such weapons has ever been military attacked. India and Pakistan used to make war, once both got nukes, both got "calm". I bet the cold war wouldn't have remained cold if it wasn't for the fact that both sides had nukes. Going to war against a state which has weapons of mass destruction is almost suicide, even if you're also a state with such weapons. Trying to assault/rob/etc somebody with a pistol on his waist is also very dangerous, potentially suicidal, even if you also have a gun (okay, okay, I know ambushes and alike remain possible but these are premeditated murders, not general for-profit aggression... it's more rare).

Excellent observation.

[vampire]

OP, I used to be against armed civilians for years, probably due to all the propaganda I used to listen to.

But once you dig more into the subject, you understand that not only there's no conceivable ethical justification to the use of violence against someone that's merely bearing a gun, as there are also studies showing that a society gets safer once it gets more armed, and get less safe once it gets less armed. Instead of comparing different societies with several different variables that may influence in violence rates, if you compare the same society before and after a legislation change that decreases or increases the amount of guns in the hands of civilians, you'll probably reach the conclusion that "More Guns, Less Crimes".

Guns don't increase or reduce crime. It's a myth.

The only thing guns do is increase accident rates and *possibly* suicide rates.

[vampire]

I bet with you that, if 20% of those people had guns in their homes, at least the eviction process would have been conducted in a much more civilized manner. The police wouldn't dare to do it the way they've done it.

LOL. You assume that police doesn't have access to heavy hardware?

[nimda]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

[nimda]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

... without using a Straw Man?

[silverbox]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

Why?

a few per 100,000 is nothing..

Swimming pools kill something like 2 per 100,000 per year.

I don't see anyone calling for banning of swimming pools.. 

[mufa23]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

I assume that more criminals know how to use firearms in the US compared to other countries? Where did they learn? I blame Call Of Duty. Lets ban video games too.

I mean, just banning them isn't going to help. This is quote right from where the graph is:

Canadian homicide data from 2003 to 2006 indicate that where registration status was known, 7 in 10 firearms used to commit homicide were reported by police to be unregistered. Among persons accused of homicide, 27% were found to possess a valid firearms license.

So the majority of these crimes aren't from legal gun owners. Removing firearms from the legal gun owners is hardly going to have an effect. I can't find the graph right now, but in the US, crime has dropped an average of 8% in States that started issuing CCW permits. And firearms are used in self defense more then eight times more then they are to commit crime. Like I said though, I have to find the source on that.

[myrkul]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law