Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

Hmm... In the USA, do: A) people buy guns in self defence as they "know" criminals have guns, or B) criminals use guns as
they "know" people have them for self defence?

I personally think its option A...

Here in the UK thier use is pretty rare (due to the severe restrictions on thier ownership) even in the context of violent crime, and almost all police officers do not carry one. Knives are our big deal - AFAIK they arent carried in self defence as a firearm is, but can clearly be seen to be used as a weapon of choice in violent crimes. This would suggest to me that it is the original criminal intent is the motivating factor behind carrying a weapon, and that the motivation to carry a weapon is not down to the secondary notion that the intended victim might have the ability to defend themselves. Some serious crimes are carried out with guns, obtained legally or illegally (though nowhere near the numbers/rates seen in the USA), and almost nobody in the UK has a firearm, let alone one intended for self defence, again suggesting to me that thier use by criminals has little to do with any notion of overcoming self defence.

Having said that, I dont think that you can extrapolate and apply this to firearm use in the USA, where there are more complex social and political factors in play.  ANyone else have any other ideas?

[Sheb]

Well, one of the problem with the US is that there are so many guns already. Even if you banned them all, you'd need years to curbs the number of illegal guns.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The situation of guns in the US isn't even worth debating. It's been legally guaranteed as a constitutional right many times, and once by the Supreme Court themselves. The majority of the population is fine with gun law as it is now, and neither party particularly opposes the status quo on it either.

It is not something that is due to change any time soon.

[Sheb]

I think it is still worth debating. Just because it's enshrined in the constitution doesn't mean it cannot/should not be changed.

For exemple, given the amount of guns that cross south into Mexico, a ban on assault weapons would probably be a good thing.

[Leafsnail]

One of the best recent pieces I've seen on this topic; Why Your Well-Intentioned Advice Was Called 'Victim-Blaming'.

Ugh... I really don't like the article, to be honest.  There's something of a tone problem, but the main thing seems to be a kindof strawmanning/ pigeonholing of what the reader's viewpoint is.

Like the first section assumes that if you think that patronizing tips directed at rapists aren't helpful then you must think that it's inevitable and unavoidable and then proceeds to attack the viewpoint that most people don't hold.  It's like it's not forming it's own argument so much as making up an opposing one and savaging that.  And the rest... well, is pretty similar to be honest.  "This is what you think.  It's wrong and you're stupid for thinking it.  Therefore this alternative position is correct".

Knives are our big deal - AFAIK they arent carried in self defence as a firearm is, but can clearly be seen to be used as a weapon of choice in violent crimes.

Well in many parts of the US it's legal to have firearms for self defence, wheras it isn't legal to have knives for self defence here.  That would be one way to explain it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think it is still worth debating. Just because it's enshrined in the constitution doesn't mean it cannot/should not be changed.

For exemple, given the amount of guns that cross south into Mexico, a ban on assault weapons would probably be a good thing.

Altering the Constitution requires a very high level of political desire from the public, which then bleeds into what elected officials believe they need to do in order to ensure their re-election. When it comes to restricting gun law, absolutely none of this is true.

And the cartels can get their guns with or without an assault weapons ban. It's the same faulty logic as the one used in the War on Drugs. They're already criminals. They don't care if you enact a ban, and there will always be someone willing to sell to them.

[Sheb]

An assault weapon ban wouldn't be unconstitutional I think.

And sure, the cartel would still be able to get them. But it'd be more expensive, and harder. There would be less assault wepons in circulation (every grunt wouldn't have access to it). It'd be easier to disrupt them: if you seize an armory, they can't just hop across teh border and replenish their stock.

You can never totally prevent someone from doing something. But you can make it hard enough that it isn't worth it in some case.

[RedKing]

I think it is still worth debating. Just because it's enshrined in the constitution doesn't mean it cannot/should not be changed.

For exemple, given the amount of guns that cross south into Mexico, a ban on assault weapons would probably be a good thing.

Altering the Constitution requires a very high level of political desire from the public, which then bleeds into what elected officials believe they need to do in order to ensure their re-election. When it comes to restricting gun law, absolutely none of this is true.

And the cartels can get their guns with or without an assault weapons ban. It's the same faulty logic as the one used in the War on Drugs. They're already criminals. They don't care if you enact a ban, and there will always be someone willing to sell to them.

My problem with that line of argument is that by analogy, criminals can break into my house whether I lock my door or not. That doesn't mean I should leave my door unlocked all the time. An assault weapons ban won't stop the cartels getting some guns, but it would certainly mean a hell of a lot less guns and an easier time prosecuting and imprisoning the people selling them when they're discovered. I don't see a benefit to not having the ban, because the general public really has no need for a .50cal rifle with a range of two kilometers. That's not a home defense weapon, that's not a hunting weapon. That's a sniper rifle/anti-vehicle weapon.

[Bauglir]

What if you are hunting the most dangerous animal?

Other snipers, obviously.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

An assault weapon ban wouldn't be unconstitutional I think.

That's sort of complicated.
There actually used to be a Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but it expired in 2004 and not much interest has been shown in reviving it since.
Then, in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to buy and keep a firearm for any legal purpose. This restricted the Federal government's ability to pass weapons bans, which they weren't really looking to do anyway.
Then, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the states are bound to the Second Amendment in the same manner as the federal government.

And sure, the cartel would still be able to get them. But it'd be more expensive, and harder. There would be less assault weapons in circulation (every grunt wouldn't have access to it). It'd be easier to disrupt them: if you seize an armory, they can't just hop across the border and replenish their stock.

I say that you are wrong. There are guns aplenty in the world, just look at the hundreds of AK clones out on the market. An assault weapons ban wouldn't do much of anything at all, especially to organizations that really do have the money to make meaningful purchases, like the cartels.

You can never totally prevent someone from doing something. But you can make it hard enough that it isn't worth it in some case.

And you can't do that in this case.


Sheb, the simple fact of the matter is that for all the corruption and complaining that goes on, the US government is still beholden to the wishes of its people. And, in general, Americans aren't looking to see guns banned. I don't want to see gun bans either, and I'm liberal to the extent that people I know have actually accused me of being a communist. There just isn't any support base for your idea. The National Rifle Association, on the other hand, is the single largest lobbying group in the United States.

[Montague]

Hmm... In the USA, do: A) people buy guns in self defence as they "know" criminals have guns, or B) criminals use guns as
they "know" people have them for self defence?

I personally think its option A...

Here in the UK thier use is pretty rare (due to the severe restrictions on thier ownership) even in the context of violent crime, and almost all police officers do not carry one. Knives are our big deal - AFAIK they arent carried in self defence as a firearm is, but can clearly be seen to be used as a weapon of choice in violent crimes. This would suggest to me that it is the original criminal intent is the motivating factor behind carrying a weapon, and that the motivation to carry a weapon is not down to the secondary notion that the intended victim might have the ability to defend themselves. Some serious crimes are carried out with guns, obtained legally or illegally (though nowhere near the numbers/rates seen in the USA), and almost nobody in the UK has a firearm, let alone one intended for self defence, again suggesting to me that thier use by criminals has little to do with any notion of overcoming self defence.

Having said that, I dont think that you can extrapolate and apply this to firearm use in the USA, where there are more complex social and political factors in play.  Anyone else have any other ideas?

Option B is entirely incorrect. Believe it or not, most Americans do not carry concealed firearms on their person, maybe a tiny minority does and most of them are off-duty policemen who are required to conceal carry. Ironically, most criminals carry firearms to defend themselves from and intiminate other criminals. A career criminal will have a business and a reputation and enemies and will need to be armed to survive. Armed robbers and muggers and the sort carry guns so they can rob unarmed people without their victims fighting back. They don't carry guns so they can get into firefights with armed victims, they don't go after those people in the first place.

Armed robbers go after people that look like easy victims. Soft targets. I'd say most people that conceal carry are not going to look like soft targets anyways. They will look like Michigan Militia members or cops or will be wearing one of those open lightweight canvas vests that scream "I have a gun under here!" It's a stereotype, but it holds true in a criminal's choice of targets because they know some people do carry firearms.

One thing an 'armed society' has produced is a decline in home invasions. Americans don't carry guns around in public but many Americans have guns at home. Lots of home invaders have been shot and it gets a lot of publicity. Criminals watch the news too and most are not willing to risk getting shot to rob somebody's house.

I don't see a benefit to not having the ban, because the general public really has no need for a .50cal rifle with a range of two kilometers. That's not a home defense weapon, that's not a hunting weapon. That's a sniper rifle/anti-vehicle weapon.

There is no benefit in having an 'assault weapons' ban, either. I'd point out that high capacity rifles are virtually never used in crimes. Too visible for criminal purposes. Those .50 caliber rifles are never used in crime either, they cost a fortune and they weigh like 40 pounds. Only example I can think of is the Killdozer guy had one in his Killdozer.

The people that own and use those sorts of firearms use them for recreation. Kind of like snowmobiles. I hate snowmobiles and they are pointless, noisy and damage the enviroment and rednecks get themselves hurt and killed playing with them. Statistically, they are much more dangerous then gun ownership. That said, I don't think we should ban snowmobiles either. It's a free country and you have to give citizens the benefit of the doubt and let them do their thing.

[ChairmanPoo]

One thing an 'armed society' has produced is a decline in home invasions. Americans don't carry guns around in public but many Americans have guns at home. Lots of home invaders have been shot and it gets a lot of publicity. Criminals watch the news too and most are not willing to risk getting shot to rob somebody's house.

Have you any evidence for this? Because as far as I know the US does have a considerably higher crime rate than other western countries.

[Virex]

One thing an 'armed society' has produced is a decline in home invasions. Americans don't carry guns around in public but many Americans have guns at home. Lots of home invaders have been shot and it gets a lot of publicity. Criminals watch the news too and most are not willing to risk getting shot to rob somebody's house.

Have you any evidence for this? Because as far as I know the US does have a considerably higher crime rate than other western countries.

Is that because the US is more dangerous, or are other western countries just better at fudging the statistics?

Hmm... In the USA, do: A) people buy guns in self defence as they "know" criminals have guns, or B) criminals use guns as
they "know" people have them for self defence?

I personally think its option A...

Here in the UK thier use is pretty rare (due to the severe restrictions on thier ownership) even in the context of violent crime, and almost all police officers do not carry one. Knives are our big deal - AFAIK they arent carried in self defence as a firearm is, but can clearly be seen to be used as a weapon of choice in violent crimes. This would suggest to me that it is the original criminal intent is the motivating factor behind carrying a weapon, and that the motivation to carry a weapon is not down to the secondary notion that the intended victim might have the ability to defend themselves. Some serious crimes are carried out with guns, obtained legally or illegally (though nowhere near the numbers/rates seen in the USA), and almost nobody in the UK has a firearm, let alone one intended for self defence, again suggesting to me that thier use by criminals has little to do with any notion of overcoming self defence.

Having said that, I dont think that you can extrapolate and apply this to firearm use in the USA, where there are more complex social and political factors in play.  Anyone else have any other ideas?

Option B is entirely incorrect. Believe it or not, most Americans do not carry concealed firearms on their person, maybe a tiny minority does and most of them are off-duty policemen who are required to conceal carry. Ironically, most criminals carry firearms to defend themselves from and intiminate other criminals. A career criminal will have a business and a reputation and enemies and will need to be armed to survive. Armed robbers and muggers and the sort carry guns so they can rob unarmed people without their victims fighting back. They don't carry guns so they can get into firefights with armed victims, they don't go after those people in the first place.

Note that B was based on the perception of criminals, not on reality. For someone surrounded by weapons it may be entirely natural to assume that everyone has a weapon.[/quote]

[Montague]

Have you any evidence for this? Because as far as I know the US does have a considerably higher crime rate than other western countries.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl12.xls

That's from 2009-2010. I gave up on finding a longer term trend statistics, it's an unnavigatible mess.

Edit: I was curious and found a better link

http://www.crimetrends.com/id3.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

Point is there has been a noticible decline in home invasions in the last several years. It's been attributed to states passing the "castle doctrine" type laws, but to be fair, crimes of almost every type have been in decline across the board. Gun ownership has increased (as well as laws expanding self defense rights) while crime has decreased. The correlation isn't very strong but it's there, which discredits a lot of arguments for gun control.

[Sheb]

Montague, as far as I know, there isn't a major snowmobile traffic to help the Canadian Mafia. If the cartels get their weapons in the US, it's because it's the easiest way. Ana ssault weapons ban would make their life more difficult, there is a reason why the Mexican government has been urging for one for years.