Gun control in the U.S. is working... we need to push for more gun control

[CLite]

As far as I know no single city has done such a study, partially because carry is generally tracked at the state level. However:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/377385_gunpermits02.html

that gives at least one or two county permit numbers. The numbers have continued increasing in Washington. Right now carry is at about 7-8% of eligible persons. We're among the highest in the nation. While it's true that not every place in Washington is a city, the VAST majority of the population (85%) lives in one.

Hrm, google search shows 6.6M population in Washington, so 3.8% carry rate. So maybe 1 in 50 people you run into has a gun, depending on how often people with the license carry. This is a rate I'm not terribly concerned about. If law abiding citizens who are willing to go through enough hoops want to carry guns it doesn't really concern me I think any claims of increased violence are just as statistically irrelevant as claims of decreased crime.

I simply don't believe our forefathers had a perception of modern society when they envisioned the entire populace armed. In the late 1700's most of the country probably didn't see much more than their family for an entire day or two. In a society where you potentially cross the paths of thousands of individuals each with their own quarks and flaws which are part of human nature I don't think significant carry rates are practical.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Hrm, google search shows 6.6M population in Washington, so 3.8% carry rate. So maybe 1 in 50 people you run into has a gun, depending on how often people with the license carry. This is a rate I'm not terribly concerned about. If law abiding citizens who are willing to go through enough hoops want to carry guns it doesn't really concern me I think any claims of increased violence are just as statistically irrelevant as claims of decreased crime.

I simply don't believe our forefathers had a perception of modern society when they envisioned the entire populace armed. In the late 1700's most of the country probably didn't see much more than their family for an entire day or two. In a society where you potentially cross the paths of thousands of individuals each with their own quarks and flaws which are part of human nature I don't think significant carry rates are practical.

That's great but now one really cares what YOU believe or how YOU feel about the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is very clear in its wording in regards to ensuring the rights of the people to own and bare arms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[PrinceofWands]

I spent like 10 minutes googling, about the only article I could find was from 1997 showing that in state's with concealed carry only about 2% of the people wanted the permit. You figure beyond that even less people carry it day to day. I would be incredibly shocked if the national average was 4%.

I'm just worried if we opened the flood gates, said there was no restriction, and eliminated any background check waiting times then you would definitely have a flood of weapons and perhaps hit the 25% mark you mention within a few years. I just don't see such an event as being healthy for a society. The only comparable society with such a high carry rate would be Africa. We have no studies in this country that could benchmark 25% carry rate.

Google harder. There's quite a bit of info out there, though you need to backtrack it from forum posts to original data.

The scenario you're describing is a worst case situation which no one is advocating. Who here has asked for eliminating background checks? Moreover, where's the support for the outcome you describe? Look at Vermont, with near total right to carry. Where's the bloodbath? Alaska and Arizona have now followed suit, yet there is no chaos or pandemonium. If you want to look at international comparisons, let's talk about Israel. AMAZINGLY high carry rates, next to no accident/negative incident rates.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Hrm, google search shows 6.6M population in Washington, so 3.8% carry rate. So maybe 1 in 50 people you run into has a gun, depending on how often people with the license carry. This is a rate I'm not terribly concerned about. If law abiding citizens who are willing to go through enough hoops want to carry guns it doesn't really concern me I think any claims of increased violence are just as statistically irrelevant as claims of decreased crime.

I simply don't believe our forefathers had a perception of modern society when they envisioned the entire populace armed. In the late 1700's most of the country probably didn't see much more than their family for an entire day or two. In a society where you potentially cross the paths of thousands of individuals each with their own quarks and flaws which are part of human nature I don't think significant carry rates are practical.

Ok, first we have to clarify 'carry rate'. You're listing the percentage of the total population, which I understand because you're trying to figure out how many people on a street have a gun. However, you have included those under 21 (25-30% of the total population), as well as those ineligible to carry a weapon. When you read the term 'carry rate' it generally refers to the percentage of the ELIGIBLE population. That's where you see the discrepancy between my figure of 7-8%, and yours of 3.8%.

I agree with you...not everyone should carry a gun. You should only carry a gun with training and intent. I imagine with superficial barriers removed that would account for 10-25% of the population (as I stated). At those levels you wouldn't see any appreciable increase in incidents, as supported by pretty much every major study.

Moreover, you would likely see an increase in defensive gun uses which would FAR outstrip the outlier negatives, just like already happens (ie 600 accidents versus 300,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses currently).

The net result of an armed society (at the levels I indicated as reasonable) is almost certainly positive, based on all available data.

 

[CLite]

That's great but now one really cares what YOU believe or how YOU feel about the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is very clear in its wording in regards to ensuring the rights of the people to own and bare arms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

The constitution isn't always applied, people can't bear bazookas in modern society. I personally see significant carry rates as being such as destructive as allowing law abiding citizens the right to bear bazookas.

What I look at is the ultimate goal of either group and both goals are unreasonable. The complete elimination of weapons is unachievable and preventing citizens from owning weapons isn't going to help anyone. The other end of the spectrum of a gun totting utopia is equally ridiculous.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The constitution isn't always applied, people can't bear bazookas in modern society. I personally see significant carry rates as being such as destructive as allowing law abiding citizens the right to bear bazookas.

What I look at is the ultimate goal of either group and both goals are unreasonable. The complete elimination of weapons is unachievable and preventing citizens from owning weapons isn't going to help anyone. The other end of the spectrum of a gun totting utopia is equally ridiculous.

A bazooka is not a gun but I see you are trying to blur the lines of distinction to make a flawed and misguided point.

 

[nick1985]

The constitution isn't always applied, people can't bear bazookas in modern society. I personally see significant carry rates as being such as destructive as allowing law abiding citizens the right to bear bazookas.

Ah....the classic over the top approach for justifying gun control.

Let me explain to you something. In terms of weapons, there is arms and ordnance, and this was true when the Constitution was written. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear "arms" shall not be infringed, not ordnance. A bazooka is ordinance. A surface to air missile is ordnance. A hand grenade is ordnance. Get it now? Your argument is void.


Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. = arms.

Nukes, rockets, grenades, bazookas, artillery, etc. = ordnance.

arms != ordnance.

Back to the drawing board, try again.

 

[nick1985]

I simply don't believe our forefathers had a perception of modern society when they envisioned the entire populace armed.

Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson


The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46

- James Madison


"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

- Alexander Hamilton


"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

- Thomas Paine


"The great object is, that every man be armed."

- Patrick Henry





I could go on and on and on. Saying the founders didn't know what they were getting themselves into is a slap in the face to them. Their arguments still hold true today.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't know, I've sort of come to the conclusion that ALL gun control debates come down to this...some people like guns, some people don't. Arguments about safety, crime prevention, etc, are all bullshit, because the sides were decided LONG before the data was available.

People who are pro-gun ownership and pro-gun carry rights come up with all sorts of reasons why they hold this view, but the truth is that they like guns. They like guns in the same way I like computers. Which is fine, but let's not pretend this is about anything besides that. But of course, who can blame them? Guns are fun to shoot, take some skill to get good at, and have the design complexity and mechanical "coolness" that appeals to a lot of people. Plus if it turns out you need a gun, you damn sure better hope you have one.

The anti-gun folks, on the other hand, basically just DON'T like guns. Guns aren't a part of life for them, guns are the things criminals use to kill law abiding citizens. They argue against legal carry, or even legal ownership, and they claim it's for a variety of reasons, but it's really just that they aren't comfortable with guns. And hey, I can kind of see their point. Since most of these folks have somehow manage to brave life without being armed at all times and have come through just fine, it seems kind of silly that people are demanding the right to carry an AK-47 in their local Safeway to fend off non-existent terrorists in the dairy aisle.

There's nothing wrong with the facts available in the gun-control debate...the problem is that the debate is just stupid, because it's not about what it's really about. It's really "I like guns vs I don't like guns" trying to sound more self-important.

 

[nick1985]

I don't know, I've sort of come to the conclusion that ALL gun control debates come down to this...some people like guns, some people don't. Arguments about safety, crime prevention, etc, are all bullshit, because the sides were decided LONG before the data was available.

People who are pro-gun ownership and pro-gun carry rights come up with all sorts of reasons why they hold this view, but the truth is that they like guns. They like guns in the same way I like computers. Which is fine, but let's not pretend this is about anything besides that. But of course, who can blame them? Guns are fun to shoot, take some skill to get good at, and have the design complexity and mechanical "coolness" that appeals to a lot of people. Plus if it turns out you need a gun, you damn sure better hope you have one.

The anti-gun folks, on the other hand, basically just DON'T like guns. Guns aren't a part of life for them, guns are the things criminals use to kill law abiding citizens. They argue against legal carry, or even legal ownership, and they claim it's for a variety of reasons, but it's really just that they aren't comfortable with guns. And hey, I can kind of see their point. Since most of these folks have somehow manage to brave life without being armed at all times and have come through just fine, it seems kind of silly that people are demanding the right to carry an AK-47 in their local Safeway to fend off non-existent terrorists in the dairy aisle.

There's nothing wrong with the facts available in the gun-control debate...the problem is that the debate is just stupid, because it's not about what it's really about. It's really "I like guns vs I don't like guns" trying to sound more self-important.

All true, except one side has the Constitution backing them up.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

The better people can control their weapons and hit their targets... the more violent crime will go down.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fbi-crime-stats-show-an-armed-public-is-a-safer-public/

One would really half to delve into the statistics to really see if this correlation is true... but it is interesting. You also have to consider the fact that police departments all over the nation have been facing severe budget problems... reducing officer overtime, cutting officers, etc. meaning a lessened police presence. Increase in permits... decrease in violent crime.

That chart is a fail. It shows NICS transfers going up as if it means that guns are going up by that much. All the old guns still exist. Your chart just shows there being a lot of guns and violent crime is decreasing when in fact there is a metric shitton of guns and violent crime is decreasing.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

People who are pro-gun ownership and pro-gun carry rights come up with all sorts of reasons why they hold this view, but the truth is that they like guns. They like guns in the same way I like computers. Which is fine, but let's not pretend this is about anything besides that. But of course, who can blame them? Guns are fun to shoot, take some skill to get good at, and have the design complexity and mechanical "coolness" that appeals to a lot of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

List a country where a gun ban didn't turn into genocide. List a genocide that didn't start with a gun ban.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I don't know, I've sort of come to the conclusion that ALL gun control debates come down to this...some people like guns, some people don't. Arguments about safety, crime prevention, etc, are all bullshit, because the sides were decided LONG before the data was available.

People who are pro-gun ownership and pro-gun carry rights come up with all sorts of reasons why they hold this view, but the truth is that they like guns. They like guns in the same way I like computers. Which is fine, but let's not pretend this is about anything besides that. But of course, who can blame them? Guns are fun to shoot, take some skill to get good at, and have the design complexity and mechanical "coolness" that appeals to a lot of people. Plus if it turns out you need a gun, you damn sure better hope you have one.

The anti-gun folks, on the other hand, basically just DON'T like guns. Guns aren't a part of life for them, guns are the things criminals use to kill law abiding citizens. They argue against legal carry, or even legal ownership, and they claim it's for a variety of reasons, but it's really just that they aren't comfortable with guns. And hey, I can kind of see their point. Since most of these folks have somehow manage to brave life without being armed at all times and have come through just fine, it seems kind of silly that people are demanding the right to carry an AK-47 in their local Safeway to fend off non-existent terrorists in the dairy aisle.

There's nothing wrong with the facts available in the gun-control debate...the problem is that the debate is just stupid, because it's not about what it's really about. It's really "I like guns vs I don't like guns" trying to sound more self-important.

I HATE guns. They're the weapons of cowards. If you want to fight someone, do it in person, hand to hand. I detest the responsibility. I hate having to be aware 24/7/365. I hate having to plan out every step of my day to know what I should wear to conceal my weapon, or rather I have to leave it at home because of where I'll be. I hate how much time and money I have to spend on classes, research, practice, etc. I hate the potential for injury to innocents. Guns are a sloppy, inelegant weapon. Unfortunately, based on the available data and my own experiences, they're absolutely necessary for me to have.

I don't have guns because I like them; I have guns because it's a logical and ethical imperative.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

All true, except one side has the Constitution backing them up.

The Constitution doesn't give us the right to have guns. The Constitution says that it is already a basic human right that every human on Earth has and that no law needs to be put in stone to reaffirm that, but that it is now put it in stone that the US Government cannot ever impede it. We don't need the 2nd Amendment, it's just a reaffirmation to make absolutely sure the government doesn't try to fuck with us.

And even that wasn't enough to stop these bastards.

 

[flavio]

A bazooka is not a gun but I see you are trying to blur the lines of distinction to make a flawed and misguided point.

The 2nd Amendment says "arms" which at the time of writing were far different than now. Where do you draw the line on what "arms" are allowed?

 

[nick1985]

The 2nd Amendment says "arms" which at the time of writing were far different than now. Where do you draw the line on what "arms" are allowed?

I already explained it for you. Scroll up a few posts.




Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

 

[flavio]

I already explained it for you. Scroll up a few posts.




Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

There's a fair amount of debate on what "arms" meant at the time. Check it out.

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Ah....the classic over the top approach for justifying gun control.

Let me explain to you something. In terms of weapons, there is arms and ordnance, and this was true when the Constitution was written. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear "arms" shall not be infringed, not ordnance. A bazooka is ordinance. A surface to air missile is ordnance. A hand grenade is ordnance. Get it now? Your argument is void.


Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. = arms.

Nukes, rockets, grenades, bazookas, artillery, etc. = ordnance.

arms != ordnance.

Back to the drawing board, try again.

Let me know how it goes carrying your M-60 around. M-60 = arms, by your definition. For that matter, let me know how carrying around an automatic M-16 works as well.

Bazooka may be a little over the top as an example, but his point was valid, no need for insults.

 

[nick1985]

Let me know how it goes carrying your M-60 around. M-60 = arms, by your definition. For that matter, let me know how carrying around an automatic M-16 works as well.

Bazooka may be a little over the top as an example, but his point was valid, no need for insults.

His point is invalid. And you can already walk around with M-16's. Just not full auto unless you have a class 3 license. Semi-auto rifle. How scary

 

[irishScott]

His point is invalid. And you can already walk around with M-16's. Just not full auto unless you have a class 3 license. Semi-auto rifle. How scary

What's even scarier is how often legally bought semi-automatic carbines are used in crimes and mass shootings. Oh wait...

 

[flavio]

His point is invalid. And you can already walk around with M-16's. Just not full auto unless you have a class 3 license. Semi-auto rifle. How scary

Point is "arms" is not clearly defined.

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm

 

[umbrella39]

As stated over and over have a permit to carry and still carry despite no longer working in downtown Detroit. It is just not safe down there. That said, this is story that has been in the news for a few weeks here and the prosecutors have charged the man in the story with manslaughter:

http://www.detnews.com/article/2010...d-man-charged-in-death-of-Detroit-grandmother

Cliffs: Guy who has a permit to carry is carjacked, fires off a few shots at the fleeing punk, stray bullet kills grandmother cooking inside her home a block away.

This was pretty much how I expected the prosecutors office to treat this.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

If only crimes deterred because of guns were tracked. I mean, nobody that owns guns and stops crimes would ever tell the government, but imagine if we could trust them enough to do so. We'd actually have data on this stuff.

 

[Nebor]

Let me know how it goes carrying your M-60 around. M-60 = arms, by your definition. For that matter, let me know how carrying around an automatic M-16 works as well.

Bazooka may be a little over the top as an example, but his point was valid, no need for insults.

I have a fully automatic M16 at home. I know someone that has an M60. They're not illegal or anything. Since we live in Texas, it's also legal to carry them around if you want. I don't know why you would though.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

His point is invalid. And you can already walk around with M-16's. Just not full auto unless you have a class 3 license. Semi-auto rifle. How scary

His point is valid. You just ignore it. While we should be and are allowed to have weapons, there is no valid reason to allow ALL weapons to be bought and held by everyone. Basing your reasoning from 200+ years ago, when the peak of technology was a muzzle-loading firearm is a bit problematic.

Now where that dividing line is, can be debated. But that fact remains. So try walking around with you M-60, or carry your auto M-16 into a restaurant. Or how about a nice minigun? That should really work well for protection. Might be uncomfortable to carry the ammo and power around though.