Gun Control!

[desy]

Right which is why its easier to look at long term data and the US as a whole not chunks and compare it to other nations as whole.
It eliminates the cyclic nature of statistics, short term economics, differences in crime and punishment and like I said a body killed with a firearm is a body killed with a firearm.

Its why his statistics are the most relevant as he tries to cut the skewed analysis with more long term approach.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: homercles337
There is absolutely no need for anyone in this society to own a gun other than for the "sport" of hunting. There is your paper. Youre welcome.

That is all i use my gun for, i hunt criminals that try to hurt me or my family.

How long have you owned your gun, and when was the last time you actively hunted for criminals? How many times total have you done so? How many have you successfully shot?

If the answer to the last question is zero, is that because you suck at it, or because there isn't a discernable threat to your family and you don't really need a gun?

Future Shock

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: homercles337
There is absolutely no need for anyone in this society to own a gun other than for the "sport" of hunting. There is your paper. Youre welcome.

That is all i use my gun for, i hunt criminals that try to hurt me or my family.

How long have you owned your gun, and when was the last time you actively hunted for criminals? How many times total have you done so? How many have you successfully shot?

If the answer to the last question is zero, is that because you suck at it, or because there isn't a discernable threat to your family and you don't really need a gun?

Future Shock

Most criminals dont advertise the fact they are going to target you by sending our flyers in the mail.
In other words, just because you havent needed it yet doesnt mean you wont in the future.

 

[ajf3]

Basically, law enforcement is there to protect the entire population in general, not any individual personally. If you want that extra bit of safety, that's what guns are for - you gotta roll your own.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Well not that it proves anything one way or the other if you compare the murder rate per 100,000 people in the UK vs. the USA:

In 2004 the UK had a 1.43 per 100,000 people murder rate and in the USA 5.5 per 100,000 people murder rate.

In the USA there has been an increase in murders by firearm since 2000 (8,661 in 2000 and 9,326 in 2004).

If someone on this forum would like to contact the British Police to find out what the murder rate (using a firearm) is, we could compare that to the murder rate using a firearm in the US.

EDIT: forgot to mention, the main reason why I am comparing the USA vs. the UK (for those who do not know) the UK has extremely strict gun control laws (i.e. they are completely outlawed, and not even the general police carry them).

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Well not that it proves anything one way or the other if you compare the murder rate per 100,000 people in the UK vs. the USA:

In 2004 the UK had a 1.43 per 100,000 people murder rate and in the USA 5.5 per 100,000 murder rate.

In the USA there has been an increase in murders by firearm since 2000 (8,661 in 2000 and 9,326 in 2004).

If someone on this forum would like to contact the British Police to find out what the murder rate (using a firearm) is, we could compare that to the murder rate using a firearm in the US.

Which still doesnt give us any meaningful information.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

The only info that provides is a murder rate is less in a country where they have very strict gun control. Is that a cause? I have no idea, but it is information that you have to look at. The NRA would have you believe everyone having a gun reduces crime which may or may not be the case. I guess the point is, for every piece of evidence showing a trend one way, there is another piece of evidence showing a trend the other way.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

For another view, see if you can find the book "More Guns, Less Crime", by John R. Lott, Jr. He's a Harvard professor who has poured over a huge number of statistics. It turns out that more children die from drowning in 5 gallon buckets (not the 4 or 6 gallon buckets, just the five gallon buckets) than are killed by guns when you remove the older "children" who are involved with the drug trade from the stats.

This is not a logical argument against gun control. I could take this factoid and claim that it supports banning both guns AND 5-gallon buckets.

 

[piasabird]

There are a lot of issues involved in this topic.

First of all I am not really for or against gun control.

I will tell you a story first. I use to work in a factory and I knew a guy who's son was murdered or killed in self defense depending on your point of view. His son had a girlfriend and someone made a play for his girl. So he goes over to this other teenagers house all mad. That was his first mistake. The other guy was scared so he takes his father's gun off of the closet shelf for defense. The angry man is beating on the door. Somehow the door was opened and the scared inerloper shoots this angry young man directly into the center of the chest and the bullet goes straight through the Spinal Cord Killing him.

If guns are available people will use them. Many studies and documentaries have been conducted showing that if a gun is in the house hidden the kids will find it. For this reason, even though I have previously owned firearms for target shooting, I decided to get rid of my weapons and sold them rather than keep guns in my house. I felt it was not worth taking a chance. Many states have laws stating that guns should be locked up so they can not be fired. This is not very effective. Every day you hear about kids that have stolen guns from neighbors or relatives and have committed crimes with them.

I am for gun ownership, but it should come with the responsibility it deserves. I think a gun owner should be prosecuted for not securing the weapons they own. If a gun is used in a crime, then the owner of the weapon should be the one to go to jail first.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

For another view, see if you can find the book "More Guns, Less Crime", by John R. Lott, Jr. He's a Harvard professor who has poured over a huge number of statistics. It turns out that more children die from drowning in 5 gallon buckets (not the 4 or 6 gallon buckets, just the five gallon buckets) than are killed by guns when you remove the older "children" who are involved with the drug trade from the stats.

For a pretty good review of that book you might want to read: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/pdf/lottreview.pdf

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: homercles337
There is absolutely no need for anyone in this society to own a gun other than for the "sport" of hunting. There is your paper. Youre welcome.

Hunting is not a right protected by the United States consitution. The right to keep and bear arms is.

Most gun owners for whatever reason of thier choosing are not hunters.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: sandorski
How about: The Ethics of getting Others to do Your Work

It is Your paper, You need to come up with the arguements. If you don't know the arguements, choose a different topic.

Well, that's just retarded. By your standards, research is lazy plagiarism, and my choices for any paper for the rest of my life are limited to... well, computers and Star Wars, since I already know everything about them.

As far as ethics goes- I think personal freedoms are always, to some extent, a matter of ethics.
I'm confused as to why registration would be wrong. We register cars, which are also a really dangerous item- why not guns? Wouldn't it help law enforcement, to have a database from which to start from when all you've got to investigate a murder is a body, a bullet and a shell casing?

 

[desy]

You can try to register guns but its simple technology, you can make a gun from anything , it also creates a scarcity of goods so the black market will thrive on registering IE Canada
the penalty for not registering a firearm in Canada is jail, do you go to jail for not registering a car? I also can still own cars and not register them, parts cars for example a lot of firarms are 'parts' as well so when does a firearm cease to be a firearm?

Would it help law enforcement ? probably but in order to get the 300 million firearms entered in a usefull database is cost prohibitive 'again tried and failed in Canada with 1/10th the firearms'
The cost/benfit analysis favours harsh penalties for gun crimes. Its what cleaned up New York city not gun registration.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

For another view, see if you can find the book "More Guns, Less Crime", by John R. Lott, Jr. He's a Harvard professor who has poured over a huge number of statistics. It turns out that more children die from drowning in 5 gallon buckets (not the 4 or 6 gallon buckets, just the five gallon buckets) than are killed by guns when you remove the older "children" who are involved with the drug trade from the stats.

Actually it seems the opposite, big cities with stricter controls crime drops, while in midwest and gun friendly cities like phoenix the violent crime is increasing dramaticlly.

Violent Crime Makes Largest Jump in 15 Years


Overall violent crime reports rose by the largest percentage increase in 15 years in 2005, including a 5 percent increase in the District, according to preliminary FBI statistics released today.

The FBI's annual crime report shows increases in three of the four major categories of violent crime -- murder, robbery and assault -- contributing to an overall increase of 2.5 percent in violent offenses from 2004.

The increase affected all categories of cities except those over 1 million in population, such as New York, Los Angeles and Detroit, where violent offenses continued to fall.

In the District, violent crime jumped by 5 percent from 2004 to 2005, driven exlusively by a 14 percent increase in robberies, the statistics show. The number of murders in the city dropped slightly, from 198 to 195, as did the numbers of rapes and assaults.

The opposite trend held in Baltimore, where violent crime dropped 3.5 percent overall.

The rise in violent offenses nationally represents the largest overall crime spike since 1991 and the first significant increase since 1992, when crime began to plummet dramatically on its way to the lowest levels in three decades. It marks the first increase since 2001.

But property crimes -- including burglary, theft and arson -- continued to register improvement in 2005, decreasing 1.6 percent from the year before.

The biggest rise came in murders, which rose 4.8 percent, to nearly 17,000, in 2005. Killings jumped particularly dramatically in cities, including Cleveland (up 38 percent), Houston (23 percent) and Phoenix (9 percent).

Robberies rose 4.5 percent and assaults grew by 1.9 percent, according to the FBI statistics. The only category of violent crime to fall was forcible rape, which dropped 1.9 percent nationwide.

On a regional basis, the increase disproportionately hit the Midwest, where violent crimes surged 5.7 percent -- at least three times the rate seen in the Northeast, South or West.

The District's 5 percent violent crime increase was due solely to a jump in the number of reported robberies, which rose from 3,057 in 2004 to 3,502 in 2005. In addition to the slight drop in murders, the city also reported a 24 percent drop in reported rapes and nine fewer assaults, to 3,854.

The FBI data is taken from reports submitted by more than 12,000 police departments and other law enforcement agencies nationwide. A final report, including more detailed statistics, will be issued in the fall

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: homercles337
There is absolutely no need for anyone in this society to own a gun other than for the "sport" of hunting. There is your paper. Youre welcome.

That is all i use my gun for, i hunt criminals that try to hurt me or my family.

Uh, huh. Just wait until you have to actually use it and it gets used ON YOU. Fun had by all! Yea!

The only time your thinking applies is when the gun owner is too much of a pansy to shoot when needed. Those kind of people shouldn't own guns. A person who truly intends to use his gun for protection will shoot the intruder long before the intruder gets close enough to take the gun from him.

 

[eilute]

Gun control is arms control. We have arms control and always will will. Owning fire arms is no different than owning explosives, rockets, or nuclear devices. We would obviously not allow individuals to posses thousands of pounds, or even several pounds, of explosives without a licensing system. We would obviously not allow individuals to owned rockets that can launch several hundred miles or just about any type of nuclear material without a licensing system. Licensing is a way of restricting use. It essentially serves the same purpose as waiting periods, background checks, and age restrictions.

We do the same thing with fire arms. Virtually no private individual owns a gun that is capable of firing bullets that are 16 inches across. Virtually no private individual owns a fire arm that launches rocket propelled grenades.

Many will claim the right to bear arms, but in general, you cannot own a gun boat. I would mention that the NRA enthusiasts twist and distort the constitution, but I think you want ethical arguments and not legal ones.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: eilute
Gun control is arms control.

Duh. Guns are arms, as are knives and swords.

We have arms control and always will will.

The US has "some," along with most other countries, albeit some governments like to have more "control" over its citizens than others.

Owning fire arms is no different than owning explosives, rockets, or nuclear devices.

I disagree.

Many will claim the right to bear arms, but in general, you cannot own a gun boat.

The RKBA is not a "claim," it is a right that all humans have that extends from the right to defend oneself. Whether some governments choose to ignore that right or if some individuals choose to give up that right is a different matter. Additionally yes US citizens can own a "gun boat" in US and international waters. If you register your machine guns or destructive devices, or just use semi-automatic weapons there is nothing illegal with having them on a boat except maybe the more restritive laws of a handfull of states.

 

[Blackjack2000]

First of all, to adress the OP, I don't see it as an ethical question. What you do with the gun certainly is, but ownership itself is a little tougher. I don't see the right to carry a gun as a basic human right (like food, medical care, etc.).

As for my own personal views on gun control, they've changed markedly as I've read more about it. For example, in Freakanomics, the author points to statistics that say that a backyard swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun.

Still, I think there is too much gun violence. I think the solution is to squash the underground market for guns. Actually make it easier to get guns legitimately, but come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who participates in gun smuggling, stealing, etc.

Also, I would make it a felony if a gun registered to you is used in a crime, even if it's stolen; unless it can be proven that every reasonable precaution was taken by you to prevent this (gun safe, gun lock, hidden, dissasembly and seperate storage of the bolt, etc.)

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: eilute
Gun control is arms control. We have arms control and always will will. Owning fire arms is no different than owning explosives, rockets, or nuclear devices. We would obviously not allow individuals to posses thousands of pounds, or even several pounds, of explosives without a licensing system. We would obviously not allow individuals to owned rockets that can launch several hundred miles or just about any type of nuclear material without a licensing system. Licensing is a way of restricting use. It essentially serves the same purpose as waiting periods, background checks, and age restrictions.

We do the same thing with fire arms. Virtually no private individual owns a gun that is capable of firing bullets that are 16 inches across. Virtually no private individual owns a fire arm that launches rocket propelled grenades.

Many will claim the right to bear arms, but in general, you cannot own a gun boat. I would mention that the NRA enthusiasts twist and distort the constitution, but I think you want ethical arguments and not legal ones.

Just to clear up one point, you are allowed to own explosives components without licensing. You have to use them in a non commercial fashion and they must be mixed onsite.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: homercles337
There is absolutely no need for anyone in this society to own a gun other than for the "sport" of hunting. There is your paper. Youre welcome.

That is all i use my gun for, i hunt criminals that try to hurt me or my family.

Uh, huh. Just wait until you have to actually use it and it gets used ON YOU. Fun had by all! Yea!

The only time your thinking applies is when the gun owner is too much of a pansy to shoot when needed. Those kind of people shouldn't own guns. A person who truly intends to use his gun for protection will shoot the intruder long before the intruder gets close enough to take the gun from him.

Yeah because police officers and soldiers have frozen at a critical time when should have shot but didn?t and then ended up dead or wounded. You want to call them pansies? Look if it is so easy for you to point, shoot, and kill an intruder I believe there is something wrong with you. Most people can never predict if they can or cannot kill another in a critical moment (this is why soldiers have so much training to get them to shoot without thinking or feeling). Most people would like to think they could pull the trigger if their life or the life of a loved one was on the line, but until you have actually done it you will never honestly know.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah because police officers and soldiers have frozen at a critical time when should have shot but didn?t and then ended up dead or wounded. You want to call them pansies? Look if it is so easy for you to point, shoot, and kill an intruder I believe there is something wrong with you. Most people can never predict if they can or cannot kill another in a critical moment (this is why soldiers have so much training to get them to shoot without thinking or feeling). Most people would like to think they could pull the trigger if their life or the life of a loved one was on the line, but until you have actually done it you will never honestly know.

Thats what people who dont know what they would do answer.
Trust me when I say this. There is no doubt in my mind I would shoot someone who meant to do serious harm to my family. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

The reason people train is so they know how to act and dont freeze up in a panic when the fertilizer hits the rotory device.

 

[desy]

Working great for Great Britain! NOT!

The scathing criticism makes a mockery of the upbeat assessment of the register by Charles Clarke, the former home secretary sacked over the foreign criminals deportation fiasco.

Three months ago, after the Government failed to deliver the database in time for the 10th anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy, he insisted that "good progress was being made".

But a report by Lancashire Police reveals that the current system is so riddled with problems that its officers had to abandon a pilot scheme for the National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS) last year.