The Great Gun Control Debate

[Rowshambow]

Just so you know, I am not all that pig headed, I would change my mind if I was on fire!

also I think we are arguing apples and oranges here, yes I agree (because I said it before) that we on this site will prob never change each others views. I don't agree with a total ban on guns, just a ban on CCW, I think it it dangerous to have concealed weapons all over the place, again we won't agree on this.

Whenever the pro ccw start arguing points and bring up drivel from the NRA and other  associations like this, all I can think of is the Simpson's episode where homer gets a gun and is pushing Lisa and saying "you want the king to come in here and push you around" funny stuff. I think the Americans right to bear arms is outdated, and you have to take into account the state of the world and weapons avail at the time of its conception.

 

[canadianblue]

Yeah its pretty hard to change my mind when people want laws similar to a country which has something like 11,000 deaths from firearms yearly. Either way I don't think many Canadian's believe we're going to become a Nazi state because of gun control.

 

[canadianblue]

Another thing I'd like to add is that even in a country such as Switzerland where their is a high amount of gun ownership yet a low crime rate, the Swiss still have regulations with regards to firearms use and storage. I wonder why gun enthusiasts don't look to a nation such as Switzerland instead of the United States when dealing with firearms policy.

 

[Inch]

Yeah its pretty hard to change my mind when people want laws similar to a country which has something like 11,000 deaths from firearms yearly. Either way I don't think many Canadian's believe we're going to become a Nazi state because of gun control.

Oooh, so many deaths, oh wait, that's in a country of 300 million! By my math, Canada with a population of 30 or so million would only have 1100 deaths from firearms every year. More people die in car accidents, needlessly because people are not trained well enough in driving skills. There is no reason in a society with plenty of public transport that any citizen should need to own a car, think of how many deaths would be prevented if no one could own cars.

I'm with Colin, you clearly don't get it.

 

[Greymatters]

More people die in car accidents, needlessly because people are not trained well enough in driving skills. There is no reason in a society with plenty of public transport that any citizen should need to own a car, think of how many deaths would be prevented if no one could own cars.

+1!!

 

[canadianblue]

Oooh, so many deaths, oh wait, that's in a country of 300 million! By my math, Canada with a population of 30 or so million would only have 1100 deaths from firearms every year. More people die in car accidents, needlessly because people are not trained well enough in driving skills. There is no reason in a society with plenty of public transport that any citizen should need to own a car, think of how many deaths would be prevented if no one could own cars.

Exactly my point, imagine if all of those people had guns as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Firearm ownership in the US is skyrocketing and one of the biggest groups buying are woman. Yet the increase of murders (of all types) per year from 2000 to 2005 is approx 1,100 more bringing the total to around 15,000 in 2000 to 16,100, in 2005 despite an increase in the population from around 281 million to 296 million.

Comparing Canada’s murder rate for the same period and multiplying Canada population to the same level we would have had 1,860 murders more in 2005 than 2000

Plus we lead the US in rape and burglary per 100,000 Not to mention the trend in the US is for burglaries to take place after the resident leave as the criminals (in their own words) fear the citizens more than the police.

I will post the links when I get home. 

 

[Inch]

Exactly my point, imagine if all of those people had guns as well.

No, your point was that if Canada had laws similar to the US, we would see an equivalent amount of deaths attributed to guns. I simply deduced from your numbers, the number of deaths that could be attributed to guns if we had similar laws to the US. Provided of course our demographics (ie inner city crime) were the same as theirs.

40 states allow concealed carry, that's a very large majority of the 300 million legal residents of the USA, yet only 2-3% of Americans that are allowed to carry a concealed weapon actually exercise that right. Why would you think that a majority of Canadians would exercise that right when in the country to our south with their "right to bear arms" only a very small minority exercise their right to carry guns? I would tend to think that less than 2% of eligible Canadians would opt to carry a concealed weapon if they were given the choice.

And for the record, there's over 7 million guns registered in Canada to just under 2 million licenced gun owners according to the Firearms Centre. So every one of us gun owners has, on average, 3.5 guns. I highly doubt that of the 21 million licenced drivers in Canada, they own 3.5 vehicles each.

More people die from drunk driving, lung problems from pollution and just plain old careless driving than they do from guns.

In 2005, only 24 more people died from gun shots than stabbings and in a not so distant third place, 145 people died from getting beaten to death. Only 1/3 of all homicides were by guns, according to Stats Canada.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

If by "rape" you mean sexual assault and by "burglary" you mean breaking and entering, then you can look to our judges to blame for those rates, not a lack of firearms.  And when looking at the B&E rates, you would have to distinguish between people at home and people not at home.  Of course the criminals wait until no one is home.  You don't get caught as easily when people aren't home.  It is highly doubtful that has anything to do with firearm ownership, and I could see if someone is advertising the fact they do have guns in the house it would target them for a B&E.  
I would also be interested in stats with regards to women armed with guns (or anything for that matter) who successfully fought off an attacker in a sexual assault.  For the most part, the criminals attack them by surprise and quickly overpower them.  Most criminals are not going to sit idly by and let a woman get into her purse, or reach into her pockets (let alone get to a holster) and allow a weapon to be deployed.  So unless said female is walking around with a drawn gun at the ready, I would think it would be challenging to use this gun that is supposed to be such a life saver.  And in a date rape situation, this would be even more of an issue, since there is an initial element of trust between the two.  Not that it isn't going to break my heart if a woman shot a guy after the attack.  Hopefully it isn't into his back, and the report is well written.  
IMO, if we had 1100 firearm related deaths in Canada, you would see people go nuts.  
I continue to remain neutral on this topic, so don't go piling on.  

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They actually interviewed criminals and they stated that they feared armed citizens more than the police.

As for figures one of the problems is the how data is collected, not mention how it is reported (I have a link on a report by Gary Mauser who talks about the media bias against armed citizen intervention)

In regards to your comments, most police officers are killed by people within 15’ of them, yet police officers do not routinely walk around with their guns drawn. Pretty well every CCW advocate, instructor promotes/teaches the vital importance of awareness. A firearm is only part of a defensive system, the other components include: judgment, awareness, early action to avoid contact. Pretty much the same stuff they teach you. A woman should always consider her movements, should she take to shortcut through the back ally or stay on the lighted street? Did she observe her environment when parking in the underground parking? If you wander around in condition white all of the time, you are right don’t bother getting a gun.
Now suppose the same woman runs a jewelry store, she close shop and leaves the underground parking say between 6-7 when most people have left, perhaps it is an older area with poor lighting, This person is at major risk of being robbed/raped and killed as she is a woman, access to valuables and has a vulnerable routine. Being aware of her surroundings while defiantly help, but what if it the only place to park? She will have to make that journey everyday, she could stretch the law and carry pepperspray, but if the perp is armed she is at a disadvantage. Now give her a gun, with holster and the proper training, she observes her surrounding as she moves, perp comes out of shadows with the gun, threatening her, she starts to move laterally to cover as taught while drawing her gun, screaming commands to back off, if the perp turns and leaves, she removes herself from the scene and calls the police. If the perp fires or advances, she shoots for centre of mass as trained until the threat stops, she then removes herself the scene and calls 911.

 

[canadianblue]

Now give her a gun, with holster and the proper training, she observes her surrounding as she moves, perp comes out of shadows with the gun, threatening her, she starts to move laterally to cover as taught while drawing her gun, screaming commands to back off, if the perp turns and leaves, she removes herself from the scene and calls the police. If the perp fires or advances, she shoots for centre of mass as trained until the threat stops, she then removes herself the scene and calls 911.

If the perp already has his gun drawn then he's already at an advantage, as well if the woman reaches for her gun what stops the perp from shooting her beforehand; especially if said criminal was only intending on only taking some cash from the woman which if the woman had complied she would still be alive. What if the criminal had gone behind the woman and overpowered her and took the gun away. Anytime these scenarios come into play you should try to think of all of the variables involved. If you look at any report on sexaul assault/rape you'll find that most sexual assaults are done by people the victim already knows, and in many cases the victim has been drugged or is mentally incapable of consent. Saying we need to arm people to prevent rapes is noble, but in order for one to support it you would have to ignore all of the other variables involved. Alot of these preconceived notions that rape/sexual assault is usually committed by some criminal waiting in the bush is more of a by-product of the culture of fear and the image people get from the media instead of what the reality is.

My position on gun control just so people don't get confused, is that we should maintain current regulations while at the same time stiffening penalties for criminals. If guns were the answer to solving violent crime, then I'm sure that police and the government would be handing them out anychance they get. The fact is their are much more prudent ways of fighting crime. In fact one of the reason's the NRA and gun manufacturers have been directing aggressive advertising campaigns toward women is more likely due to the fact gun sales went down more than "personal safety". I'd think that if a woman was attacked, that it would be better if she was taught how to effectively escape a rape, or how to effectively use self defense against an attacker.

 

[canadianblue]

Another point I'd like to make is that in general if a rural area has a higher proportion of firearms ownership yet lower crime, its really not much of a surprise. I remember someone once compared Vermont to Washington DC, and I think it's somewhat absurd to compare areas which are predominantly urban and compare them to rural areas. But to say that more guns are going to somehow be the golden ticket to lower crime rates is just ridiculous. As I've said before I've lived in a rural/farming area for pretty well my whole life, and people still stole from us despite the fact we had a gun. What did we usually do when confronted with crime, did we buy more guns, buy more bullets, carry a gun with us all the time, well in the end we usually called the RCMP or got a dog. Strangely enough the dog has so far been more effective at preventing crime on our property than the gun.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If the perp already has his gun drawn then he's already at an advantage, as well if the woman reaches for her gun what stops the perp from shooting her beforehand; especially if said criminal was only intending on only taking some cash from the woman which if the woman had complied she would still be alive.

So by your argument cops shouldn't carry guns either as it will make a situation worse, sure.....

So in my scenario did I say the perp only wanted money? How do you know she won't harm her? Lots of robberies leave people in a very bad way. As for having a gun, bad guys generally don't get a chance to practice much (there are exceptions)

So your advice to woman is to yell and bite?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some comments regarding your comments I posted eleswhere:

The claim about how guns in the home increase danger is bunk. This guy doesn't even correctly cite where that "study" came from.

It's the famous one by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, which was conducted with money from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). It was so blatantly flawed that in response to it, the CDC's budget was subsequently punitively cut by congress by $6MILLION -- the amount wasted on the study.

Kellerman came out with that hogwash about how a gun in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to harm a loved one than to kill an intruder. This was presumably an argument to demonstrate that the benefit of having a gun is just not great enough to justify the so-called danger. But Kellerman's big scam was to compare any shooting of a loved one with KILLING an invader. He simply did not grant that there was self-defense utility in any case in which an intruder was shot but not killed, or was shot at but missed and he ran away, or was shown a gun that was not fired and he ran away. The only good defensive use of a gun, according to Kellerman's study, would be if the intruder was killed with the homeowner's gun.

Kellerman's garbage belongs on the trash heap with the idea that "15 'children' a day are killed by guns" when "children" are considered to be up to 25 years old in order to come up with a number that high.


The idea that there are over 80,000,000 gun owners and they collectively own over a quarter of a billion guns in the United States, yet each year ALL gun deaths combined (accident, suicide, homicide both justifiable and criminal) is 30,000.

Do the math. Even if every single gun death involved a separate gun, divide 30,000 guns over 250,000,000. You get 0.00012, or 12 thousandths of one percent of all U.S. guns used in deaths in this country. In a decade, that would mean that just over a mere 1/10th of one percent of guns were used to kill someone

The Kellerman Study IIRC was done over a period of 6 months in one of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods he could find. That on itself skewed any results. He also did not make a comparison between legally owned firearms v. Illegally owned firearms (which were the grunt of his study but did not mention clearly. And, to top the cake with a cherry, when the raw data & methods were requested for Peer Review, Kellerman refused to release them.

Lott's initial findings were over a period of 10 years and included a multitude of counties in States with CCW at the time. His findings were submitted for peer review and, with the exception of a couple of ideologues that popooed the study (One didn't even read the book or the data and admitted to it) nobody could fault the research. Not only Lott did that 10 year study, but kept adding and researching at it as more states passed pro CCW laws.
And you want to know why Lott's study is good? Most Anti-Gunners avoid mentioning it at all. It is not that the Brady Bunch tries to say it is flawed or unimportant, they pretend it does not exist becuase it hurts them badly.

One thing that most people fail to mention is that Lott was at one time extremely anti-gun. Being a "facts" kinda guy, he also noted that most of the info provided was extremely poor and most of the so called "facts" used by anti-gunners just could not stand up under scrutiny.

It was his study of published information that actually led him to revise his thoughts and opinions on gun control. He went from a noted and vocal anti-gun Professor to one that "saw the light" and did a complete turnaround on his stance. It was because he defected from the club of the anti gunners that he drew much criticism and hate and discontent.

They did everything they could to discredit him and his studies and used lies,slander and fabrications to try to dishonor him and refute him. Fact of the matter is, no one could do so. There were some so called discrepancies found initially, but it was eventually all were redeemed and no one could refute his findings.

IN Lotts original work he expected an anti-gun outcome, but the data was so glaringly opposed to his original assumption that he was forced to change sides and, I believe, accept the null hypothesis. (which is a whole other discussion) That tells me that he was looking for the truth and not promoting an agenda at the time he did his work, therefore I will believe his analysis to be more trustworthy than the analysis of someone who has a predetermined agenda and is willing to tweak the inputs or analysis to get a desired result.

John Lott = good researcher, good mathematician, terrible writer. His book was awful. He should have sought a co-author with some writing ability to make it readable or at least bearable. I read it and have it on the shelf for reference, but hope I never have to read it again. BOORRIINNGG!

A 66 page study ripping Kellermans apart

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf

Other stuff from UN records 1998-2000. Keep in mind most rates for the US have declined since then.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop


Canada
Murders with firearms (per capita)
0.00502972 per 1,000 people
US
Murders with firearms (per capita)
0.0279271 per 1,000 people [8th of 32]


Rape is more likely in Canada than the US
#5  Canada:
0.733089 per 1,000 people 
#9  United States:
0.301318 per 1,000 people 


Assaults per 100,000
United States:
2,238,480
Canada:
233,517

Drug charges
Drug offences
285.5 per 100,000 people

Murder
#24  United States:
0.042802 per 1,000 people
44  Canada:
0.0149063 per 1,000 people

Burglaries
#1  United States:
2,099,700
#8  Canada:
293,416
Multiple the burglary rate by pop. difference you will get 2,347,328
This means you are more likely to get broken into in Canada

Some more sites
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2005/608.htm

http://www.gunlaws.com/JohnLottMediaBias.htm


Look at this site for 2005  http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Compare Florida with very liberal gun laws and CCW with Washington DC, with very restrictive gun laws and almost no CCW. Also note Florida trends since 1996 when the laws were the liberal gun laws were enacted.

Florida
Washington DC
Pop. Murder assault
17,789,864 883 88,341
550,521 196 3971

Pop difference 32.3 (multiple Washington pop by 32.3 to get comparable rates)
32.3x 550,521 6298 128,263

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Store Clerk Shoots and Kills Robbery Suspect

July 9, 2007 06:15 AM PST


Some valley store owners say they are tired of being victimized and now they're fighting back.  For the third time in a month, a store clerk shot an armed robber.  The suspect in this recent case was killed.

An employee shot and injured an armed intruder at a smoke shop near Washington and Lamb last month.  Two weeks later, the owners of a jewelry store at Charleston and Mohave wrestled the gun away from a would-be robber and shot and killed him during the scuffle. 

On Sunday morning, North Las Vegas Police say a convenience store clerk threatened at gunpoint pulled out his own gun and shot the armed suspect killing him.

"This has been more common here recently that our store owners are not laying down to be victims, they're taking steps to protect themselves and other patrons in the store," said Sean Walker, North Las Vegas Police Department.

Restaurant manager Mina Reyes says her sandwich shop on South Rainbow has been hit twice by armed masked gunman despite the store's obvious security surveillance system.

"I don't feel safe here, especially at night because it is so dark in this area," said Reyes. 

She says she's had one employee quit after being held up and says its difficult to hire people once they hear the restaurant has been robbed twice. Police understand how tempting it is for shop owners and managers to arm themselves but they have serious reservations about it.

"Defending yourself with a weapon is not for everyone. If you choose to do it, we advise you to take a weapons course, practice, and remember, you have to be willing to use it,"Walker said.

Police say as a general rule, the safer option is to give an armed assailant what they want because nothing is more valuable than your life.

North Las Vegas Police say, at this point, no charges will be filed against the store clerk in Sunday's shooting. Investigators say it appears the clerk feared for his life and was acting in self defense when he shot and killed the armed suspect.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines a job well done!

PLANTATION -- One gunman is dead and another is in critical condition after they tried to rob a sandwich store and were shot by an armed customer Wednesday night, authorities said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, of North Lauderdale, and Fredrick Gadson, 21, of Fort Lauderdale, entered a Subway restaurant at 1949 N. Pine Island Rd. and demanded money at gunpoint about 11:17 p.m., said Detective Robert Rettig, a police spokesman.
They then attempted to rob the lone customer, John Lovell, 71, of Plantation, by forcing him into the restroom, but Lovell, who was legally armed, pulled his gun and fired, police said.

Arrindell collapsed at the scene, while a police K9 unit found Gadson hiding in a hedge in front of a nearby bank at the Jacaranda Square shopping center, officials said.

Both men were taken to Broward General Medical Center, where Arrindell died.

Gadson was in critical but stable condition, investigators said.

Police said Lovell appeared to have shot in self-defense.

Charges are pending against the surviving suspect, Rettig said. No identifies have been released.

The shopping center remained closed Thursday morning as police hunted for a gun carried by the robbery suspects

 

[canadianblue]

So by your argument cops shouldn't carry guns either as it will make a situation worse, sure.....

No, because usually police are called upon to go into dangerous situations.

So in my scenario did I say the perp only wanted money? How do you know she won't harm her? Lots of robberies leave people in a very bad way. As for having a gun, bad guys generally don't get a chance to practice much (there are exceptions)

No, I simply stated that the victim can not be sure what the criminal wants. As for "lots of robberies leave people in a bad way", killing a person doesn't leave any unintended psycological consequences on the person doing the killing. Personally I'd take being the victim of a robbery over killing a person anyday.

So your advice to woman is to yell and bite?

Eye gouge is preferable, thats the advice given by most rape prevention websites and LE sites regarding rape prevention and self defense. The fact is that it's presumptuous to believe that adding a gun to the mix will always prevent rape, it can prevent it, or it can exasperbate a situation.

Some comments regarding your comments I posted eleswhere:

John Lott eh, wasn't he the one that said more minority police officers results in an increase in crime? Not to mention creating a fictional person to talk on the internet about how great he was, despite the fact the fictional person was in fact himself.

As well your rebuttal is more of a rhetoric filled diatrabe more than anything substantial. Personally I'll take what the New England Journal of Medicine has to say over the constitution society.

To say that gun laws are the only reason that crime has falled is pathetic. New York City which has restrictive gun laws has seen large decreases in crime despite their restrictive laws. As well according to recent statistics crime is actually increasing in some parts of the United States, most notably the midwest. Actually if you want to play the stats game, recently the violent crime rate has been going up in Florida.

As well you are once again making a presumption that the only reason crime rates fall is because of guns, which I highly doubt is the case. New York City has had a steep decline in crime despite the lack of free for all gun laws. As well cities such as Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio,

As for people killing robbery suspects, then by all means if the United States wants that kind of society then they can have it. Personally I'd rather give a criminal my wallet instead of ending someones life. Stealing may be wrong, but killing someone so you can save a few bucks in my own view is much worse.

I think to say that the crime rate fell only because of CCW or gun control is somewhat simple minded. However I'll give you a website which has a different view on CCW to balance things out.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=lott_mglc&menu=pro

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You can go back and forth all day.

There are lot's of wolves out there.

You can never tell when, or how, they are going to manifest themselves, upon you.

I, and my family, are ENTITLED to the right of self defence.

I, and my family, refuse to be sheep.

Keep bleating, and hope the wolf never comes for you, or your family

 

[Munxcub]

I do not agree with the whole "take what you want, just please don't hurt me" uh... defense? Could you call that defense? I don't know if I'm just cynical or what, but I assume the worst from everyone, I see someone walking in front of my house, I think he's going to break into my car (ever since it happened twice in as many months... once while I watched them try!)

If you want to go thru life as a victim, and just roll over when you're faced with a threat, then by all means I won't try and change your mind or force you to do otherwise. I want to live my life knowing I have done/could do what it takes to defend myself, my wife, and the life we have. I won't force you to live my way, why should you be allowed to force me to live your way?

 

[canadianblue]

I, and my family, are ENTITLED to the right of self defence.

I, and my family, refuse to be sheep.

Keep bleating, and hope the wolf never comes for you, or your family

What if the wolf happens to be a member of your family, or a friend of the family?

If you want to go thru life as a victim, and just roll over when you're faced with a threat, then by all means I won't try and change your mind or force you to do otherwise. I want to live my life knowing I have done/could do what it takes to defend myself, my wife, and the life we have. I won't force you to live my way, why should you be allowed to force me to live your way?

Well lets consider this scenario, lets say a member of my family were to have suffered from severe mental illness, and was addicted to drugs and living out on the street. Now in order for this member to get his fix he needs to get money somehow, and in the process of stealing your car gets shot in the back and killed. Would you honestly believe that killing a person would have absolutely no effect on that persons family, and wouldn't it have been better to simply call the police instead of killing someone? So do you think the fact that you victimized a family by murdering a member of said family would actually make up for the fact you didn't lose your car. In my own view I can get another car, I can always make money again, but I don't really want to end up killing someone simply because I valued a few paper bills over a human life, and I'm not going to risk my life over some material possessions. So in the end in my own view you are hurting society at large by using vigilante justice over using the system set up to deal with crime.

This is also dependant on whether or not you believe that killing a person has no psychological consequences.

But I'm out of this debate, usually these threads tend to go downhill pretty quickly.

 

[Nemo888]

"and the life we have"
Does that mean you think its ok to blow someone away for stealing from you even is he is unarmed?  If you shoot someone unarmed over your TV or laptop you should probably go to jail with the robber. Murder is generally considered a more severe crime than petty theft.