AD-17 - The Right to Bear Arms

[bulldog7_23]

Originally Posted by Tenshi

Can you give valid reasons why owning a gun is necessary?

See, here is where we reach a problem. What constitutes a valid reason for me probably will not constitute a valid reason for you, as we are on different sides of this debate. I would say a valid reason is protection but you would probably dismiss this notion, maybe with something along the lines of without guns, why would you need protection? The fact is that, since our views are diametrically opposed, we will probably never agree on valid reasons or the effectiveness of control or much else.

Originally Posted by Tenshi

Other people, in other nations are free as well and don't need to own guns. Why do you need a gun to get a feeling of freedom and protection, when you see that it's working in other places without them?

Is it working in other places, though? Perhaps you could provide some data that proves this? From the numbers I have seen, after gun bans in Australia and Britain crime has increased rather than decreased.

These are a few links to articles I found while researching for data. Although I am not sure of their standings or policies they contain factual numbers collected from other sources. Therefore, I figured some might like to look at the numbers or whatnot.

Just the Facts

CATO Institute

Newsmax

Reason Online

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Tenshi

Other people, in other nations are free as well and don't need to own guns.

Why is it that some people think that just because certain laws seem to work in other nations, that it can automatically work here in the US?

The current presidential administration is all the reason I need for gun ownership.

[Masterfroggy]

Originally Posted by bulldog7_23

See, here is where we reach a problem. What constitutes a valid reason for me probably will not constitute a valid reason for you, as we are on different sides of this debate. I would say a valid reason is protection but you would probably dismiss this notion, maybe with something along the lines of without guns, why would you need protection? The fact is that, since our views are diametrically opposed, we will probably never agree on valid reasons or the effectiveness of control or much else.




Is it working in other places, though? Perhaps you could provide some data that proves this? From the numbers I have seen, after gun bans in Australia and Britain crime has increased rather than decreased.

These are a few links to articles I found while researching for data. Although I am not sure of their standings or policies they contain factual numbers collected from other sources. Therefore, I figured some might like to look at the numbers or whatnot.

Most of those sites you have listed are pro-gun. The first site for example is out of day, and is using extrapolated data as if it was fact, if their methods of gathering statistics is to be used for other data gathering it would show that 30,000,000 Americans have been abducted at least once in their life.

These are the number of murders in the USA for 2004
Murders
14,121
Firearm murders
9,326
“70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles.” (UCR Program homicide data for 2004)
Guns are not used for protection; they are not used to defend the property of the person using the gun. Less than 77 deaths happened in the defence of the home, only about 900 of the total deaths were because of robbery. (Including both victim and assailant)
That leaves 8000 deaths caused because of irrational arguments,
Romantic triangle 97
Child killed by babysitter 17
Brawl due to influence of alcohol 139
Brawl due to influence of narcotics 3 98
Argument over money or property 218
Other types of arguments 3,758
Gangland killings 95
Juvenile gang killings 804
Institutional killings 17
Sniper attack 1
Reason - not specified 1,728
Reason unknown 4,943

According to the American governments own reports there were 437 justifiable deaths in 2004 ie the killing of a felon, during the commission of a crime.
170 were private citizens the rest carried out by law enforcement agents. The rest were plain and simple murders.

As for a gun bringing safety
“A 1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found that a gun kept at home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than to stop an intruder. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that children in states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm.”

That is a fact. Add to that, the 1500 people that are killed each year by accidental firing of home-owned firearms. Or as a pro-gun website FAQ puts it, “only 500 of them children”

It is interesting to note that the founding fathers under whom the constitution was written, made it very clear just who would be allowed to bear arms in the America
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

[Midnightsfire]

Interesting that the number of crimes prevented by firearm use (several hundred thousand) doesn't receive media attention. That stat was posted earlier in this thread.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by bulldog7_23

From the numbers I have seen, after gun bans in Australia and Britain crime has increased rather than decreased.

Regardless of various second amendment conspiracists might want to tell you the fact is gun deaths both accidental and criminal have fallen since 1991 with a significant fall following the buy-back in 1997.

"In total there were 5083 registered firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides accounted for the majority of these firearm related deaths (77 per cent), followed by homicide (15 per cent). In 1991, there were 629 firearm related deaths compared to 333 deaths in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearm related deaths over the period 1991 to 2001."

Australian Institute of Criminology

[bulldog7_23]

Originally Posted by Wab

Regardless of various second amendment conspiracists might want to tell you the fact is gun deaths both accidental and criminal have fallen since 1991 with a significant fall following the buy-back in 1997.

"In total there were 5083 registered firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides accounted for the majority of these firearm related deaths (77 per cent), followed by homicide (15 per cent). In 1991, there were 629 firearm related deaths compared to 333 deaths in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearm related deaths over the period 1991 to 2001."

Australian Institute of Criminology

Thanks for the statistics, Wab. However, I was not just referring to gun crimes but rather crime in general. See, part of my argument is that a firearm is a device of protection from criminals. Many others in this thread have said that without firearms there would be no need for protection. I do not agree. Without the right to own firearms, I believe that, as evidenced by the rising crime rate in the two previously mentioned countries, there becomes an even greater need for protection. I understand that deaths by firearm in those countries may be down but in general the crime rate is up. Therefore, I do not believe that gun prohibition is synonymous with a perfect, crime free society. Until that occurs I feel that my right to own a firearm plays an important part in my safety. If gun prohibition meant no crime than I would probably be all for it. However, it does not. With that being the case, I would much rather be able to defend myself with a firearm when a criminal comes busting through my door than trying to do the good ole spy blend-into-the-wall trick.

[Wab]

According to the AIC which (correctly) splits crimes into category than just Crime in general crime rates in Australia are generally trending level or slightly lower. There has been a blip in homicide rates but "this recent increase was not statistically significant" (AIC).

There was also a gangland war in Victoria where both victims and offenders have been armed proving once again that you are more at risk from people you know not the random criminal which is the bogey of choice for gun lovers AIC.

Regardless of the crime rates the number of gun related deaths, is so far behind the US that to argue that a gun protects is, statistically speaking, laughable. "The rate for firearm-related deaths among children in the United States (1.66) was 2.7-fold greater than that in the country with the next highest rate (Finland, 0.62)." CDC

A friend of mine who has an interest in a gun shop refuses to have a gun in his house for the sole reason that experience has shown that they are more risk than they are worth.

[Barney]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

The current presidential administration is all the reason I need for gun ownership.

I know it is a bad government but steady on!!

I think the whole right to bear arms thing shows why a bill of rights may not be a good thing - society changes but it is hard to change entrenched legislation.

Originally Posted by bulldog7_23

Thanks for the statistics, Wab. However, I was not just referring to gun crimes but rather crime in general. See, part of my argument is that a firearm is a device of protection from criminals. Many others in this thread have said that without firearms there would be no need for protection. I do not agree. Without the right to own firearms, I believe that, as evidenced by the rising crime rate in the two previously mentioned countries, there becomes an even greater need for protection. I understand that deaths by firearm in those countries may be down but in general the crime rate is up. Therefore, I do not believe that gun prohibition is synonymous with a perfect, crime free society. Until that occurs I feel that my right to own a firearm plays an important part in my safety. If gun prohibition meant no crime than I would probably be all for it. However, it does not. With that being the case, I would much rather be able to defend myself with a firearm when a criminal comes busting through my door than trying to do the good ole spy blend-into-the-wall trick.

my experience of dealing with victims is that generally in cases of home invasion, they know the offender. I doubt they could have shot the offender.

in cases of murder or assault most, if not all of the victims I deal with knew the offender. Generally the offender was a close relative, not some random criminal.

I'm not sure what sort of community you live in but home invasions are very rare here - we have security screens and a dog and I feel safe enough with those precautions - there is no way I would ever want a gun in the house.

[Nathaniel]

Originally Posted by Barney

I'm not sure what sort of community you live in but home invasions are very rare here - we have security screens and a dog and I feel safe enough with those precautions - there is no way I would ever want a gun in the house.

Until the day you end up with the one guy who uses his illegally obtained gun to shoot through your screen and shoot the dog. That criminal manages to get in, and aims their gun at you. What do you do? Let him shoot you because you're against firearms? The police may be on their way, but a criminal intent on shooting you will usually manage to shoot you before law enforcement shows up, even if they're next door.



Why do I support gun ownership in the end? I believe it is better to have a gun and not need it them to need a gun and not have it. And yes, I believe whole-heartedly that there are situations when a gun is needed.

[Tenshi]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

The current presidential administration is all the reason I need for gun ownership.

I think it's not the government, but rather the general attitude towards guns.

[ModernInkling]

1.In light of recent events and what appears to be a daily occurrence in towns and cities across the US, do you believe that the right to bear arms can still be upheld or do you think it is time to toughen up gun laws?

I believe that the right to arms can still be upheld - should be, no matter what. And no, I do not think it is time to toughen gun laws.

2. Is it necessary for a citizen to own a gun or guns?

Necessary? No, obviously not, because there are many citizens who do not. However, I believe that in a free country, it is necessary for citizens to have the right to own guns.

3. What situations do you believe are right for a person to use a gun in anger?

I'm not sure exactly what this question means. It is never right for a person to use a gun just because he/she is angry (Unless it is, as someone - I can't remember who - said, for stress-relieving target practice ). When a person uses a gun properly in self-defense, he/she is almost certainly going to be angry - I know I would be - and there is nothing wrong with that.

4. If gun control is more a case of guns out of control, should the system as it stands be redeveloped into one of more collective responsibility? So for example, if you are a first-time gun owner, in order to own a gun and before you undergo a background check you must have one or even two sponsors, gun owners themselves with no criminal record, with a stipulation that the sponsors will be held in some way, accountable for the actions of the individual should the gun be used in anger?

I don't like the idea of sponsors at all; one adult can never be responsible for another adult's actions. No, I don't think any kind of system like that would work, though I'll have to think some more about it to see if I can come up with any ways it might work.

5. Should there be a psychological and other such evaluations in place for future gun owners to undertake? Maybe a program of training for all first-time gun owners?
I can't see that working either. Who would be the one to judge whether a person is mentally sound enough to own a gun? It would be run by the government (probably poorly and inefficiently so), and such a system could easily become corrupt and collapse, thus denying firearms to those who would use them properly, and probably not even keep most mentally-unsound people from owning guns anyway.

6. Should authorities do more to clamp down on the sale of guns privately or at specialised fairs that cater for gun owners?

I don't know enough about this to answer properly, but I would probably say no.

7. If you do not believe the law needs changing or that guns should be regulated better, what solutions do you propose to combat events like these from ever happening again?

More people should be allowed to carry weapons - especially students. Imagine, at VT, if only one student or teacher had been armed, how many lives could have been saved. That is what has happened before, only we never hear about it because not as many people die (And the majority of the media wouldn't want you to know about it... but that's another topic). I think all colleges should have gun safety classes (not required, but available and well-known), teaching situational awareness, marksmanship, etc. And I think there should be a lot more non-gun-related self-defense classes, just teaching basic martial arts skills for those who don't want to own guns.

The current presidential administration is all the reason I need for gun ownership.

Midnightsfire, I don't agree with you about the current administration, but you make an excellent point. The whole reason the Founding Fathers were so adamant about the right to keep and bear arms was that they had just been through a revolution themselves! They knew how a government could become too oppressive, and what needed to be done to fix that. The Declaration of Independence says it far better than I ever could:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

(Bold mine, obviously)

I'm sorry for the long quote, but I thought all of it was relevant, and it's always good for people to read the Declaration in any case

Anyway, I just thought people ought to know that the Founding Fathers did in fact mean exactly what Midnightsfire said. (Though, I would point out the part about prudence dictating that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes )

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel

Until the day you end up with the one guy who uses his illegally obtained gun to shoot through your screen and shoot the dog. That criminal manages to get in, and aims their gun at you. What do you do? Let him shoot you because you're against firearms? The police may be on their way, but a criminal intent on shooting you will usually manage to shoot you before law enforcement shows up, even if they're next door.

You'd think that anyone with an ounce of sense who lived in such a violent and decadent society would leave.

[ModernInkling]

Originally Posted by Wab

You'd think that anyone with an ounce of sense who lived in such a violent and decadent society would leave.

Leaving is not always an option; that's why some people need firearms for protection.

[Masterfroggy]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Interesting that the number of crimes prevented by firearm use (several hundred thousand) doesn't receive media attention. That stat was posted earlier in this thread.

There are according to the US’s own crime figures there are 10,3 million crimes in the USA, now if you subtract all those crimes that do not include any acts of violence, things like drink driving or running away from home, stealing from your boss, and the like. The figures of violence in a criminal act is 1.85 million, take out assaults that do not involve a weapon of any description and you are left with 891,692 criminal acts involving a weapon.
Given the population of the USA in 2005 as 299,398,484. Americans have a less than 0.2878 % chance of being involved in a crime where a gun is needed.

Lots of pro-gun sites use the data collected by Kleck-Gertz (data collected a over six month period using eight separate surveys ranging in size from 400 people to 1500 people, done over the telephone in the middle of the day). They sampled something between 4500 and 5000 people in total, a disproportionate number were from the southern and western states.
Glaring inaccuracies from their surveys stand out for all who wish actually to read them. For example their survey found 8.9% of the adult population is black, when in fact it is closer to 13%, they also found that only 38% of households in the nation possess a gun, when it much higher than that.
This situation is amplified by the numbers of errors in the survey results, false positives, and according to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality
“The Kleck-Gertz survey estimates of victimization rates are far higher than the NCVS victimization results, indicating a substantial problem of telescoping of events. For example, in the Kleck-Gertz survey, 2.5% of U.S. adults report being robbery victims in the past year. That corresponds to 5 million robberies. But NCVS results show only 1.2 million attempted or completed robberies in 1992. The victimization rate was 0.6% for individuals 12 years and older and only 1% of households were victimized.”

Using the Kleck-Gertz method of statically collection.

“a gun was used by defenders for self-defense in approximately 845,000 burglaries. However, from the NCVS, we know that there were fewer than 6 million burglaries in 1992. Over 55% of the time the residence was definitely unoccupied at the time of the burglary (in another 23% it was not known whether the dwellings was occupied or not). Only 22% of the time was someone certainly at home (1.3 million burglaries). Kleck accepts as valid the claim that the dwellings were occupied in only 9% of U.S. burglaries.
Since fewer than half of U.S. households have a firearm of any kind and since the victims in two-thirds of occupied dwelling were asleep, the Kleck-Gertz result asks us to believe that burglary victims in gun owning households use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time, even though most were asleep”
Bold mine
Of the people who answered the telephone survey (they had to be male, and head of the house, and home in the day) 66 said that they had used a gun in self-defence in the last five years.
That is 1.32%, however given the nature of the survey, (run by Professors Kleck’s own company) the very very small sample, the statistical errors inherent in all one-off surveys, and bias contributing factors, the data collected by Kleck is too small to be of any use.

Again according to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality
“ it is assumed that 1.3% of respondents are randomly misclassified, which means there are still extremely high 98.7% Sensitivity and 98.7% Specificity rates. In that case the truth would be that just 0.04% of individuals actually used a gun in self-defense in the previous year, or about 76,000 uses per year for the entire adult population. This result comes very close to the NCVS estimate; the K-G figure of 2.5 million uses would be a thirty-three-fold overestimate!

The National Crime Victimization survey carried out in 1994, the survey was carried out using date collected from 47,600 household approx 90,560 persons. Carried out over a three-year period with repeated visits every six months. The findings of that survey was extrapolated over the whole of the USA and found that, (including waving it about, shouting, reaching for, and or telling the assailant that the person had a firearm, was likely to result in “76,000 defensive uses of a firearm”

“In the Kleck-Gertz survey, many of those who report a self-defense gun use apparently see themselves as quite heroic. Were we to accept their claims, people using guns in self-defense are saving about 400,000 people each year from being murdered. Yet most people do not have guns and there were only a total of 27,000 homicides in 1992.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by ModernInkling

Leaving is not always an option; that's why some people need firearms for protection.

Doesn't it seem likely that a robber carrying a gun for intimidation is far more likely to fire it if a gun is pointed back at him?

[ModernInkling]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Doesn't it seem likely that a robber carrying a gun for intimidation is far more likely to fire it if a gun is pointed back at him?

It is possible, yes. But chances are, if he were carrying a gun, he would have no problem shooting you if you tried to stop him in any way. There are also those times when the attacker has a knife or other weapon, so the person with the gun can shoot before being injured.

[Masterfroggy]

Originally Posted by ModernInkling

It is possible, yes. But chances are, if he were carrying a gun, he would have no problem shooting you if you tried to stop him in any way. There are also those times when the attacker has a knife or other weapon, so the person with the gun can shoot before being injured.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, what you propose is likely to get you locked up for a long time
Self defence is:
“The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another. The person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when, and to the extent it appears to him, and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor's imminent use of unlawful force. One who is not the aggressor in an encounter is justified in using a reasonable amount of force against his adversary when he reasonably believes:
(a) that he is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from his adversary, and
(b) that the use of such force is necessary to avoid the attack, (i.e., one threatening only bodily harm), and to use deadly force against his non-deadly attack.”

Reasonable force is considered as:
"That degree of force which is not excessive and is appropriate in protecting oneself or one's property. When such force is used, a person is justified and is not criminally liable, nor liable in a tort."

Killing a person who just has a knife is neither reasonable nor appropriate. You might say ‘you consider it reasonable to kill someone’ just because they have a knife, however it is not up to you to say what is reasonable, it is up to a reasonable person, ie a juror or a policeman.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Masterfroggy

Lots of pro-gun sites use the data collected by Kleck-Gertz...

And lots of gun-control advocates use the data that you posted by David Hemenway that attacks Kleck and Gertz's data.
It is a matter of what you want to believe.
Here is their rebuttal

An excerpt:

XI. THE SURVEY HEMENWAY CHOSE NOT TO MENTION
Our estimates recently have been strongly confirmed by yet another large- sample national survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and conducted under the auspices of the Police Foundation.[72] We can be certain that H knew about this survey because he served on the NIJ Advisory Committee for the project and was thanked for his comments on a draft of the grant report describing the survey's findings, including its DGU estimates.[73] Kleck was the principle consultant on the Police Foundation survey, wrote most of the associated grant proposal and most of the questionnaire, and participated in numerous meetings with H and Cook.

H does not mention the results of this survey, perhaps for an understandable reason: It almost exactly confirms our results. We estimated 2.55 million annual DGUs, using a person-based one-year estimate.[74] The most comparable estimate generated by this survey was 2.45 million, well within sampling error of our estimate.[75] Many of the other estimates were even higher.[76] H himself had ample opportunity, as a member of the Advisory Committee, to suggest solutions to problems he saw in this survey, or to suggest other steps "to reduce the bias or to validate their findings by external measures."[77] In light of H's claim that "all checks for external validity of the Kleck-Gertz finding confirm that their estimate is highly exaggerated,"[78] what could possibly justify H's calculated decision to withhold the results of the Police Foundation survey, when it almost exactly confirmed our estimates?

We doubt that anything we can say will dissuade H from his remarkable [Page 1461] theory that all surveys inevitably overestimate rare events, so he presumably would justify his decision to not mention this survey by asserting that all surveys are now irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, since the Police Foundation project yielded estimates almost identical to those of our earlier survey, one cannot plausibly argue that our estimates were an artifact of flaws peculiar to our survey.
This is a point that H has effectively conceded elsewhere,[79] raising the question: What was the point of all of his unsupported speculations about flaws supposedly afflicting our survey in particular, [80] if H knew that they were not responsible for our estimates being as high as they were? Perhaps they were presented in the hope that less rigorous readers would assume that, methodologically speaking, where there's smoke, there must be fire.

CONCLUSIONS
Hemenway has failed to cast even mild doubt on the accuracy of our estimates. The claim that there are huge numbers of defensive uses of guns each year in the United States has been repeatedly confirmed, and remains one of the most consistently supported assertions in the guns-violence research area. Given H's purposes, however, it is politically inconsequential that we can easily rebut all of his claims. We can be confident that ideologues will cite his series of one-sided speculations as authoritative proof that our estimates have been "discredited," while pro-control academics who fancy themselves moderates will conclude that although maybe H was wrong on some points, he has nevertheless somehow "cast doubt" on the estimates or "raised serious questions" about them. Left unmentioned will be one simple fact: In all of H's commentary, he does not once cite the one thing that could legitimately cast doubt on our estimates¾better empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by Masterfroggy

According to Black's Law Dictionary, what you propose is likely to get you locked up for a long time

That has never happened. A victim is considered in fear of his/her life, thus not thinking rationally. A judge won't even consider hearing such a case.

Originally Posted by Masterfroggy

Killing a person who just has a knife is neither reasonable nor appropriate.

If one is being threatened in any way by a someone wielding a knife and doesn't back off when a defender pulls out a gun, then it most certainly is reasonable to shoot to kill.

Why would anyone think it reasonable to allow someone to stab you?

Originally Posted by Masterfroggy

You might say ‘you consider it reasonable to kill someone’ just because they have a knife, however it is not up to you to say what is reasonable, it is up to a reasonable person, ie a juror or a policeman.

Huh? I don't know what country you're from but here in the US we don't wait for the police if someone tries to stab someone. (Waiting would likely entail bleeding to death)

[Hysteria]

If one is being threatened in any way by a someone wielding a knife and doesn't back off when a defender pulls out a gun, then it most certainly is reasonable to shoot to kill.

Why would anyone think it reasonable to allow someone to stab you?

Woudlnt it be best to shoot to injure rather than kill? Once someone has been shot in the shoulder or leg or somewhere like that they are VERY unlikely to still have a go at you with a knife

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Hysteria

Woudlnt it be best to shoot to injure rather than kill? Once someone has been shot in the shoulder or leg or somewhere like that they are VERY unlikely to still have a go at you with a knife

Youe words imply that you've never shot a gun before, or taught anyone how to shoot defensively.

You aim in the center of your target and shoot twice. You never attempt to "play" at being a marksman. That usually gets you killed.