Can someone please explain to me, without just going "It's stupid" or "it didn't work in Iraq" why the premise that an armed populace is harder to oppress than a disarmed one is incorrect?
Its not incorrect, its just that A. you aren't going to make THAT much difference without heavy weapons or explosives, and B. Most of the people lobbying for gun rights would probably be on the side of the oppressive government.
You're assuming the politics of "the oppressive government" -and the politics of "people lobbying for gun rights" - that's beyond the scope of the problem.
It's a simple question.
Which group is easier to control - Group A, which has firearms, or Group B, which has none?
Can someone please explain to me, without just going "It's stupid" or "it didn't work in Iraq" why the premise that an armed populace is harder to oppress than a disarmed one is incorrect?
Its not incorrect, its just that A. you aren't going to make THAT much difference without heavy weapons or explosives, and B. Most of the people lobbying for gun rights would probably be on the side of the oppressive government.
And C. It's easier to get a military to shoot an armed citizenry than an unarmed one.
Correct. The weapons the NRA and such defend aren't powerful enough to make a difference in modern warfare, and most gun enthusiasts wouldn't have enough ammo stored for a sustained campaign. You might snipe a few soldiers here and there, but that's about it.
I suspect there'd be more damage done from homemade bombs than anything else. Easy enough to make with household components, better suited to the kind of fight you'd have to wage. Straight up guys with hunting rifles vs US Army is suicide.
Can someone please explain to me, without just going "It's stupid" or "it didn't work in Iraq" why the premise that an armed populace is harder to oppress than a disarmed one is incorrect?
Its not incorrect, its just that A. you aren't going to make THAT much difference without heavy weapons or explosives, and B. Most of the people lobbying for gun rights would probably be on the side of the oppressive government.
You're assuming the politics of "the oppressive government" -and the politics of "people lobbying for gun rights" - that's beyond the scope of the problem.
It's a simple question.
Which group is easier to control - Group A, which has firearms, or Group B, which has none?
In our country? Group A, because they're generally more susceptible to xenophobia.
In the 21st century in general? Group A, because it's easier to get a military to fire on them.
Thanatos on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
So we have one person saying that guns require control because they have no power, and another combining an appeal to political bigotry (those KRAZY gun rednecks) with the argument that because guns are enough of a threat to the army to get them to fire on you, they're not a threat to the army?
By the way I dispute that civilian weaponry and no-how cannot stand against "the military"
I don't dispute that it's the case in Thanatos World, where Imperial Kommisars keep the entire military 100% in line and they simply carpet bomb the ignan't milita where it stands massed in central Montana, but it isn't the case in the real world, where anyone afraid of their government would rather be armed than not.
Again, Than, Phoenix, without trying to insert your perception of politics:
Who is easier to control, all other things equal between them: an armed man or an unarmed man?
What about my point above, that most defensive uses don't involve firing the weapon much less in a death?
What's the hypothesis here? That robberies or other violent crimes are prevented by defensive, yet non-firing use of firearms? Certainly it can't be that homicides are prevented in such circumstances - producing a gun is almost certainly more likely to make an assailant kill you (unless, of course, you kill him first, which I have accounted for).
I've heard that there might be empirical support for this theory, based on the fact that rates of assault and robbery tend to be somewhat higher in countries with complete gun bans (although there is a great deal of controversy over whether that effect can be attributed to gun bans). Of course, the problem with that argument is that if you're willing to compare crime rates in countries with and without gun bans, the first place to look is the homicide rate, and I'd be quite willing to accept an uptick in robberies and assaults if we could get our homicide rate in this country down anywhere near the levels we see in most countries with universal gun bans.
The bottom line is that, based on the evidence I've seen, the case for owning a handgun for self-defense is weak at best. It really doesn't meaningfully improve your security or your chance of being robbed or killed.
So we have one person saying that guns require control because they have no power, and another combining an appeal to political bigotry (those KRAZY gun rednecks) with the argument that because guns are enough of a threat to the army to get them to fire on you, they're not a threat to the army?
By the way I dispute that civilian weaponry and no-how cannot stand against "the military"
I don't dispute that it's the case in Thanatos World, where Imperial Kommisars keep the entire military 100% in line and they simply carpet bomb the ignan't milita where it stands massed in central Montana, but it isn't the case in the real world, where anyone afraid of their government would rather be armed than not.
Again, Than, Phoenix, without trying to insert your perception of politics:
Who is easier to control, all other things equal between them: an armed man or an unarmed man?
It depends upon who is trying to do the controlling.
You can't just remove context, and pretend this all exists inside a vacuum. Or, howsabout this, I'll answer your question if you answer mine: who's more likely to get shot when alone in their own home, a million miles from anyone else: someone who has a gun, or someone who doesn't? It has roughly the same amount of relevance.
And yes, I understand that getting the military to turn on the populace is pretty much a nigh-impossible task. This is yet another reason we don't need guns to defend us against the government.
I'm not saying that's a good reason to have more gun control, I'm just saying it's a stupid fucking reason to not have gun control.
What about my point above, that most defensive uses don't involve firing the weapon much less in a death?
What's the hypothesis here? That robberies or other violent crimes are prevented by defensive, yet non-firing use of firearms? Certainly it can't be that homicides are prevented in such circumstances - producing a gun is almost certainly more likely to make an assailant kill you (unless, of course, you kill him first, which I have accounted for).
I'm going to get to the "yew dum ignant' rednecks arrr more likely to kill yur kid than an armed home invadurrr" part when I'm not studying, but speaking as someone who comes from a family with law enforcement and LEO training industry presence, most of you guys are way off and I'm waiting for a cop to show up and tell you so. 90% of this is directed at the people who cannot conceptionalize a goblin armed with a gun cutting and running when someone else draws their own gun
(I assume this is either because that just doesn't happen in your framework of experience when it comes to lawful use of guns (video games?) or because of availability bias)
and the other 10% is at people who think a .38 Special locked up in your closet will make you stand victorious, Rambo-like, over the corpse mound of a dozen thugs dressed in eBay'd body armor who dared violate your sanctum.
Tostitos on
The internet gives me a native +2 bonus in Craft (Disturbing Mental Image).
So we have one person saying that guns require control because they have no power, and another combining an appeal to political bigotry (those KRAZY gun rednecks) with the argument that because guns are enough of a threat to the army to get them to fire on you, they're not a threat to the army?
By the way I dispute that civilian weaponry and no-how cannot stand against "the military"
I don't dispute that it's the case in Thanatos World, where Imperial Kommisars keep the entire military 100% in line and they simply carpet bomb the ignan't milita where it stands massed in central Montana, but it isn't the case in the real world, where anyone afraid of their government would rather be armed than not.
Again, Than, Phoenix, without trying to insert your perception of politics:
Who is easier to control, all other things equal between them: an armed man or an unarmed man?
Read into things much? If you'll note I've only posted in this thread in response to your arguments. You can't infer my position on gun control from that. You can get a little of my politics in general, but its not the same thing.
All I'm saying is that "We can't ban guns because we might need them against the government" is a fucking stupid line of reasoning. Both for the reasons I've already mentioned and for the simple fact that its being used for civilian weapons only, with nary a peep about banning full-autos and such.
I'll turn this question around on you: Which is more likely to get the military questioning orders- getting shot at by people with handguns and hunting rifles, or being ordered to fire on a crowd of unarmed protesters?
As a member of both the ACLU and the NRA, I really don't know who to vote for in November. On one hand, McCain seems more likely to endorse the continuance of the dismantling of the bill of rights that Bush started, but on the other hand, staying in Iraq might actually be a good idea as oil gets more and more scarce, and Obama was reportedly a board member of the Joyce foundation ( source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/barack-obama/) , a major financial contributor to gun-ban causes, meaning he is extremely anti-second amendment, whatever lies he spouts about supporting sportsmen.
The fact that the Democratic congress keeps voting to legalize torture, ignoring habeus corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and telecom immunity and the like, despite the fact that they got elected promising to push back Bush's burgeoning abuses makes me think that it doesn't really matter either way. Whoever wins the presidency or the congress will be doing the exact same things on the issues that really matter: to those with the power in both parties, the bill of rights is obsolete.
The only things our votes will really change are pretty minor things, like gun control, or the *level* of troop commitment in Iraq. I really doubt even Obama with a solidly democratic congress would completely leave Iraq, judging by the real wording of the promises they make.
I thought a large amount of congress's impotence was based on signing statements and not being veto proof.
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
How come you guys won't answer the simple question: Who is easier to oppress, an armed person or an unarmed one?
Be the oppressor a criminal, a cop, or a member of any military foreign or domestic, the answer to this simple question is the same.
But you won't answer the question without inserting your perception of what a "gun supporter" is or your perception of how such a thing would happen.
You want to understand gun control? Ask a fucking criminal if he'd rather rob a man with a gun or a man without one.
The gun is CLEARLY something with power.
If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be talking about banning them and criminals and cops wouldn't carry them.
So where do you want the power? Who do you trust with power? What are your beliefs about humanity?
I want ordinary citizens to have power. I trust myself and my neighbors with power. I think people are basically, if not good, capable of handling freedom from governance and handling tools that give them the ability to function autonomously and feed and protect themselves.
I also believe in statistics, and statistically, control of civilian firearms is a nonsense issue. Legal guns of whatever level of control don't generally contribute to gun crime directly. Legal law abiding owners are not the problem - more restrictions on what sort of gun they may own will curb nothing. Not for about a century, anyway.
I've outlined my plan for gun control in these threads before
1. Gun Operator's Licensing
2 Federal Felony Time and major investigative tracking for people who buy and "lose" legal guns
A simple kiosk at gun shows could verify the validity of a gun liscense, the liscense could have endorsements as to grade of gun, ccw status, etc.
Constitutional liberty would be satisfied - the liscense doesn't mean individual tracking of firearms or firearms purchases toward the end of confiscation. The gunshow loophole could be tightened.
The focus on GUNS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE and LEGAL GUNS is what is wrong. The focus needs to be on the flow of guns from legitimate to illegitimate markets.
Than: Of course someone with a gun is slightly more likely to be shot than someone without one.
If a guy gets shot in his home, alone, he's either suicidal or accident prone and god-speed and not the gun's fault either way. The rationale of "their presence in the home can kill" isn't justification for the banning of power tools, sports cars, personal watercraft, swimming pools, or ladders - or the number of your local doctor - all of whom are more dangerous to you and your neighbors than owning a weapon.
We are allowed to own dangerous things in free nations. It's only the gun, with it's totemic reputation, that's singled out for this controversy.
How come you guys won't answer the simple question: Who is easier to oppress, an armed person or an unarmed one?
I'd say it depends. What's the context, what's the circumstance?
I'd be curious to see a circumstance where an unarmed person is easier to oppress. The previous example of the it being easier to justify to a soldier to follow a command against an armed person versus an unarmed person doesn't fly with me. Some commands may be difficult to swallow against an unarmed populace, but by no means are all of the commands that fall under the umbrella of 'oppression' like that.
Motivation of the soldier body aside, I can't think of an example where it's easier to force a person to obey your will when they are unarmed?
Gun control is bullshit. We can argue about the original meaning of the 2nd (Arm everyone please don't think it had anything to do with arming a militia. Love it or hate it, our founding fathers had a paranoid gun nut streak in them) we can bring up the militia acts of 1792 and 1904. We can go through and discuss who said what, quote the founding fathers until the cows come home. Point out just what "assault rifle" really means. (i.e. Black + scary = assault rifle). We can debate whether an armed civilian population could overthrow the US government (or just be happy dying trying and not dying in a concentration camp in our fictitious hellish future)
However at the end of the day gun control is not going to stop gun violence. Its not going to solve the problems of the inner city. Its not going to create jobs. Its not going to affect the drug trade. Its not going to cut down on illegal weapons being used in crimes. Its not going to decrease murders. It is going to increase robberies. It is going to piss people off, and accomplish nothing.
Any ban they come up with will be 99.99% "scary" rifles, "scary" rifle accessories, and .01% guns that are actually used in committing crimes. As opposed to worrying about the socio-economic issues plaguing our country, oil prices, trade deficits, china, the middle east, terrorists, Aliens, time traveling robots, drugs, killer bee's, or any of the other issues that cause far more problems in our country than whether an American citizen can buy an AR-15 with a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, and the shoulder thing that goes up.
Any ban they come up with will be 99.99% "scary" rifles, "scary" rifle accessories, and .01% guns that are actually used in committing crimes. As opposed to worrying about the socio-economic issues plaguing our country, oil prices, trade deficits, china, the middle east, terrorists, Aliens, time traveling robots, drugs, killer bee's, or any of the other issues that cause far more problems in our country than whether an American citizen can buy an AR-15 with a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, and the shoulder thing that goes up.
Silly bastard. Everybody knows that the barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up. I bet you don't even own a gun.
Correct. The weapons the NRA and such defend aren't powerful enough to make a difference in modern warfare
If we're talking small arms, the only real difference between civilian and military is full auto. Otherwise, many are exactly the same. Not to mention, civilian world has access to many much more dangerous calibers than the military uses. Most hunting rifles are designed to bring down game from 200-600 yards, some of them weighing anywhere from 20lbs, to 1600lbs. Military arms are designed more for heavy, sustained fire. I would argue the civilian arms have the edge in quality, and accuracy. The military has the nearly unlimited resources.
and most gun enthusiasts wouldn't have enough ammo stored for a sustained campaign. You might snipe a few soldiers here and there, but that's about it.
You don't know why they call them gun "nuts". A lot of the other gun enthusiasts I know have at least 1000 rounds for each of their weapons, at minimum. Many have in excess of 10,000 rounds. Most of this is due to buying bulk to save money on the increasing costs.
Straight up guys with hunting rifles vs US Army is suicide.
I'd also argue that weapons have nothing to do with how effective civilians vs military would be. It's all about training. Guys with hunting rifles wouldn't do well against any well prepared enemy. If you gave a platoon of Marines your average Walmart Remington 700, you can bet they'd still be a very effective fighting force. Many people also argue that the greatest gun ever made, was made some 70 years ago, the M1 Garand. World War II was won with it, and Patton called it the greatest weapon in history. It's an antique by today's military standards. Guns are just tools, something people easily forget.
It's the people using the tools who need to be more scruitinized, not the tools.
Which I'm all for. There are some people I've met at gun shows and gun ranges that simply should not be able to own firearms. Four guys I met at my shooting club for the first time reminded me of the guys from that conspiracy theory episode of Bullshit! I just smiled and nodded so the one guy would let me put a clip through his Garand.
Its the Will not the Weapon that makes the difference.
The reason that 2nd Amendment battles seem so exaggerated is because of the fringe elements that are so intractable.
Some feel that any limitations, registrations, or wait periods are completely unacceptable. On the other side are those that feel that any firearms available to the public is unacceptable. The middle ground being limitations, licenses, registrations, but still available to the general public. The middle ground is then further muddled by people saying that current limitations etc are already sufficient, too much, or not enough.
The only resolution would be for the government to choose a course, and stick to it long enough for the populace to accept it as the norm, similar to the situation on Handguns in Washington, but to make it a Nationwide thing. I understand that states should have rights, but it is also a republic, and the more freely and more often the populace drifts between the states, the more the federal government needs to get involved to normalize citizenship.
Why does JohnnyCache keep asking the same question?
Gun-owning people are easier to control, because it's easier to convince your military forces that they pose a threat and therefore must be controlled. No one's going to have a crisis of conscience killing the guy who sniped his buddy.
Silly bastard. Everybody knows that the barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up. I bet you don't even own a gun.
Officially I had a horribly boating accident (in the middle of the desert no less).
Unofficially a sig 220, Mark I Desert Eagle .357. mark 19 Desert Eagle with barrels for .44 and .50. A calico 950, and a Franchi spas 12 shotgun. I need to get a rifle but moneys tight ATM.
Why does JohnnyCache keep asking the same question?
Gun-owning people are easier to control, because it's easier to convince your military forces that they pose a threat and therefore must be controlled. No one's going to have a crisis of conscience killing the guy who sniped his buddy.
People who pose that question are generally also so blind about making sure the government doesn't take their guns away that you can do pretty much anything but that and they don't notice.
Example: everything which has happened in US politics since 9/11 relating to freedoms and 'dem terr'ists.
If, hypothetically, The Government were to go crazy tomorrow and try to go door to door oppressing people, or whatever it is the evil government in these situations wants to do, an armed populace would come in handy. But the odds of that sort of incident happening - ie, the odds of a form of sudden government coercion in which having guns is useful - are so laughably small that the entire argument falls apart. This isn't Nazi Germany. It will never be Nazi Germany. And even if it was, most of the folks in Nazi Germany were perfectly happy helping their government slaughter the inconvenient folks, such that a bunch of well-armed Jews wouldn't have meant squat.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar.
That factoid is very poorly supported. I'd actually call it "bullshit."
It comes from a series of studies done in the 1980s by Arthur Kellerman and all of the studies suffered from a couple major problems:
- None of the studies took into account instances where brandishing a firearm stopped a crime.
- Instances of domestic violence were the major driving factor in that increase of risk.
Some of his studies (like the one there the "43 times more likely..." stat comes from) failed to take into account socioeconomic factors at all.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What about my point above, that most defensive uses don't involve firing the weapon much less in a death?
What's the hypothesis here? That robberies or other violent crimes are prevented by defensive, yet non-firing use of firearms? Certainly it can't be that homicides are prevented in such circumstances - producing a gun is almost certainly more likely to make an assailant kill you (unless, of course, you kill him first, which I have accounted for).
I'm going to get to the "yew dum ignant' rednecks arrr more likely to kill yur kid than an armed home invadurrr" part when I'm not studying, but speaking as someone who comes from a family with law enforcement and LEO training industry presence, most of you guys are way off and I'm waiting for a cop to show up and tell you so. 90% of this is directed at the people who cannot conceptionalize a goblin armed with a gun cutting and running when someone else draws their own gun
(I assume this is either because that just doesn't happen in your framework of experience when it comes to lawful use of guns (video games?) or because of availability bias)
and the other 10% is at people who think a .38 Special locked up in your closet will make you stand victorious, Rambo-like, over the corpse mound of a dozen thugs dressed in eBay'd body armor who dared violate your sanctum.
It has nothing to do with being dumb or ignorant. The fact of the matter is that guns are dangerous. Even people with training routinely unintentionally injure themselves or others with guns.
Similarly, the fact of the matter is that it's very, very difficult to demonstrate statistically that owning a gun improves your chances of not being robbed or assaulted.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar.
That factoid is very poorly supported. I'd actually call it "bullshit."
It comes from a series of studies done in the 1980s by Arthur Kellerman and all of the studies suffered from a couple major problems:
- None of the studies took into account instances where brandishing a firearm stopped a crime.
- Instances of domestic violence were the major driving factor in that increase of risk.
Some of his studies (like the one there the "43 times more likely..." stat comes from) failed to take into account socioeconomic factors at all.
If you carefully read the statement I've made there, you'll note that it's definitely true and supported by the evidence and that your objections are without merit. I make no claim as to the brandishing of firearms and stopping crime. I merely claim that you are more likely to shoot yourself or a friend or family member than a burglar. Since unintentional shooting deaths in the United States typically outnumber shooting deaths in legal interventions by more than two to one, the data support my assertion.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar.
That factoid is very poorly supported. I'd actually call it "bullshit."
It comes from a series of studies done in the 1980s by Arthur Kellerman and all of the studies suffered from a couple major problems:
- None of the studies took into account instances where brandishing a firearm stopped a crime.
- Instances of domestic violence were the major driving factor in that increase of risk.
Some of his studies (like the one there the "43 times more likely..." stat comes from) failed to take into account socioeconomic factors at all.
If you carefully read the statement I've made there, you'll note that it's definitely true
In as much that it is, to the letter, true, it is also, to the letter, irrelevant - simply because you don't need to shoot a burglar to stop the crime. And bringing up an irrelevant statistic to support your point is sophistry.
Since unintentional shooting deaths in the United States typically outnumber shooting deaths in legal interventions by more than two to one, the data support my assertion.
Your assertion carries no weight.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
However at the end of the day gun control is not going to stop gun violence. Its not going to solve the problems of the inner city. Its not going to create jobs. Its not going to affect the drug trade. Its not going to cut down on illegal weapons being used in crimes. Its not going to decrease murders. It is going to increase robberies. It is going to piss people off, and accomplish nothing.
Any ban they come up with will be 99.99% "scary" rifles, "scary" rifle accessories, and .01% guns that are actually used in committing crimes. As opposed to worrying about the socio-economic issues plaguing our country, oil prices, trade deficits, china, the middle east, terrorists, Aliens, time traveling robots, drugs, killer bee's, or any of the other issues that cause far more problems in our country than whether an American citizen can buy an AR-15 with a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, and the shoulder thing that goes up.
Many of these claims are not supportable. First:
At the end of the day gun control is not going to stop gun violence. Its not going to solve the problems of the inner city. Its not going to create jobs. Its not going to affect the drug trade.
All of these are true, but irrelevant. Prohibiting drunk driving doesn't stop drunk driving, nor does it solve the problem of traffic deaths, it simply reduces the incidence. Similarly, reducing the available supply of guns won't stop gun violence, but it will reduce the incidence. Naturally, it's not going to create jobs or have a significant effect on the drug trade. Those are problems to be solved through other means.
Its not going to cut down on illegal weapons being used in crimes. Its not going to decrease murders. It is going to increase robberies. It is going to piss people off, and accomplish nothing.
The first of these statements is not sensible. Most firearms used in crimes in the United States are first legally purchased here, and then stolen or sold illegally. Reducing the supply of legitimate firearms almost certainly will reduce the supply of illegitimate firearms, since legitimate firearms become illegitimate firearms.
The second and third statements are deeply ironic. The first of the two denies a trend we can see when comparing countries with gun bans and without - that homicide rates tend to be much lower. The second, however, endorses a trend discovered via identical methodology - comparing countries with gun bans and without. The bottom line is that you can't reasonably make one of these claims without endorsing the other.
Any ban they come up with will be 99.99% "scary" rifles, "scary" rifle accessories, and .01% guns that are actually used in committing crimes. As opposed to worrying about the socio-economic issues plaguing our country, oil prices, trade deficits, china, the middle east, terrorists, Aliens, time traveling robots, drugs, killer bee's, or any of the other issues that cause far more problems in our country than whether an American citizen can buy an AR-15 with a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, and the shoulder thing that goes up.
What about handgun bans, like the one in D.C.? The government, when it is permitted to, often acts reasonably. Handguns are the type of firearm most commonly used in committing crimes, and not the "scary" rifles your strawman posits. If we're banning guns that are routinely used in committing crimes, it strikes me that this particular objection is a silly one.
The classic claim made by advocates of gun ownership for self-defense is that people will defend their homes and shoot criminals. My argument goes to that. If you scroll back a bit, you can read the data out of the CDC's mortality report for yourself - I linked it.
Similarly, bringing in brandishing on the self-defense end, as Gnome-Interruptus notes, brings in brandishing on the crime end. Self-defense gun uses are surely hugely outnumbered by crimes involving firearms without discharge. No matter what metric you come up with, self defense isn't a sensible rationale to own a firearm. It simply does not make you more secure.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar.
That factoid is very poorly supported. I'd actually call it "bullshit."
It comes from a series of studies done in the 1980s by Arthur Kellerman and all of the studies suffered from a couple major problems:
- None of the studies took into account instances where brandishing a firearm stopped a crime.
- Instances of domestic violence were the major driving factor in that increase of risk.
Some of his studies (like the one there the "43 times more likely..." stat comes from) failed to take into account socioeconomic factors at all.
If you carefully read the statement I've made there, you'll note that it's definitely true and supported by the evidence and that your objections are without merit. I make no claim as to the brandishing of firearms and stopping crime. I merely claim that you are more likely to shoot yourself or a friend or family member than a burglar. Since unintentional shooting deaths in the United States typically outnumber shooting deaths in legal interventions by more than two to one, the data support my assertion.
Except your assertion itself is then worthless, since whether I'm more likely to wind up shooting myself or a family member than defend myself from a burglar is what's important to me, not whether I shoot the burglar. That's why it's called self-defense, not self-shoot-the-other-guy.
It has nothing to do with being dumb or ignorant. The fact of the matter is that guns are dangerous. Even people with training routinely unintentionally injure themselves or others with guns.
I'd like to know your definition of "routinely." Like, how many injuries per number of trained personnel with guns. How many people among soldiers, police, and security personnel shoot themselves or another bystander each year? Compared to how many total personnel?
I know that accidental discharges weren't exactly common in my battalion. They happened, of course, but considering you have hundreds of dudes carrying loaded weapons for a year, I'd hardly say they were routine.
I'd be willing to wager that the average police officer, for instance, never shoots either himself or another person over the course of his career....accidentally or intentionally.
EDIT: Note that if you're including soldiers you can't necessarily include all civilian casualties from military operations, because in many (most?) of those instances the soldiers are shooting quite intentionally. That's just what happens when you fight a war among a civilian populace.
If someone breaks into my home, I don't want to have to rely on my baseball bat-fu, or using a knife. I want to meet that threat with the greatest resistance possible. Which in my case unless they have an armored vehicle they had better get the fuck out.
All of these are true, but irrelevant. Prohibiting drunk driving doesn't stop drunk driving, nor does it solve the problem of traffic deaths, it simply reduces the incidence. Similarly, reducing the available supply of guns won't stop gun violence, but it will reduce the incidence. Naturally, it's not going to create jobs or have a significant effect on the drug trade. Those are problems to be solved through other means.
I bolded that little tidbit, because it's something I notice a lot among supporters of gun restrictions. You don't claim it will lower the incidence of violence, just that it will lower gun violence. Because many countries with gun bans still have serious issues with violent crime, or even murder...and often, strict gun restrictions don't have particularly dramatic effects on the homicide rate anyway, at least if memory serves*. Sure, those countries might have lower homicide rates than the US...but they generally had lower rates before the bans as well.
So really, you're peddling gun control in the hopes that it might have some small effect on my odds of getting murdered, maybe. But who knows. Of course, it might also increase my overall risks of becoming victims of a violent crime in general...personally I'll take in increased (but still tiny) risk of being murdered over an increased (and much less tiny) risk of being assaulted.
Similarly, bringing in brandishing on the self-defense end, as Gnome-Interruptus notes, brings in brandishing on the crime end. Self-defense gun uses are surely hugely outnumbered by crimes involving firearms without discharge. No matter what metric you come up with, self defense isn't a sensible rationale to own a firearm. It simply does not make you more secure.
But wouldn't most crimes involving brandishing a firearm without discharge (of which I'd assume various forms of robbery are a majority) be just as easily committed with a knife? So what's the gain on that front?
EDIT: Whereas, like RocketSauce, I'm much more confident of my ability to defend myself with a gun, particularly against larger or multiple assailants. A knife might be perfectly serviceable for convincing a cashier to give you the money from the register, but it's not the preferred weapon for protecting yourself from somebody who may (or does) intend to actually do you harm.
* - From the last time I looked at numbers for such countries pre- and post-ban, it was generally just a continuation of previous trends with perhaps some small one-time decrease.
But wouldn't most crimes involving brandishing a firearm without discharge (of which I'd assume various forms of robbery are a majority) be just as easily committed with a knife? So what's the gain on that front?
I'm afraid that they're not just as easily committed with a knife. Guns are significantly more expensive and harder to acquire than knives, yet guns are the weapon of choice in the types of crimes we're talking about (robbery and such). Why do you think that is?
If someone breaks into my home, I don't want to have to rely on my baseball bat-fu, or using a knife. I want to meet that threat with the greatest resistance possible. Which in my case unless they have an armored vehicle they had better get the fuck out.
Well, hold on. Guns, particularly handguns, aren't "the greatest resistance possible" by any means. You could fill your house with explosive booby traps. You could have a rocket launcher (this might help solve your armored vehicle problem!). You could have grenades or a flamethrower.
This is a classic collective action problem. It makes sense, individually, for you to arm yourself (or at least, so you think, though I would argue that it's not appreciably improving your security), but from society's perspective it would be better if we were all less armed. Collective action problems are ripe for government intervention.
I'd like to know your definition of "routinely." Like, how many injuries per number of trained personnel with guns. How many people among soldiers, police, and security personnel shoot themselves or another bystander each year? Compared to how many total personnel?
I know that accidental discharges weren't exactly common in my battalion. They happened, of course, but considering you have hundreds of dudes carrying loaded weapons for a year, I'd hardly say they were routine.
I'd be willing to wager that the average police officer, for instance, never shoots either himself or another person over the course of his career....accidentally or intentionally.
Well, according to the CDC, in 2005 there were 789 unintentional shooting deaths in the United States. If we imagine, as is reasonable, that most accidental shootings do not result in a death, we can see that there are probably thousands annually. It's probably true that the average police officer never accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, comrade, or himself. It's also probably true that the average police officer never shoots anyone, so let's not pretend that that's a meaningful statistic. By "routine", I suppose I mean that an accidental shooting is something an ER nurse, for example, sees with some regularity. Unlike, say, a gunshot wound inflicted by a victim of crime onto a criminal.
But wouldn't most crimes involving brandishing a firearm without discharge (of which I'd assume various forms of robbery are a majority) be just as easily committed with a knife? So what's the gain on that front?
I'm afraid that they're not just as easily committed with a knife. Guns are significantly more expensive and harder to acquire than knives, yet guns are the weapon of choice in the types of crimes we're talking about (robbery and such). Why do you think that is?
Um...because only an idiot would fail to use the best available weapon for such a crime? Especially given the everpresent possibility of police intervention? I guess I should have said nearly, rather than just, as in that 99% of the time there's no real difference. You bust out a knife and tell me to empty the register, I'm going to same as if it were a gun.
Nice, though. That was some _J_ level pedantry.
EDIT: Well, I guess you outdid yourself with the booby-trap/rocket-launcher thing. Good job.
But wouldn't most crimes involving brandishing a firearm without discharge (of which I'd assume various forms of robbery are a majority) be just as easily committed with a knife? So what's the gain on that front?
I'm afraid that they're not just as easily committed with a knife. Guns are significantly more expensive and harder to acquire than knives, yet guns are the weapon of choice in the types of crimes we're talking about (robbery and such). Why do you think that is?
Um...because only an idiot would fail to use the best available weapon for such a crime? Especially given the everpresent possibility of police intervention? I guess I should have said nearly, rather than just, as in that 99% of the time there's no real difference. You bust out a knife and tell me to empty the register, I'm going to same as if it were a gun.
Nice, though. That was some _J_ level pedantry.
EDIT: Well, I guess you outdid yourself with the booby-trap/rocket-launcher thing. Good job.
I just don't think you're right about that. It's way, way easier to protect yourself from a knife than from a gun - distance alone will do the trick.
And besides, again we come back to the fact that the cost of guns is significantly higher than the cost of knives. If, in fact, knives were as effective as guns in 99% of cases, why would a criminal spend all that extra money, time, and effort trying to get a gun? Wouldn't we see lots and lots of low-risk knife robberies?
You say maybe police intervention explains the fact that criminals use guns in robberies. How is a criminal, confronted by a policeman, better off with a gun than with a knife? Police shootings are incredibly rare, so it's not like your typical criminal is going to shoot in such a case, and yet he carries a gun anyway.
Clearly, guns dramatically improve the success rate of robberies - that's why they're used so commonly.
And besides, again we come back to the fact that the cost of guns is significantly higher than the cost of knives. If, in fact, knives were as effective as guns in 99% of cases, why would a criminal spend all that extra money, time, and effort trying to get a gun? Wouldn't we see lots and lots of low-risk knife robberies?
Well, I knew a guy in high school who apparently picked up a gun (illegally, of course) for like $50. So while they are certainly more expensive, I don't think they are monumentally more expensive to the point where a criminal would forgo the extra power they provide to save the money. It's not like they're paying retail, or anything.
And if I were choosing to rob a store, I'd probably spend that extra money just on the off chance that either the victim(s) resists or the police show up. Still, that doesn't mean suddenly I'd give up on the idea of robbing the place just because a gun wasn't available...since, again, a vast majority of the time a knife would probably work as well. Even with a couple bystanders, who could easily subdue you if they worked together, nobody's going to be excited about getting stabbed over a little bit of money, particularly if it isn't even theirs.
As far as simply needing to distance myself to protect from a knife attack, this assumes I'm faster than the attacker or not cornered/cut-off. And with that, we fully enter the knife vs. gun phase of the thread, which promises to be absolutely retarded. You'll probably love it. I can't wait until the internet sensei show up.
Posts
You're assuming the politics of "the oppressive government" -and the politics of "people lobbying for gun rights" - that's beyond the scope of the problem.
It's a simple question.
Which group is easier to control - Group A, which has firearms, or Group B, which has none?
I host a podcast about movies.
You assert the second group, those without guns, are not "meaningfully" less powerful than those with guns?
I host a podcast about movies.
I suspect there'd be more damage done from homemade bombs than anything else. Easy enough to make with household components, better suited to the kind of fight you'd have to wage. Straight up guys with hunting rifles vs US Army is suicide.
In the 21st century in general? Group A, because it's easier to get a military to fire on them.
By the way I dispute that civilian weaponry and no-how cannot stand against "the military"
I don't dispute that it's the case in Thanatos World, where Imperial Kommisars keep the entire military 100% in line and they simply carpet bomb the ignan't milita where it stands massed in central Montana, but it isn't the case in the real world, where anyone afraid of their government would rather be armed than not.
Again, Than, Phoenix, without trying to insert your perception of politics:
Who is easier to control, all other things equal between them: an armed man or an unarmed man?
I host a podcast about movies.
What's the hypothesis here? That robberies or other violent crimes are prevented by defensive, yet non-firing use of firearms? Certainly it can't be that homicides are prevented in such circumstances - producing a gun is almost certainly more likely to make an assailant kill you (unless, of course, you kill him first, which I have accounted for).
I've heard that there might be empirical support for this theory, based on the fact that rates of assault and robbery tend to be somewhat higher in countries with complete gun bans (although there is a great deal of controversy over whether that effect can be attributed to gun bans). Of course, the problem with that argument is that if you're willing to compare crime rates in countries with and without gun bans, the first place to look is the homicide rate, and I'd be quite willing to accept an uptick in robberies and assaults if we could get our homicide rate in this country down anywhere near the levels we see in most countries with universal gun bans.
The bottom line is that, based on the evidence I've seen, the case for owning a handgun for self-defense is weak at best. It really doesn't meaningfully improve your security or your chance of being robbed or killed.
You can't just remove context, and pretend this all exists inside a vacuum. Or, howsabout this, I'll answer your question if you answer mine: who's more likely to get shot when alone in their own home, a million miles from anyone else: someone who has a gun, or someone who doesn't? It has roughly the same amount of relevance.
And yes, I understand that getting the military to turn on the populace is pretty much a nigh-impossible task. This is yet another reason we don't need guns to defend us against the government.
I'm not saying that's a good reason to have more gun control, I'm just saying it's a stupid fucking reason to not have gun control.
I'm going to get to the "yew dum ignant' rednecks arrr more likely to kill yur kid than an armed home invadurrr" part when I'm not studying, but speaking as someone who comes from a family with law enforcement and LEO training industry presence, most of you guys are way off and I'm waiting for a cop to show up and tell you so. 90% of this is directed at the people who cannot conceptionalize a goblin armed with a gun cutting and running when someone else draws their own gun
(I assume this is either because that just doesn't happen in your framework of experience when it comes to lawful use of guns (video games?) or because of availability bias)
and the other 10% is at people who think a .38 Special locked up in your closet will make you stand victorious, Rambo-like, over the corpse mound of a dozen thugs dressed in eBay'd body armor who dared violate your sanctum.
Read into things much? If you'll note I've only posted in this thread in response to your arguments. You can't infer my position on gun control from that. You can get a little of my politics in general, but its not the same thing.
All I'm saying is that "We can't ban guns because we might need them against the government" is a fucking stupid line of reasoning. Both for the reasons I've already mentioned and for the simple fact that its being used for civilian weapons only, with nary a peep about banning full-autos and such.
I'll turn this question around on you: Which is more likely to get the military questioning orders- getting shot at by people with handguns and hunting rifles, or being ordered to fire on a crowd of unarmed protesters?
The fact that the Democratic congress keeps voting to legalize torture, ignoring habeus corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and telecom immunity and the like, despite the fact that they got elected promising to push back Bush's burgeoning abuses makes me think that it doesn't really matter either way. Whoever wins the presidency or the congress will be doing the exact same things on the issues that really matter: to those with the power in both parties, the bill of rights is obsolete.
The only things our votes will really change are pretty minor things, like gun control, or the *level* of troop commitment in Iraq. I really doubt even Obama with a solidly democratic congress would completely leave Iraq, judging by the real wording of the promises they make.
MWO: Adamski
Be the oppressor a criminal, a cop, or a member of any military foreign or domestic, the answer to this simple question is the same.
But you won't answer the question without inserting your perception of what a "gun supporter" is or your perception of how such a thing would happen.
You want to understand gun control? Ask a fucking criminal if he'd rather rob a man with a gun or a man without one.
The gun is CLEARLY something with power.
If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be talking about banning them and criminals and cops wouldn't carry them.
So where do you want the power? Who do you trust with power? What are your beliefs about humanity?
I want ordinary citizens to have power. I trust myself and my neighbors with power. I think people are basically, if not good, capable of handling freedom from governance and handling tools that give them the ability to function autonomously and feed and protect themselves.
I also believe in statistics, and statistically, control of civilian firearms is a nonsense issue. Legal guns of whatever level of control don't generally contribute to gun crime directly. Legal law abiding owners are not the problem - more restrictions on what sort of gun they may own will curb nothing. Not for about a century, anyway.
I've outlined my plan for gun control in these threads before
1. Gun Operator's Licensing
2 Federal Felony Time and major investigative tracking for people who buy and "lose" legal guns
A simple kiosk at gun shows could verify the validity of a gun liscense, the liscense could have endorsements as to grade of gun, ccw status, etc.
Constitutional liberty would be satisfied - the liscense doesn't mean individual tracking of firearms or firearms purchases toward the end of confiscation. The gunshow loophole could be tightened.
The focus on GUNS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE and LEGAL GUNS is what is wrong. The focus needs to be on the flow of guns from legitimate to illegitimate markets.
Than: Of course someone with a gun is slightly more likely to be shot than someone without one.
If a guy gets shot in his home, alone, he's either suicidal or accident prone and god-speed and not the gun's fault either way. The rationale of "their presence in the home can kill" isn't justification for the banning of power tools, sports cars, personal watercraft, swimming pools, or ladders - or the number of your local doctor - all of whom are more dangerous to you and your neighbors than owning a weapon.
We are allowed to own dangerous things in free nations. It's only the gun, with it's totemic reputation, that's singled out for this controversy.
I host a podcast about movies.
I'd say it depends. What's the context, what's the circumstance?
I'd be curious to see a circumstance where an unarmed person is easier to oppress. The previous example of the it being easier to justify to a soldier to follow a command against an armed person versus an unarmed person doesn't fly with me. Some commands may be difficult to swallow against an unarmed populace, but by no means are all of the commands that fall under the umbrella of 'oppression' like that.
Motivation of the soldier body aside, I can't think of an example where it's easier to force a person to obey your will when they are unarmed?
However at the end of the day gun control is not going to stop gun violence. Its not going to solve the problems of the inner city. Its not going to create jobs. Its not going to affect the drug trade. Its not going to cut down on illegal weapons being used in crimes. Its not going to decrease murders. It is going to increase robberies. It is going to piss people off, and accomplish nothing.
Any ban they come up with will be 99.99% "scary" rifles, "scary" rifle accessories, and .01% guns that are actually used in committing crimes. As opposed to worrying about the socio-economic issues plaguing our country, oil prices, trade deficits, china, the middle east, terrorists, Aliens, time traveling robots, drugs, killer bee's, or any of the other issues that cause far more problems in our country than whether an American citizen can buy an AR-15 with a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, and the shoulder thing that goes up.
Silly bastard. Everybody knows that the barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up. I bet you don't even own a gun.
If we're talking small arms, the only real difference between civilian and military is full auto. Otherwise, many are exactly the same. Not to mention, civilian world has access to many much more dangerous calibers than the military uses. Most hunting rifles are designed to bring down game from 200-600 yards, some of them weighing anywhere from 20lbs, to 1600lbs. Military arms are designed more for heavy, sustained fire. I would argue the civilian arms have the edge in quality, and accuracy. The military has the nearly unlimited resources.
You don't know why they call them gun "nuts". A lot of the other gun enthusiasts I know have at least 1000 rounds for each of their weapons, at minimum. Many have in excess of 10,000 rounds. Most of this is due to buying bulk to save money on the increasing costs.
I'd also argue that weapons have nothing to do with how effective civilians vs military would be. It's all about training. Guys with hunting rifles wouldn't do well against any well prepared enemy. If you gave a platoon of Marines your average Walmart Remington 700, you can bet they'd still be a very effective fighting force. Many people also argue that the greatest gun ever made, was made some 70 years ago, the M1 Garand. World War II was won with it, and Patton called it the greatest weapon in history. It's an antique by today's military standards. Guns are just tools, something people easily forget.
It's the people using the tools who need to be more scruitinized, not the tools.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
The reason that 2nd Amendment battles seem so exaggerated is because of the fringe elements that are so intractable.
Some feel that any limitations, registrations, or wait periods are completely unacceptable. On the other side are those that feel that any firearms available to the public is unacceptable. The middle ground being limitations, licenses, registrations, but still available to the general public. The middle ground is then further muddled by people saying that current limitations etc are already sufficient, too much, or not enough.
The only resolution would be for the government to choose a course, and stick to it long enough for the populace to accept it as the norm, similar to the situation on Handguns in Washington, but to make it a Nationwide thing. I understand that states should have rights, but it is also a republic, and the more freely and more often the populace drifts between the states, the more the federal government needs to get involved to normalize citizenship.
MWO: Adamski
Gun-owning people are easier to control, because it's easier to convince your military forces that they pose a threat and therefore must be controlled. No one's going to have a crisis of conscience killing the guy who sniped his buddy.
Officially I had a horribly boating accident (in the middle of the desert no less).
Unofficially a sig 220, Mark I Desert Eagle .357. mark 19 Desert Eagle with barrels for .44 and .50. A calico 950, and a Franchi spas 12 shotgun. I need to get a rifle but moneys tight ATM.
Example: everything which has happened in US politics since 9/11 relating to freedoms and 'dem terr'ists.
That factoid is very poorly supported. I'd actually call it "bullshit."
It comes from a series of studies done in the 1980s by Arthur Kellerman and all of the studies suffered from a couple major problems:
- None of the studies took into account instances where brandishing a firearm stopped a crime.
- Instances of domestic violence were the major driving factor in that increase of risk.
Some of his studies (like the one there the "43 times more likely..." stat comes from) failed to take into account socioeconomic factors at all.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It has nothing to do with being dumb or ignorant. The fact of the matter is that guns are dangerous. Even people with training routinely unintentionally injure themselves or others with guns.
Similarly, the fact of the matter is that it's very, very difficult to demonstrate statistically that owning a gun improves your chances of not being robbed or assaulted.
If you carefully read the statement I've made there, you'll note that it's definitely true and supported by the evidence and that your objections are without merit. I make no claim as to the brandishing of firearms and stopping crime. I merely claim that you are more likely to shoot yourself or a friend or family member than a burglar. Since unintentional shooting deaths in the United States typically outnumber shooting deaths in legal interventions by more than two to one, the data support my assertion.
In as much that it is, to the letter, true, it is also, to the letter, irrelevant - simply because you don't need to shoot a burglar to stop the crime. And bringing up an irrelevant statistic to support your point is sophistry.
Okay, I'm glad you admit that you're engaging in pedantic wankery.
Your assertion carries no weight.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
MWO: Adamski
Many of these claims are not supportable. First:
All of these are true, but irrelevant. Prohibiting drunk driving doesn't stop drunk driving, nor does it solve the problem of traffic deaths, it simply reduces the incidence. Similarly, reducing the available supply of guns won't stop gun violence, but it will reduce the incidence. Naturally, it's not going to create jobs or have a significant effect on the drug trade. Those are problems to be solved through other means.
The first of these statements is not sensible. Most firearms used in crimes in the United States are first legally purchased here, and then stolen or sold illegally. Reducing the supply of legitimate firearms almost certainly will reduce the supply of illegitimate firearms, since legitimate firearms become illegitimate firearms.
The second and third statements are deeply ironic. The first of the two denies a trend we can see when comparing countries with gun bans and without - that homicide rates tend to be much lower. The second, however, endorses a trend discovered via identical methodology - comparing countries with gun bans and without. The bottom line is that you can't reasonably make one of these claims without endorsing the other.
What about handgun bans, like the one in D.C.? The government, when it is permitted to, often acts reasonably. Handguns are the type of firearm most commonly used in committing crimes, and not the "scary" rifles your strawman posits. If we're banning guns that are routinely used in committing crimes, it strikes me that this particular objection is a silly one.
The classic claim made by advocates of gun ownership for self-defense is that people will defend their homes and shoot criminals. My argument goes to that. If you scroll back a bit, you can read the data out of the CDC's mortality report for yourself - I linked it.
Similarly, bringing in brandishing on the self-defense end, as Gnome-Interruptus notes, brings in brandishing on the crime end. Self-defense gun uses are surely hugely outnumbered by crimes involving firearms without discharge. No matter what metric you come up with, self defense isn't a sensible rationale to own a firearm. It simply does not make you more secure.
Except your assertion itself is then worthless, since whether I'm more likely to wind up shooting myself or a family member than defend myself from a burglar is what's important to me, not whether I shoot the burglar. That's why it's called self-defense, not self-shoot-the-other-guy.
I'd like to know your definition of "routinely." Like, how many injuries per number of trained personnel with guns. How many people among soldiers, police, and security personnel shoot themselves or another bystander each year? Compared to how many total personnel?
I know that accidental discharges weren't exactly common in my battalion. They happened, of course, but considering you have hundreds of dudes carrying loaded weapons for a year, I'd hardly say they were routine.
I'd be willing to wager that the average police officer, for instance, never shoots either himself or another person over the course of his career....accidentally or intentionally.
EDIT: Note that if you're including soldiers you can't necessarily include all civilian casualties from military operations, because in many (most?) of those instances the soldiers are shooting quite intentionally. That's just what happens when you fight a war among a civilian populace.
I bolded that little tidbit, because it's something I notice a lot among supporters of gun restrictions. You don't claim it will lower the incidence of violence, just that it will lower gun violence. Because many countries with gun bans still have serious issues with violent crime, or even murder...and often, strict gun restrictions don't have particularly dramatic effects on the homicide rate anyway, at least if memory serves*. Sure, those countries might have lower homicide rates than the US...but they generally had lower rates before the bans as well.
So really, you're peddling gun control in the hopes that it might have some small effect on my odds of getting murdered, maybe. But who knows. Of course, it might also increase my overall risks of becoming victims of a violent crime in general...personally I'll take in increased (but still tiny) risk of being murdered over an increased (and much less tiny) risk of being assaulted.
But wouldn't most crimes involving brandishing a firearm without discharge (of which I'd assume various forms of robbery are a majority) be just as easily committed with a knife? So what's the gain on that front?
EDIT: Whereas, like RocketSauce, I'm much more confident of my ability to defend myself with a gun, particularly against larger or multiple assailants. A knife might be perfectly serviceable for convincing a cashier to give you the money from the register, but it's not the preferred weapon for protecting yourself from somebody who may (or does) intend to actually do you harm.
* - From the last time I looked at numbers for such countries pre- and post-ban, it was generally just a continuation of previous trends with perhaps some small one-time decrease.
I'm afraid that they're not just as easily committed with a knife. Guns are significantly more expensive and harder to acquire than knives, yet guns are the weapon of choice in the types of crimes we're talking about (robbery and such). Why do you think that is?
Well, hold on. Guns, particularly handguns, aren't "the greatest resistance possible" by any means. You could fill your house with explosive booby traps. You could have a rocket launcher (this might help solve your armored vehicle problem!). You could have grenades or a flamethrower.
This is a classic collective action problem. It makes sense, individually, for you to arm yourself (or at least, so you think, though I would argue that it's not appreciably improving your security), but from society's perspective it would be better if we were all less armed. Collective action problems are ripe for government intervention.
Well, according to the CDC, in 2005 there were 789 unintentional shooting deaths in the United States. If we imagine, as is reasonable, that most accidental shootings do not result in a death, we can see that there are probably thousands annually. It's probably true that the average police officer never accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, comrade, or himself. It's also probably true that the average police officer never shoots anyone, so let's not pretend that that's a meaningful statistic. By "routine", I suppose I mean that an accidental shooting is something an ER nurse, for example, sees with some regularity. Unlike, say, a gunshot wound inflicted by a victim of crime onto a criminal.
Um...because only an idiot would fail to use the best available weapon for such a crime? Especially given the everpresent possibility of police intervention? I guess I should have said nearly, rather than just, as in that 99% of the time there's no real difference. You bust out a knife and tell me to empty the register, I'm going to same as if it were a gun.
Nice, though. That was some _J_ level pedantry.
EDIT: Well, I guess you outdid yourself with the booby-trap/rocket-launcher thing. Good job.
I just don't think you're right about that. It's way, way easier to protect yourself from a knife than from a gun - distance alone will do the trick.
And besides, again we come back to the fact that the cost of guns is significantly higher than the cost of knives. If, in fact, knives were as effective as guns in 99% of cases, why would a criminal spend all that extra money, time, and effort trying to get a gun? Wouldn't we see lots and lots of low-risk knife robberies?
You say maybe police intervention explains the fact that criminals use guns in robberies. How is a criminal, confronted by a policeman, better off with a gun than with a knife? Police shootings are incredibly rare, so it's not like your typical criminal is going to shoot in such a case, and yet he carries a gun anyway.
Clearly, guns dramatically improve the success rate of robberies - that's why they're used so commonly.
Well, I knew a guy in high school who apparently picked up a gun (illegally, of course) for like $50. So while they are certainly more expensive, I don't think they are monumentally more expensive to the point where a criminal would forgo the extra power they provide to save the money. It's not like they're paying retail, or anything.
And if I were choosing to rob a store, I'd probably spend that extra money just on the off chance that either the victim(s) resists or the police show up. Still, that doesn't mean suddenly I'd give up on the idea of robbing the place just because a gun wasn't available...since, again, a vast majority of the time a knife would probably work as well. Even with a couple bystanders, who could easily subdue you if they worked together, nobody's going to be excited about getting stabbed over a little bit of money, particularly if it isn't even theirs.
As far as simply needing to distance myself to protect from a knife attack, this assumes I'm faster than the attacker or not cornered/cut-off. And with that, we fully enter the knife vs. gun phase of the thread, which promises to be absolutely retarded. You'll probably love it. I can't wait until the internet sensei show up.