Changing attitudes about firearms

[Pict]

I haven read all of this thread (first three pages). I'm surprised it has gone seven without getting locked, you should all be commended.

In my observations going back and forth between living in Brazil and Pennsylvania I have also noticed the class difference when it comes to hunting and the shooting sports. In Brazil such things as hunting, target shooting and gun collecting are relegated to the wealthy. I was invited on a bird hunt once there and my companions were a major contractor, the owner of a large import/export business, and some sort of investment banker/hostile take-over guy (never did get a handle on what he did because it was so far out of my league). Here in PA I get invited on hunts as well and my companions are, local cops, a welder, an electrician... you get the point.

Here in the US the shooting sports are the #1 participant sport with 41% of the population engaged on a regular basis. The #2 slot belongs to basketball with 18% of the population playing regularly. Here hunting (domestically), shooting and gun collecting are very much middle class activities. The only real difference is a matter of scale and degree, the wealthy hunt exotic game in exotic locations and shoot and collect guns way out of my middle class price range.

As for self defense, in Brazil I am prohibited from carrying a gun and crime is running rampant. I could list a litany of serious crimes we have faced as a family, always unarmed on our part while the criminals have been armed with guns and knives. Here in PA my carry permit is recognized as a right (shall issue state) and crime is so low I have to wonder why I bother at all. I still bother, BTW, I'm your other shopper at "TESCO", but you'd never know it. If carrying a weapon of any type changes your personality in any way you have no business carrying a weapon. Mac

 

[Tadpole]

those places with the most liberal concealed carry laws - Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming and New Hampshire - have the lowest crime rates.

No strictly true
Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, using FBI crime statistics

Illegal guns generally flow from states with weak gun laws to states with
stronger gun laws, States with strong gun laws generally supply fewer illegal guns to the
criminal market while receiving more of their crime guns from states with weak
gun laws.

 

[Mike Ameling]

So many factors/issues get blending into what so often sounds like a simple issue.

First: Poverty DOES NOT cause crime. It may contribute a bit in some people's twisted minds, but it DOES NOT cause crime. This has been shown sooooooo many times over soooooo many centuries. Being poor DOES NOT cause crime. Yet it seems to be a general assumption or even proven fact. Why? Because it is easier to blame a "condition" instead of the actual person involved. Just look at all the "poor" people out there. Are the vast majority of them out committing crimes? No. Just a small subset. The simple facts negate that ... accepted truth.

Guns are just tools - like knives, or baseball bats, or vehicles, or screwdrivers, or crowbars. They all can be used for good purposes or to commit criminal acts. It is the INTENT of the person using that tool that turns it into a weapon to commit a crime.

But the basic issue is that right now there is a major drive across the world to remove the RIGHT to Self-Defense from the common people - starting with removing the tools they might use. Everybody is told to call 911 and let the law enforcement people handle that -- government sponsored "dial-a-prayer". And the Courts in many countries have decided that those law enforcement people are not legally obligated to protect you - just show up, investigate, and TRY to catch the criminal involved. And when somebody does protect themselves, THEY are immediately under suspicion of ... violating the rights ... of the criminal involved.

So YOU are being told that you cannot protect yourself. That the government is taking that responsibility from you, and assigning it to themselves. And, do to the volume of crimes committed, they may or may not help you. Your ... natural born right ... to defend yourself is being legislated away. And that makes you further dependent upon the government for your very existence.

This trend to make all people totally subservient and dependent on their government started many years ago. Right now the focus is on removing some of the tools people use to defend themselves - guns, knives. Soon it will move to clubs, bats, pipes, etc.

The book 1984 was pretty prophetic. The State is All, All serve the State, and All fill their assigned Station in Life for the benefit of All. Socialism wins again.

But these are just my humble thoughts to share. Take them as such.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands
- where we still have the illusion of some freedom

 

[locum76]

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

in japan gun ownership is restricted to hunting and sports and is very strictly regulated.

At least in the USA the fact that gun ownership is rampantly legal gives, it would seem, more options to the suicidal.

The only gun I have seen in the past 20 years is my mums air rifle which she uses to shoot rabbits who are eyeing up her cabbages.

I like it that way.

edit: apologies for the messy table - it doesn't look like this prior to hitting submit.

 

[BigShot]

No strictly true
Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, using FBI crime statistics

Illegal guns generally flow from states with weak gun laws to states with
stronger gun laws, States with strong gun laws generally supply fewer illegal guns to the
criminal market while receiving more of their crime guns from states with weak
gun laws.

And yet in the UK we see that nationwide prohibition is also ineffective.
If you completely cut off the influx of illegal guns (unlikely) they'll resort to making the things instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun
For just an easy example to give.

Do you have a statistic that shows the change in crime in areas with no legal CCW?
"Nationally" is a misleading statistic as it includes those with CCW laws with those recognised as having high violent crime and no legal CCW.
Kind of like "national average wage" in the UK is somewher around 15 to 20k (iirc) despite the vast majority earning between 10 and 12 (again - iirc).

I'd like to see a stat which separates the "safe" (CCW) states from the more violent ones.

 

[BigShot]

Locum - the only effect gun bans have on suicide is changing the methods. It has no impact whatsoever in the number of suicide deaths.
In areas that banned the private ownership of, or restricted access to handguns, more kill themselves with shotguns, rifles, poisons and trauma (falling from height, stepping in front of trains and so on) - less use handguns - but no fewer die.

As for directly comparing rates per 100k between countries - it's sketchy at best as there are far more factors to consider.

An important one to notice is that though the USA tops that chart, its rates of violent crime are falling - wheras in the UK with no legally owned and carried self defence weapons (not just guns, none at all) our rates of violent crime are on the increase.


Trends are far more telling than absolute numbers as presented in that table.

 

[Oblio13]

...
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence,...

Follow the agenda. Your source is Sarah Brady's rabidly anti-gun political lobbying group.


Unbiased studies come to a far different conclusion, such as this one:

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:
"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."

 

[gregorach]

Don Kates may be a lot of things, but I'm not entirely convinced that "unbiased" is one of them.

 

[traderran]

So you're saying that criminals don't, for example, have the right to due process and a fair trial?

Just one more. When a criminal tyres to robe me his due process
stops right there. Take this however you will. If you want to be a victim
that is your right. There are sheep and wolfs you decide which you are

PS I am not a sheep.

 

[Tadpole]

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:
"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."

Don B. Kates is hardly a unbiased source, he along with the infamous Professor Gary Kleck, are hand in hand with the 'aims' of the NRA and pro-gun lobbests

 

[locum76]

Trends are far more telling than absolute numbers as presented in that table.

I'm sure gun crime/ violence trends in the US have fluctuated widely over the years, and the same for violent crime in Britain, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the statistic of gun death has always been much higher in the states.

also i didn't say that gun ownership affected the number of suicides just that it broadened the options for the suicidal.

thats me done.

peace out. :AR15firin

 

[Oblio13]

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:

"Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[36][32]

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[37] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is – a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."

 

[Pict]

David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit."

That works for me, these are my people. Mac

 

[Mike Ameling]

Aaah, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Their use/misuse of FBI statistics is as bad as they claim the NRA's use is -- but actually much worse. There is no ... balance ... in their propaganda. Every little thing they can find in a niche of the FBI statistics is highlighted, while anything that doesn't support their chosen agenda never sees the light of day.

Accepting everything they say as "fact" would be like accepting everything Earth First says about logging. Distortion developed to a high art.


Japan always gets brought into such discussions. As a CULTURE, Japan has no history of private gun ownership, and never has. So their "culture" distorts any gun stats from them. They also have a different "culture" when it comes to crime and suicide. So comparisons to anywhere else just can't be made.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The title of their "report" already shows their bias.

Why are Israel and Switzerland so often ignored in such discussions? Both have mandatory military service/training, and both have mandatory private gun ownership. Are these two countries rampant with gun crimes, gun accidents, gun suicides? No. But they also are different cultures and different views on "self defense". And the "criminals" go elsewhere to places that are "safer" for them to commit their crimes.

But this still is just an ... emotional ... issue, with many complicating features.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

p.s. A number of years ago, Idaho executed a prisoner. That prisoner chose "firing squad" as the method. Yes, it was still a legal option at that time. So he was executed by firing squad. The State Coroner and Attorney General personally did not like executions. So they wrote up the Death Certificate listing HOMICIDE and GUN SHOT as the cause of death! And that is how that State directed execution of a convicted criminal was entered into all the "crime" statistics in the country. Execution of a condemned prisoner was listed as an unsolved criminal homicide and gun shooting victim. So much for the ... FBI statistics. Plus all those legal/justified shootings of people committing crimes by law enforcement officers also get listed the same way.

p.p.s. Shootings of kids. The age bracket for those statistics is 0 up to 19! Over 3/4ths of those "shootings" are in the 16 to 19 year old range. Following those numbers back to the details of the shootings shows that the majority of them involve gang shootings. And also includes those "kids" shot by police while committing crimes. More ... statistics.

 

[BigShot]

I'm sure gun crime/ violence trends in the US have fluctuated widely over the years, and the same for violent crime in Britain, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the statistic of gun death has always been much higher in the states.

also i didn't say that gun ownership affected the number of suicides just that it broadened the options for the suicidal.

thats me done.

peace out. :AR15firin

Oh they fluctuate on a small scale, yes... Sometimes they'll go up or down from quarter to quarter, year to year, but on a longer scale the trends are clear and not fluctuations...

...over the past 100 years violent crime in the UK has been on a steady increase, and at each point where a new restriction on self defence and the legal ownership of guns was brought in - the trend steepened. This alongside a steady increase in quality of life and decrease in poverty (not that poverty is a main cause for violent crime) makes a compelling case.

In the USA, where areas have gone from effective or actual prohibition, to "shall issue" CCW permits, the rates of violent crime have showed an opposite trend, that is, they fall.

I'm not sure where you get "fluctuation" from on the larger scale though.



As for increasing the options for suicidal people...
Why does that matter? The stats show they'll kill themselves anyway (banning guns has no impact on it) so why disarm everyone else for that reason.
At very least (and this is gonna be controversial) with a firearm they can have a quick end without suffering the pain of poisoning or causing serious distress for bus and train drivers, pedestrians (in building-jumps) and police (in the case of "suicide by cop").
Not that I wish anyone dead - suicide is always a tragic event.

 

[Oblio13]

Don Kates may be a lot of things, but I'm not entirely convinced that "unbiased" is one of them.

What about his biography that you linked strikes you as the least bit biased, except that his research didn't lead to the conclusions that you wish it had?

 

[gregorach]

You don't know what conclusions I "wish he had reached", and don't presume to tell me what I believe or wish for. I actually don't have a dog in this fight at all, and don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter either way. However, Mr Kates' work and his other affiliations clearly indicate that he is on the anti-gun-control side of the issue, and has been for most if not all of his career.

Whether he's right or not I couldn't say, but just about everyone who spends any significant time on the subject has a bias one way or the other. I'm merely trying to point that out in the interests of improving the general quality of argumentation. I've seen far too many of these threads to want to get involved in arguing the facts of the matter.

But if you want to know my position, just so that you can avoid imputing beliefs to me that I don't actually hold, I really don't think the whole concealed-carry thing is that important (in terms of outcomes) one way or the other. There are far too many other, more important variables in play.

 

[BigShot]

Greg - I wonder...
...how do you come to the conclusion that he's biased?
Is it because his studies are used by the pro-gun side of the debate, or because those studies don't support the anti-gun argument? Or has he actually done something to demonstrate bias somehow?

How would one distinguish between an unbiased academic who's studies consistently find against gun control, and a biased one who finds the same?
Particularly difficult if they are indeed presenting accurate results.



EDIT
=-=-=
Just to add - I believe it is the case that one can easilly demonstrate bias in the pro gun-control studies through inconsistent arguments presented, cherry picking of data and so on.
I'm not so sure that the same is true the other way.
This is part of the reason that I have gone from "undecided" leaning towards "pro gun-control" to very strongly in favour of private arms and concealed carry.

 

[gregorach]

Everyone is biased.

 

[gregorach]

OK, perhaps that was a bit glib. But you don't get a job with both the Independent Institute and the Pacific Research Institute without certain pre-existing ideological commitments.

Like I say, I'm not necessarily saying he's wrong. You need to get over your simplistic "us and them" view. At the risk of repeating myself: I don't have a dog in this fight.