Off Topic Poker Forums

Are you saying that if the Federal Government outlawed automatic weapons, or guns of any type, then gun crime will go down?

You would expect a substantial reduction in the amount of people being shot . The below statistics are quite confronting.

The movie Bowling for Columbine reported the number of people killed by firearms per year. Director Michael Moore showed statistics on gun-related deaths per year for a few major countries (ordered here by deaths per 100,000):

United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000)
Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)
Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000)
France – 255 (0.389/100,000)
Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)
United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000)
Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000)

You are misunderstanding me, but I'll come back to that. 10 people in that theater, randomly distributed, will have fields of fire greater than the one assailant's. And they will likely miss at least on one shot. I don't see how that is really debatable. Furthermore, body armor means that it is likely for return fire to be effective. It is not a fact that leads to the conclusion that it is better to do anything in particular. To suggest that saying a gun might not be effective means I think it's better to let terrorists kill people is just snarky.
The point I was making is that an idiot with a gun in the same room as a psycho with a gun is not an improvement. And I think we can all agree America has no shortage of idiots. Furthermore, that there can be more than one solution, potentially being a more effective solution than the one original.
That is why IMO, gun control should partially come in the form of stringent requirements on training. Hell, I abhor our absurdly terribly lax driver's license rules. I would have no problem running through an extensive several week course before I was allowed to take a gun home. If George Zimmerman had had one, maybe Trayvon would still be alive.

I do agree with you on some points and disagree on others. For example if we use the highly scientific dateline experiment after VT then it's easy to show armed people won't help right?
However there's a HUGE difference between simply having experience shooting a gun, and having experience shooting a gun in practical situations. Going to a range =/= drawing and firing from your CC holster. If you don't do that, of course you're going to be clumsy with it.

Body armor does fail, and I said in a previous post it doesn't make the wearer invulnerable either. You still have the blunt force trauma, just not the penetration. So even if you're wearing kevlar and get shot, you're gonna feel it, it's gonna hurt, and you're probably going to the ground. Even then most vests are simply rated for small caliber pistols and or melee weapons.

For example the vests we had at one of my services were level II.
http://www.thefirestore.com/images/nijspec2.htm

People don't think of it. People run away. It's in their nature. Only the rare few act. The guy who shot his AK at the White House wasn't tiny. Just one guy was nearby and happened to be one of the few. And he was quickly joined by another guy. That really isn't indicative of anything other than, most people run away. Zebras run away from lions too, even though they outnumber them. But, it is a possible, and probably more effective response than to have 7 or 8 people return fire on this guy. He can only point his gun at one person at a time. 5 people jump him and he's going to the ground unless he's a professional wrestler or football player. That is not to say I judge those who didn't jump him, or that the scenario of his using his home made grenades would not have been even more tragic. But there are other responses than shooting back.
After saying all that, I would definitely rather have a gun if I were in that situation. I might not use it, I might opt for the tackling. Or might only think I'm one of the few and not one of the runners. I don't think I'd leave a member of my family behind, that leaves me to find a solution.

Like it's been pointed out these people are crazy, they're not stupid.
VT shooter blocked escape from the door.
Colorado guy most likely was firing on exits because they're choke points.
(and granted both of these situations didn't have any armed resistance)

So when you're in a situation where you ARE likely to get killed or shot, without effective means of escape, then what's the risk in trying to take down the shooter? You have a high likelihood of death or injury to begin with, trying to escape in that situation I think is actually somewhat more dangerous.

To the bold; that's what the amendment process is. The 2nd amendment is a change to the Constitution. The 18th was also, as was the 21st (the Prohibition ones). I hardly think I need to respond to the Germany comment but I will anyway. It wasn't gun control that got 6 million jews killed.

The bill of rights are generally considered much different then most of the amendments. The bill of rights were introduced the same year the constitution itself was ratified. The constitution wasn't amended further for over 100 years.

Also I'll argue I legitimately own guns for my personal protection. Ask ANY law enforcement officer and they'll tell you, they're purpose is crime prevention and investigation.

The presence of police helps to deter crime, however it doesn't stop crime.
Sometimes police happen to be in the right place at the right time, however most of the times they're not.
Police can't normally stop robberies, murders, rapes,etc.

It's simply not possible for them to be everywhere all of the time. I feel that in the unlikely chance that something should ever happen (again I doubt it will,and I hope it doesn't) I feel it's my own responsibility to protect myself and my family.

....and we interrupt this thread for some recent good news (and funny).

63 year old internet cafe customer.....opens fire on two armed robbers. Worth a chuckle.

Your argument that a black market would exist is not an effective one. The most effective argument for the ownership of guns is this one: if there are four guys who attack me and my wife walking down the street, and I don't have a gun, she's getting raped to death. I dare anyone to tell me that's it's better that happens than me putting a stop to it with a weapon. Or that I don't have the right to put a stop to it.

The worst possible scenario argument.

It does not make any sense to use a situation that has a very very small likelihood as an argument. No matter how terrible.

If it has a high likelihood: What the F are you doing on that street?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Enough with the gun control talk already. It is ridiculous.

You would expect a substantial reduction in the amount of people being shot . The below statistics are quite confronting.

The movie Bowling for Columbine reported the number of people killed by firearms per year. Director Michael Moore showed statistics on gun-related deaths per year for a few major countries (ordered here by deaths per 100,000):

United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000)
Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)
Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000)
France – 255 (0.389/100,000)
Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)
United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000)
Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000)

More telling is Gun ownership per capita
(figures are guns/100 people)

United States 88.8
Canada 30.8
Germany 30.3
France 31.2
Australia 15
England and Wales 6.2
Scotland 5.5
Japan 0.6

As you can see, the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country. However, when comparing the numbers to the numbers of gun-related deaths, there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between the two. For example, the U.S. has 2.9x as many guns per capita than Canada, but the gun-related death rate is 7.5x higher in the U.S. Likewise, when comparing U.S. to Australia, gun-related deaths are 12.3x higher in the U.S., but gun ownership is only 5.9x higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

....and we interrupt this thread for some recent good news (and funny).

63 year old internet cafe customer.....opens fire on two armed robbers. Worth a chuckle.

I saw this when it came out. Awesome stuff haha.

If it has a high likelihood: What the F are you doing on that street?

What if your favorite pizza place is on that street? Good pizza is hard to find.

What if your favorite pizza place is on that street? Good pizza is hard to find.

Stop trying to derail threads. You're the Tribe Leader for God sakes........

medic, I agree with everything you said, except the part about putting the guy on the ground even with body armor. There's little chance anyone's CC gun is a .45 or .357. Those are too big.
Oh, and also that the Bill of Rights are different. They may be early and important amendments, but they are amendments. And the amending was done to create a society they wanted to live in.

The worst possible scenario argument.

It does not make any sense to use a situation that has a very very small likelihood as an argument. No matter how terrible.

If it has a high likelihood: What the F are you doing on that street?

It does not matter what the likelihood of the event occurring is. If it never happens, my weapon is never used. If it does happen, I need my weapon. If I love my wife and believe her life is valuable, anyway. How am I seriously supposed to look at her and say, hey we had a good run but since I can't protect you I'll see you in the afterlife?

As for what I'm doing on that street, I think that might be a difference between crime here and crime in Europe. That street could be anywhere. Sure we have neighborhoods where there is a higher likelihood of something like that happening, but it can happen a lot more places than it maybe can in Europe. I'm not rich, which means I'm more likely to have to be near streets where the likelihood is higher. Does that mean I should be either in my car or in my house at all times, that I'm not allowed to go for a stroll? I live in a decent neighborhood now, an apartment almost more than I can afford, and there were 2 armed robberies in my building. The streets where it has a high likelihood of happening are miles away.

And I'm pretty sure that theater had a pretty low likelihood of getting shot up.

medic, I agree with everything you said, except the part about putting the guy on the ground even with body armor. There's little chance anyone's CC gun is a .45 or .357. Those are too big.
Oh, and also that the Bill of Rights are different. They may be early and important amendments, but they are amendments. And the amending was done to create a society they wanted to live in.



It does not matter what the likelihood of the event occurring is. If it never happens, my weapon is never used. If it does happen, I need my weapon. If I love my wife and believe her life is valuable, anyway. How am I seriously supposed to look at her and say, hey we had a good run but since I can't protect you I'll see you in the afterlife?

As for what I'm doing on that street, I think that might be a difference between crime here and crime in Europe. That street could be anywhere. Sure we have neighborhoods where there is a higher likelihood of something like that happening, but it can happen a lot more places than it maybe can in Europe. I'm not rich, which means I'm more likely to have to be near streets where the likelihood is higher. Does that mean I should be either in my car or in my house at all times, that I'm not allowed to go for a stroll? I live in a decent neighborhood now, an apartment almost more than I can afford, and there were 2 armed robberies in my building. The streets where it has a high likelihood of happening are miles away.

And I'm pretty sure that theater had a pretty low likelihood of getting shot up.

If it never happens there is still a hefty price to pay: People will have easy access to guns.

Buying guns for self defense is like driving faster in order to spend less time on the streets thinking that it reduces the risk of crashing the car.

If it never happens there is still a hefty price to pay: People will have easy access to guns.

If those people have to be rigorously trained before they are allowed to carry, I'm fine with them having access. Just like an informed electorate is better than an uninformed one (what we have now, both in the case of the analogy and literally).

Buying guns for self defense is like driving faster in order to spend less time on the streets thinking that it reduces the risk of crashing the car.

I disagree. Your analogy might be equivalent if I walked around with a gun drawn maybe. Owning a gun for self defense is more like being able to maneuver your car through an accident at high speed occurring right in front of you (with my assumption of proper training requirements in the use of the gun before being allowed to purchase it). It may not happen very often, but it's best to be prepared.

would we still have to defend ourselves if there were considerably less guns around?

would we still have to defend ourselves if there were considerably less guns around?

Yes, people would still break into your house because they're addicted to crack.
Instead of holding a gun on you, they'll use a machete that they can buy at any department store for 7 bucks.
OR since they're criminals and don't care about the law, then then gun ban doesn't really apply to them.

Did crime all of a sudden vanish in England whenever they banned handguns? No, the incidence of crime with knives and other weapons went up.

To use CO and VT again, both of those properties prohibited people from having guns. It's the law abiding citizens that respect the law, not the crazies.

Even if they were banned, they COULD still be obtained easily enough. If I wanted I could have a stolen gun this week, cheaper then what I paid for my 1911.

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

I feel like this is a really silly argument, not only would it not be that easy to make a high quality gun, many people simply lack the motivation to do this. Making arguments that "we shouldn't ban something because the most determined people will get it anyway" is a silly argument because the population of people is far far far greater than the number of people who are hell bent determined to do something. Is some stupid crackhead going to be thinking "oh ok guns are banned but no problem I'm just going to save some money to buy these parts and this precision machinery and then get good at metalworking and then make a gun and then take that gun to hold up a convienence store" ?

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

With like a one in four chance of blowing off a finger or worse.

Just some interesting history of.....
"Gun Politics in Australia".
It seems that each shooting incident caused reactions/laws.

Port Arther massacre (Australia 1996)
35 people killed by Martin Bryant)

Monash University Shootings (Australia 2002)
2 students (Huan Yun Xiang)


Norway. Toughest Gun Laws?
2011 Norway Attacks
77 people killed by Anders Behring Breivikp

Gun Politics of Finland (history).
May 2012, and 18 yr old Gunman kills two random students and shoots 7 others.
Nov 2007, and 18 yr old gunman kills 8 people in school and then himself


.....But wait, there is more!

In Kennesaw, Georgia (USA), "...Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County...."
Kennesaw had one murder in 25 years. Family Circle Magazine selected it as one of the nation's "10 Best Towns for Families". A small sample town, but it definitely did not go Wild West. It got safer.

There are crazy people in the world....even where gun control is more-or-less a given.

More telling is Gun ownership per capita
(figures are guns/100 people)

United States 88.8
Canada 30.8
Germany 30.3
France 31.2
Australia 15
England and Wales 6.2
Scotland 5.5
Japan 0.6

As you can see, the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country. However, when comparing the numbers to the numbers of gun-related deaths, there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between the two. For example, the U.S. has 2.9x as many guns per capita than Canada, but the gun-related death rate is 7.5x higher in the U.S. Likewise, when comparing U.S. to Australia, gun-related deaths are 12.3x higher in the U.S., but gun ownership is only 5.9x higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

This IS a direct correlation - the US not suprisingly has more than double gun ownership than anyone else, and 12.3x higher gun related deaths than anyone else. The rate of deaths not being proportionate to the amount of gun ownership, but infact being much higher, only indicates other factors contribute to the high amount of shootings in the US - I am not sure how more deaths from shootings than expected supports the gun lobby argument????

Could it be due to the fact that one gun, or semi automatic weapon is capable of killing more than one person. ie. when you have an assault rifle capable of emptying 50 rounds in a minute. Once gun owner is capable of murdering more than one person, or 12 as in the case of this joker carrying an A-17 assualt rifle (which jammed), and two shotguns.

I would be interested in others thoughts of what other factors lead to the unbelievable amount of shootings in the US compared to other countries, besides the high level of gun ownership. Mental illness - lack of welfare etc, media obsession with violence?? Perhaps this is something the govt can tackle at the same time.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

terrific article, thanks a lot.

Even if they were banned, they COULD still be obtained easily enough. If I wanted I could have a stolen gun this week, cheaper then what I paid for my 1911.

From where would you have hypothetically stolen a gun this week?

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

Guns may not be complex machines, but they do require the knowledge and tools to make them. I can repair my car and I can weld myself up a bicycle or chair, but I can't make a gun.

Did crime all of a sudden vanish in England whenever they banned handguns? No, the incidence of crime with knives and other weapons went up.

This is a great argument for the restriction of firearms.

Yes knife crime went up.

Criminals be doing their thing...

A lot harder to shoot up a theatre with a knife though.

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

A lot of good info/stats here. Especially in the Crime and Self-defense section. Also some interesting graphs.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20

OK I've changed my mind.

Imagine how safe the US would be if everyone owned guns !!!

I never said a home made gun would be ideal. I just said if you really wanted to make one, you could make one.

The crux of my argument wasn't that homemade guns will be the new standard, it was that people are ingenuitive. If someone has that much of a desire to kill someone (or people) then they will find a way to do it. And you can't really argue against that.

People are killed quite frequently in prisons worldwide where there are absolutely no guns at all. Virtually any innocuous item can be made into a makeshift weapon. A toothbrush,plastic spoon from taco bell, pen, paperclip, phone cord, etc can all be made to kill someone.

Stan, I agree he's less likely inflict mass casualties with a knife. He went through pretty painstaking trouble to booby trap his apartment, if he didn't have access to a gun homemade explosives would likely have been his 2nd choice. In a somewhat confined space like a movie theater a half dozen pipe bombs would probably have killed more people then him shooting into a crowd.

Also the very nature of knife v gunshot wounds in itself is the reason there's more deaths. We all love statistics, I'd love to see if one of you guys can dig this up.

What's the proportion of gunshots that are fatal, v. stabbings that are fatal?

You can die of a single gunshot wound virtually anywhere to the body. Bullets (especially small caliber) love to bounce around inside of your body. You can get shot in the hip, and the bullet can easily ricochet up into your abdomen and into vital organs.

It's also possible to die from a single knife wound, if it severs an artery. However most fatal stabbings are repeated stabbings (for example 5-10+). It's impossible for you go get stabbed in the leg, and the knife blade ends up embedded in your heart.

Steppin,
It's really not hard, but you do have to know about something about your area. I'll concede that for most people it would take longer, because they'd have to find out which places they need to go to.
I'd say most people don't know which bars in rough neighborhoods are drug bars, hell the only reason I do is because of the nature of my work.
You find a bar that has a lot of drugs going through it, I 100% guarantee you can pick up a hot gun there too.

Of course this is all risky business, and something I'd never considered. Most crimes aren't random, when you're dealing with criminals you have a much higher likelihood of being involved in a crime..IE your chances of being robbed at random are reletively small. However if you're in the ghetto with a few hundred in cash on you to buy a gun, your chances of being robbed go up significantly.