Except 4% is an appreciable reduction? about 4k a year in the US. Also you haven;t established that it wouldn't drop for non completion factors. Maybe without weapons prospective rapists wouldn't attempt the crime. For example, it may just be that only physically powerful rapists do not use a weapon, while the ones who would be incapable of competition without a weapon use weapons. Something that is entirely logical.

You need to consider other factors here.



Except you haven't really as there is no non US studies about the efficiency of handguns in self defense.

You haven;t even established that any such efficiencies exist.

Uh, as someone working in Swiss law enforcement, I beg to differ. We have much less severe penalties than the US, much fewer cops per citizens than the rest of europe, and proportionally much less citizens in prison. First time offenders won't get sent to prison as a rule unless they do something that merits a prison term of over 2 years. And it's very rare that we sentence murderers to more than 16 to 18 years, the last homicide case I worked on ended up with 9 to 10 years. The only ones serving "Life" are those deemed mentally ill in a way that they will keep comitting capital crimes, and even those will get released once a forensic psychatrist deems them "cured" or "safe", the recent "make them stay in prison till death" law notwithstanding (there's a loophole for releasing them, in accordance with basic human rights.)

Nope. I just quoted it straight. Just because you used the statistic doesn't mean it supports what you say. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

In fact, the next thing following my quote is the methodology of the study. It's at the end of one of the links. You don't seem to know these studies very well, otherwise you would have caught the fact that I was quoting something else.

However, I did find your quote:


Additionally, let's see what constitutes an injury:


Wow, so I'm likely to get bruised when defending myself from an armed assailant. That doesn't change the risk of having your own gun taken away from you, and possibly used against you. Which happens, on average, 341,000 times a year.

So, let me take a page out of your book:
You Are Wrong!


Except it does show the rate of gun thefts. 341,000 per year. Which, considering that many gun owners have more than one, translates to a lot more weapons stolen per year.

However, to make you happy, this study states unequivocably that stolen guns are a major source of weapons for criminals.


That's why you do something proactive, and buy a better door.

See, this is why I have trouble getting along with the pro-gun lobby, even though I have leanings in that direction. It seems that *any* attempt to restrict guns, even from criminals, is considered sacrilege. Will someone from the pro-gun side please explain why they prefer guns in the hands of criminals?

*Shrugs*

I happen to like guns so I am of course biased.

As an EMT I can tell you that the best thing to ban, if we're all about making the world safer, is personally operated vehicles. Cars are pervasive in our country and our governments lazzie faire attitude towards licensing operators would have to stop. Children as young as 15 are taught to operate cars and there are a great number of car based entertainment medium that promote this dangerous culture.

Next we should take on tobacco and alcohol since the first produces an incredible strain on our healthservices and the second is combined with a great number of dangerous activities (rape, gun violence, unintended pregnancies, car "accidents"). Furthermore both of these poisons correlate highly with or greatly exaggerate the symptoms of diseases including heart disease, stroke, and cancer. By banning these dangerous substances we'd also we increasing the overall health of our entire nation.
Worse than this we have a great number in our society that don't get enough physical exercise, obviously with the lack of POV's nationwide physical activity will be on the rise but we need to take that a step further. Mandatory exercise combined with frequent government monitoring of "healthy behaviors" will also significantly increase compliance and prevent untimely demise.

We will live in a safer world. By eliminating POV's alone we will reduce our nations reliance or fossil fuel, eliminate the leading cause of accidental death (easily outmatching all the other causes combined), and cause our citizens to exert themselves on a regular basis. The evidence is overwhelming that an individuals choice to operate a POV is clearly out of complete disregard for the well being of other human beings.


Okay, that's obviously a little tongue in cheek but it's generally how I feel about the gun debate. Gun deaths, whether by assault, accident, or what have you claims far fewer lives than those caused by car accidents. Banning guns to "make the streets safer" is ignoring the overwhelming fact that we give people the means to run around and kill the fuck out of themselves and everyone else every single day. Supposedly we need cars because it lets people get around, but all told it strikes me as a fantastically inefficient way of doing things in the year 2008. Having grown up in LA but having lived or visited places with effective mass transit I can honestly say I'd be happy to turn in my vehicle in for an all you can eat transit pass.

So in short. By focusing on how vile guns are we ignore the fact that in the vast spectrum of "preventable death via behavior modification" we're ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room. Eating a big mac twice a week (I'm looking at you Fortune) is probably more likely to kill you and your family (because children are designed to learn behaviors from their parents) than owning a gun ever will.

One last word on self defense. I've led a pretty sheltered life and I've never personally been threatened with real physical violence. As such it would be easy for me, in my ignorance to dismiss another persons need to own a firearm for reasons other than recreation. But I can't just can't tell someone "You have no idea what you're talking about, you absolutely do not need access to a means of protecting yourself and your family." That flies in the face about what I know about the government which is that it's uhm... not really good at making those kinds of decisions for people.

Not to mention that even though there are speed limits all over the place, no one even tries to propose a law that would force cars to be locked in a way prohibiting them from going faster than legally allowed. Can anyone tell me why their car should be able to go over 100 if they can't legally drive faster than 55? In an emergency, there's always 911...

(Yes, this was at least partially sarcastic.)

I have a somewhat different perspective on things, as I'm from the UK, where it seems crime is escalating, although the government says they are falling. But with the spin the government puts on crime statistics it's hard to tell.

It seems to me that owning guns should require at least the same degree of training and licensing as cars. Of course, the current driving licensing laws are flawed, and inadequately enforced. Using a mobile while driving is illegal over here (I don't know about the US), but I see people driving with a phone pressed against their ear all the time. It would be a pain in the arse if I was required to renew my driving license every 5 years or so, but it would probably keep me aware of what I need to do to be a good driver. We do, after all, require doctors and even plumbers to undergo retraining, why not Joe Public for driving their cars.

Similarly, I wouldn't worry about legal gun owners in the US, if they were properly trained in using, maintaining, and securing their weapons. What concerns me is the ease with which almost anyone can buy a gun, and then go on a crazy spree, as in the much publicised Virginia Tech shooting, and others.

As far as the Yakuza, I'm prepared to accept that they are a criminal organisation, so they are prepared to break the law, including going so far as to brutalise or kill. However, when I was on holiday in Tokyo a few years ago I have never felt safer anywhere. Even walking through what I was told were fairly dicey neighbourhoods. I was there for three days before I saw any litter, and there was scarcely even any graffiti.

Tokyo and most of Japan is a fantastically safe place to live.

It's also one of the most homogenized cultures I've ever experienced. I think Japan being a safe place to live has less to do with their banning of guns and everything to do with their culture. For instance, here in Okinawa (and I've been led to believe elsewhere) if you hurt someone or their property you have the option of, on your own, of going to that persons house and begging them for forgiveness. You also are expected to bring a sum of money appropriate to the offense. You may still go to trial for your crime but generally the whole exercise in expressing remorse (and putting your money where your kow tow is) will reduce the penalties assessed against you.

That's an absolutely mind boggling practice to me and I'm not sure if it could even work in America.


Another good example is Singapore, I only visited briefly but I've almost never felt safer in my entire life (except for getting run over by the occasional car, granted I'd be in the wrong because I was jaywalking but still). It's a perfectly oiled machine where 4 ethnic groups that have had riots in the past seem to coexist fairly peacefully. They have very restrictive laws but given their situation (a great number of different people in a very small area) I'm not at all surprised that as a society they accept them as necessary (And this foreigner isn't about to knock a system that appears to work). That said I think we'd have nothing but disorder and strife if we tried to fine people for eating durian on trains or spitting on the street. Hence our trains still smell funny and our streets are filthy. Eh... what price freedom right?

One other thought.

Is a dollar spent writing or enforcing a law about guns worth as much as a dollar spent on cancer research or some other worthy cause? I just think that our priorities are a little screwed up when it comes to things like this. In the 110 years my family has lived in America not one of us has died in a firearm related accident/incident (despite the fact that my grandma was shooting birds with a rifle at 12 and my family has lived in or around Los Angeles during the bulk of that time). In contrast we've had several claimed by car crashes, a couple by Alzheimer's, and virtually every last one of dies from some cancer that kills us slowly and painfully. If time and energy are to be spent of making the world safer, I'd be retarded if I didn't want it spent on something that was relevant to my and my families experiences.

+1 Doc

WMS

The US is actually the current world leader in cancer treatment. However the US health system blows, and if you think gun control is a major issue with the US, adopting a more effective health model (which is pretty much anything as the US is pretty much the bottom of every metric, except cancer treatments) is going to require much more in to be spilled.

For reference the US spends 3 times as much as the UK on healthcare and remarkably delivers worse outcomes overall. It is quite amazing. However, again it is due to serious cultural differences between europe and america I'm not sure you can ever close the divide. The If you suggest universal healthcare people tend to flee in terror.

Other hilarious statistics include the fact that the US spends more public money than canada, and produces worst health outcomes. Yee haw guys.

So actually the US needs to shead about 520 billion dollars worth of health expenditure, adopt the french system and then you'd have plenty of money to ban guns (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Two things.

1. My family members didn't die due to inadequate access to health care. That kills a great deal of people but doesn't apply to my particular situation.
2. I included "Other Worthy Causes" for just such a reason. I was trying to point out that I've never personally had to deal with the effects of gun violence but I have had to deal with the effects of cancer. Inadequate health care is a very important issue to me and it's one of the things I hope we'll work harder towards correcting.

Also you better damn well qualify "bottom of every metric". We get the least bang for our buck (much to my dismay) but we certainly aren't the worst health care system in the world, not by a stretch. I can't find it now but the UN did a worldwide health care analysis and it was fairly enlightening document. It revealed that we do indeed have problems and it gave a meaningful analysis of the situation. Good karma to anyone who can hunt it down and post a link.



As an aside, I'm bringing up my family not because I want to bludgeon you all to death with "Boo hoo my problem is so bad" but to point out that "Boo hoo my problem is so bad" is not a very effective way of making meaningful laws. Considering our population numbers someone dying in a school shooting (as is often sited) is a freak accident compared to someone dying in a "freak" car crash.

Ignoring all the crap tastic countries like egypt and just addressing the OECD the US:

A) Has the lowest doctor satisfaction rate
B) Has the lowest Patient satisfaction rate
C) Spends the most per capita
D) Spends the most as a percentage of GDP
E) Has the most years lost due to death per capita
F) Has the most years lost due to disability

In terms of quality of care delivered to patients 45% of US doctors do not follow best practice in patient care, the US gets ripped off by drug companies by the governments own admission, and delivers the lowest standard of care in 5 of 9 disease categories. It did well in some others though, particularly cancer.

So, overall it is the worst by any metric about outcomes you care to name. What is hilarious is that it really does so badly for spending so much money. France spends a HUGE amount of money by comparison to the OECD average and it's still only 75% of the US spend. For that it does well on most statistics and leads the first two. The US actually does pretty terribly on many metrics, like educational outcomes where it gets trounced by nations spending much less money. What it does really well on is high per capita GDP. If they fixed all the other problems they could blow everyone else out of the water.

Note: All comparisons are made on a per capita basis.

In the end, we'll have to decide if we sacrifice freedom for security. I think Jefferson said something about this.

Which is mainly BS (not Jefferson, but the part of trading freedom for security). Removing freedom does not increase security. Prisons are the best example for that. And increasing security (as opposed to increasing security measures) does not automagically lead to a decline of freedom.

Because the army will have guns regardless, and the police most likely will. The ability to defend against them is far more important than reducing the chances that a given criminal will get his or her hands on a firearm.

You obviously weren't out very late. Having spent a solid wakeful night wandering around Shibuya, I can say that at least in some areas it gets as filthy as any non-abandoned area I've ever seen in the states. The cleanliness of the city is, as far as I can tell, a testament to their cleaning crews (and the funding allocated to them) rather than anything intrinsic to the population.

(I do agree that it feels fairly safe here—the primary worry is getting hassled by the occasional drunk sarariman or having the police demand identification. Not that that isn't fairly objectionable in and of itself, of course.)

~J

We are talking about a country that doesn't seem to particularly appreciate public trash receptacles. The fact that I didn't die under a mountain of discarded Family Mart packaging is indeed a testament to an intrinsic quality of their population (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

For those of us just joining the conversation OECD stands for Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
http://www.oecd.org/

The statistics I think are being referred to are here:
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3343,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html

They also have cool excel spreadsheets you can download if you really want to number fuck this topic to death.

The WHO makes a couple of interesting reports as well although the last yearly report focusing on this topic is 8 years olds:
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html

This is one cultural point I don't think I'll ever understand. The view that the government is just waiting to stamp down the jackboots is just not a touchstone of australian culture, or british.

Yeah, though the OECD doesn;t do the numbers on patient satisfaction,you usually have to hit academia for that.

However the OECD is a great resource if you want to see how different countries manage things and perform in pretty much every field of government endevour. Most governments use it as a yard stick to measure themselves by.

You're kidding me. Do you honestly think that any private citizen can mount an effective defense against the entire US army, or police force? Handguns aren't going to make much of a difference against tanks, not unless every defender is a Mr. Lucky. The reason we take the risk of handing weapons to criminals is so that paranoid people feel like they can make a one-man heroic stand versus the US military? Screw that.

I still think responsible gun ownership is a good idea, but that's got to be one of the worst defenses for irresponsible gun ownership that I've seen.

Man! Gun debates really are the same crap over and over.

Guns kill people, no they don't.

The government is out to get us, no it isn't.

Gun control money would be better spent on improved health care or cancer research (still rooting for cancer research, I'm selfish, sue me).



Two points I'd like to make.
1. If the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy suddenly decide that it's open season on US civilians (and there aren't mass desertions or mutiny) you're AR-15 and 2 inch shot groups aren't going to save your ass. Running into the mountains might work until the carpet bombings begin. In the context of general national disorder (with mass mutiny/desertion in the military) your AR-15 is going to matter less because you'll be snatching up the 240G's that deserters are handing out. Being able to shoot effectively is something else entirely and something I'd wager most people aren't doing anyways (Are you doing combat shooting drills with movement, rotation, and tactical reloading? Do you live in a highly urban area? If you are then you gotta tell me where because I have yet to find a shooting range where I can I do all that good stuff). If you really want to "fight the man" you should be fighting for the right to possess thousands of pounds of lightly used artillery shells, glue, and crates of small sharp metal things.

2. Unless I'm being completely retarded it's always struck me that governments are historically the people most likely to curb stomp you and your particular ethnic group. As a person who (here we go again) has had both sides of his family interned because they had slanty eyes and cool last names I find a particular resonance with the phrase "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you."

I think mandatory military service is probably a better protection against black helicopters and oppressive governments. Granted I fundamentally hate the idea of demanding that people share the burden of national defense, but still.

First thing, why not have both? I have single-side dead-bolts on all external doors in my house, and an above average security system (installed while it was being built). The locks and alarms are designed to keep people out, but they are worth exactly six pounds of dick once someone gets inside. And honestly, if I were a determined felon looking to break into a home, I would give up on a locked door after about 15 seconds and simply go through a window.

Long ago, a wise man once said "All a lock does is keep an honest man honest." I would figure that since we all play a game that centers around B&E, we should be intimately familiar with that concept.






Here, we mostly agree. Training should be a prerequisite for gun ownership, or at the bare minimum a gun safety class. And I personally feel it would be WONDERFUL if we could remove guns from "irresponsible/criminal owners" and leave them just in the hands of responsible owners. Then again, if you can get the bad guys to permanently give up all of their guns, I would gladly give up mine (except for my hunting rifles).




I've been training in martial arts since 1991. Mostly Muay Thai and Kali, but more recently in Modern Arnis. Kali and Arnis training revolves around weapons, and is probably some of the more practical styles when it comes to protecting yourself from armed opponents. However, if I were to face a single assailant who is armed with a knife while I am weaponless, I seriously doubt I would be able to escape injury. If my opponent has a gun and I do not, my chances of survival drop drastically. Not to mention the fact that all of the bedrooms in my house are upstairs, and if an assailant breaks in from the ground floor, I'd have to take my family past him to escape. No, I do not believe you can efficiently and effectively protect yourself and your loved ones from one or more armed assailants with only your fists, even if you happen to be the next Bruce Lee.




I don't like that thought one bit. That's why I take steps to secure my weapons as best as I can. But not everyone does. And because not everyone does, there will be thefts. And since there will be thefts, some criminals will be armed. And since some criminals will be armed, I will be armed so I can protect myself and my family. Besides all that, even if you were able to remove all privately, legally owned firearms in this country, the bad guys would still have their guns. They might not be able to get any more guns, but they will be holding on to the ones they have. And that does that do? Turn people like myself and my family into sheep.




Agreed. I'm all for responsible gun ownership as well. So how do we fix that? Even if we contrive some convoluted process to restrict future gun ownership to ONLY responsible, moral, sand, and law-abiding citizens, how do you deal with the illegal guns already out there?




It doesn't shock me in the least. A lot of gun owners are idiots, mostly because a lot of people in general are idiots. Show me how to fix the idiot problem, and I'll show you how to fix the "people getting shot with their own firearm" problem. In the interim, I and many others like me are in little danger of such a thing happening.




My youngest daughter is 4 years old. How fast do you think she can run. I'm 5' 7" and 195 lbs. How fast do you think I can run while carrying her? How do you suppose my wife, my daughter, and I flee an armed assailant that is breaking into our home when all of our bedrooms are upstairs?

Now, I do believe that good situational awareness can help you avoid confrontations in the first place. I carry concealed, but it doesn't make me look for fights. And most people that I've known that are licensed to carry concealed don't look for fights either. Drawing your weapon is always a LAST resort. But it's one more level that I can go to that others can't. If you don't have a weapon and you cannot escape/avoid, you are FUCKED. Period. I am not.

And for the record, the person you describe in your paragraph above has no business owning a firearm for self defense. But I would like to submit to you that a LOT of gun owners are not THAT person.




You are often better off escaping. But what if you can't? Again, if you bank on that, you are completely fucked if you can't escape. Better hope that bad guy is unarmed and less skilled/less determined than you are, and better hope he doesn't have any buddies with him.

Again, we go back to knowing how to use a firearm in self defense. Someone who shoots often, conducts drills with their weapon, and takes self defense seriously will be able to do this. Some frightened citizen that buys a gun, loads it, and then stashes it in his nightstand and never touches until there is a break in is most assuredly fucked. No arguments here.




I have never defended the stance that "self defense" is a meaningful argument for irresponsible gun ownership. If you can figure out how to separate the responsible gun owners from the irresponsible ones, I'll be 100% behind you.

No.

No. An effective offense.

Not every soldier or policeman is in a tank. Also:


No, so that armed resistance is possible (hint: you introduced the "one-man" aspect, not me).

~J

That's why I like the swiss army: We're a militia, the soldiers are citizen soldiers doing their time in the army, not professional soldiers. And if we do not shoot regularily in our pastime while being in the reserves, we get fined. No tactical training though - that's what the refresher courses in the army (3 weeks per year, in your batallion) are for.

It is the reason enshrined in the US constitution. I've always thought it was wacky. If you examine the intent, people should be able to buy RPGs, stinger missles and AK-74s (sic) the real keystones of an insurgency, and a handgun ban would be totally consistent. Most people are totally down on handing out Stinger missles though, despite that the amendment itself reads:



or;



depending on copy. Hell, the supreme court has even ruled that the national guard is the modern militia, so you could make a reasonable case that only national guard members should be allowed to own guns (copy the swiss model!).

Ps, I'd laugh if the US started selling stinger missles over the counter. It would be great.