Guns: The Problem OR Solution?

[Cryslight]

Gun control has and remains to be one of the most contreversial topics in American politics.

Question: Should America have more gun control laws? Should (Not relating to military and law enforcement) be eliminated? Do American civilians still need firearms?

- MeK

[Cryslight]

Argument: defensive gun usage

Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals nearly 760,000 times a year. This figure is actually the lowest of multiple polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which was both conducted in 1993 and 1994, the numbers were even higher. The survey suggested as many as 1.5 million defensive gun usages a year. This survey was lead by Gary Kleck, a highly respected Florida State University criminologist. Based on the research that was conducted, he, as well as other top criminologists (such as Marc Gurtz), concluded that a life is saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. A fatal accident involving a firearm, however, occurs in the United States only about once every 6 hours. Furthermore, it was found that in 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference. In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) Numerous citizens believe that guns are tools which can only be used for destruction. However, it is overwhelmingly evident that far more Americans still die each year from pneumonia and influenza than perish in all-not just gun related-homicides and suicides combined. In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.

Instead of focusing purely on present day, let us look back to a time period when guns were not as easily accessible to certain people. In 1640 Virginia created a series of laws preventing African Americans from owning guns for fear that they might revolt. After the civil war, African Americans still lacked the right to bare arms. White terrorist organizations attacked freed blacks who stepped out of line, and the black codes ensured that they could not fight back. Blacks were, in the words of The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, "forbidden to own or bear firearms and thus . . . rendered defenseless against assaults" by whites.

America was founded on the principle that all citizens should have equal rights as well as equal opportunities. These principles do not exclude the right to bare arms and to defend themselves. To place regulation and gun control laws on firearms would prevent many people from buying firearms. It is unconstitutional to not give Americans the protection they deserve. In conclusion, based on multiple statistics provided by top criminologists, is has become evident that our country would be better off without gun control laws. After all, there’s a reason crime is rising in England, a place where gun controls are all too common. “Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.”

Statistics prove that a large majority of this country strongly believes in self protection through use of firearms. In fact, at this moment, according to recent CNN polls, 89 percent of Americans believe that as citizens they have a right to own a gun, and 87 percent believe the Constitution guarantees them a right to keep and bear arms.

First of all, many of the domestic killings in our country with guns involve self-defense. In Detroit, for example, 75 percent of wives who shot and killed their husbands were not prosecuted, because the wives were legally defending themselves or their children against murderous assault.

Some people, however, bring up a totally different argument and believe guns should be banned or eliminated because criminals would no longer has firearms at their side. In 1997, the United Kingdoms did a full scale ban and finally banned all handguns. “If the gun control thesis is the correct one, then it should follow that by taking out an element that allegedly incites criminal behavior, in this case guns, crime rates should drop.” By comparing two surveys, one done before the ban in 1992, and one after in the year 2000, it was found that this theory was not correct. Before the handgun ban, virtually all violence, such as robberies, rape, burglary with entry, as well as assault with force were all lower in the UK than in the US. In 2000, however, the statistics clearly showed that, in the UK, violent crime rates rose 100%, and, surprisingly, the crime rate in America was lower than the initial poll in 1992. It was also discovered that since the first report, America had distributed over 70 million additional civilian firearms. Based on this massive study, it was obvious that not only did banning guns cause an increase of violence, but adding additional guns lowered violence.

It is thought that gun accidents are extremely frequent in America. In reality, three times as many people are accidentally killed by fire as by firearms.[37] The number of people who die in gun accidents is about one-third the number who die by drowning. Although newspapers leave a contrary impression, bicycle accidents kill many more children than do gun accidents. In total, 30,000 accidental gun deaths have been recorded between 1979 and 1997, a total span of 18 years. In one year, nearly 1.5 million are saved. In the same 18 years it took for 30,000 accidental deaths to occur approximately 27 million have been saved. Through simple division it becomes evident that for every one accidental death that occurred during these 18 years, 900 people were saved by firearms.

In addition to the previous scenario, many people state that, “The more guns there are, the more accidents occur.” Statistically, this is not true. In fact, in America, per capita death rate from firearms accidents has declined by a third in the last two decades, while the firearms supply has risen over 300 percent.

It has been proven by the studies of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as polls conducted by criminologists such as Kleck and Gertz that, in many self protection cases where an armed citizen is faced with an attacker, it is more likely that the citizen will scare off the attacker than to actually shoot him or her. Even despite this fact, the FBI released statistics showing that citizens acting with full legal justification kill as least 30 percent more criminals than police do. On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the police. When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent person than are civilian shooters.

Even if the entire American gun stock magically vanished, re-supply for criminals would be easy. If small handguns were imported in the same physical volume as marijuana, 20 million would enter the country annually. (Current legal demand for new handguns is about 2.5 million a year). Bootleg gun manufacture requires no more than the tools that most Americans have in their garages. A zip gun can be made from tubing, tape, a pin, a key, whittle wood, and rubber bands. In fact, using wood fires and tools inferior to those in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, Pakistani and Afghan peasants have been making firearms capable of firing the Russian AK-47 cartridge.

In conclusion, laws against gun ownership would only make it more difficult for the law abiding citizens who need them most, and rely on them to protect their families. After all, the constitution awards the right to bare arms to all Americans. It should be up to Americans whether they buy guns or not. After all, politicians are supposed to be representing the interests of the majority of this country. The fact of the matter is, 89 percent of Americans still believe that, as citizens they have a right to own a gun. Sir Winston Churchill spoke for all of us when he said, “Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” In order for this to stay true, firearms, remain essential.

- MeK

>>What do you think? Gun laws or the right to bare arms?

Sources for both Argument 3 and Concluding Statement

Source: Gun Control: The Australian Experiment Howard Nemerov

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Source: Statistic release by the Australian Bureau of statistics: Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC).

Sources : "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of

Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Some statistics, as well as national polls courtesy of the FBI

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago Police Department

ncjrs.com

Trust the people: by David B. Kopel - © 1988 The Cato Institute

(184 foot notes contained in article at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/1#1)

Source: Numerous New York Times articles.

Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American Journal of

Psychiatry March, 1990

CNN.com

Source: “Mauser and Hart Studies”

Source: National Safety Council

The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University

Source: http://www.chronwatch.com/site_search.asp?auth=141

Source: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...ay.asp?aid=7862

[Guest eureka]

How many victims were killed or injured while attempting to defend themselves with guns? Is it not convenient for this to be shown?

The figures for Britain are nonsense, too. British crime rates increased dramatically largely because Britain adopted new recording methods. One of those was to measure by victim rather than agressor. This resulted in cases where there were multiple victims no longer being recorded as on crime. Actual crimes committed declined by 35% between 1995 and this date.

In 1995, 11,019 Americans were killed with handguns: in Britain only 30 were killed.

In Britain, a few years ago, a man was charged and convicted of murser (later reduced to manslaughter) for shooting a teenager who was robbing his house. In America, it is unlikely that the man would have been charged with anything. Things like that also go into the statistics.

Only 8% of homicides in Britain involved handguns in one year and only .3% of crimes were homicides. Recorded cases of victims being killed or injured while waving handguns seem not to be available since they are so few.

The number of handguns certified in Britain is not much more than 300,00 since Britain introduced Gun Control in 1997.

Perhaps those who bare (sic) arms in the US should hide their muscles and stay alive.

[Guest eureka]

Further, America was not founded on the principle that all citizens should have equal rights and opportunities. Citizens were granted rights only by the Bill of Rights, embodied in the First Ten Amendments. Those rights applied only to federal law and the rights of citizens were only what each individual state allowed. In other words, the rights of Americans were, for a long time, the whims of the state legislators.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

Perhaps those who bare (sic) arms in the US

Lol. This post, obviously cut&pasted from another semi-literate author, is just another chain-yanker. Don't spend too much time refuting it, you most likely won't see a response.

[Shakeyhands]

TFB... I feel that it is my inherent right to bare arms... ESPECIALLY when it is hot out!

[Cryslight]

You also must understand is that Britain and America are greatly seperated by one factor: Population. You stated that, "In 1995, 11,019 Americans were killed with handguns: in Britain only 30 were killed." What you did not take in consideration was the population difference in the two countries. Furthermore, you did not take economic standing in to consideration. Was britain in an economic surplus at the time? In 1995, Clinton had enforced a set of gun laws and regulations limiting gun owners and those applying for weapons. As I stated in my article, I believe these bans should be alleviated.

[Cryslight]

Also, it is estimated that 2 out of every 3 (66.666%) of all people KILLED by firearms in the US have a previous criminal record. When I say criminal record, I do not mean a traffic ticket. When measured with out population of somewhat 295,274,743 (Found at the FBI census), 11 thousand is only 0.000036%... Suprising, huh? In Britain, however, is only 60 million (http://elt.britcoun.org.pl/s_fco.htm0. When the division is done, 0.0000005%. These marks are surpisingly similar when population is involved.

[August1991]

Should private individuals have the right to own (and use) RPGs and tactical nuclear weapons?

[Cryslight]

Constitutionally, I believe so. On the other hand, I believe in gun usage for self deffense. I do not think automatic weapons are needed for this purpose. You bring up a very good point. I DO, however, believe everyone should be able to purchase a gun if they so desire (After sanity tests, of course). In my oppinion, RPG's cannot be used for deffense, they are rocket type propellors. I do not know if you can even classify that as a gun. On the other hand, excellent point.

[Cryslight]

The main reason for this is, by housing RPG's and nuclear weapons, you are holding a threat towards others. Hand guns, on the other hand are more controllable, and use correctly, can save lives.

And when you said crime rate was low in 1995 for Britain? Just because there is a robbery doesn't mean someone dies. Read this.

England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.

[Shakeyhands]

Cryslight... Where does it say anywere that a citizen cannot own a gun in Canada?

[Guest eureka]

Hold up both hands and put an imaginary decimal point in front of them. Now count up to four and then count again up to six.

Those are the relative numbers of zeros after the decimal points in your "surprisingly similar" murder rates. I know we attended different school systems but I still think that oneAmerican) is a hundred times greater than the other.

TFB was right in his assessment.

[Cryslight]

Obviously there is a difference in death rate, you are forgetting the somewhat 760,000 people who use guns for deffensive measures each year. Most times, people killed in these cases are the criminals.

[Black Dog]

Obviously there is a difference in death rate, you are forgetting the somewhat 760,000 people who use guns for deffensive measures each year. Most times, people killed in these cases are the criminals.

National Crime Victimization surveys conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that victims use guns against offenders just 65,000 times per year.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

I do believe the DOJ in the US put murder rates in the US at 5.4/100,000, while in Canada it is 1.73/100,000. I believe in both cases, 'gun' deaths accounted for just over 50% of these deaths. Yet Canada has more guns per capita than in the US, if I am not mistaken. As for the uselessness of a gun registry, something like 80% of those surveyed got their gun from:'a friend, family member, or an illegal source'.

August1991,

As to RPGs or WMDs, the law banning assault weapons in the US recently expired, and Pres. Bush chose not to renew it. So you can now, once again, buy an assault rifle with a grenade launcher 'accessory'. (Though grenades are still technically illegal). I have a book called "Shadow Warrior", by Felix Rodriguez, and ex-CIA operative, who was once caught in Florida with a 105mm recoiless rifle (basically a bazooka) in his station wagon, by a state trooper. When the trooper was going to arrest him, Felix pointed out that Florida State law allowed the posession of a single shot rifle of any calibre, and, upon verifying this, the state trooper had to let him go!

[losiguy]

I agree with you cryslight. Just think if 25% of the population carried a hand gun. I would think this would be a very good deterent for crime. Also if guns were banned or very strictly controlled, criminals would get them anyways. No matter what there will always be guns around. if you take away the right to carry a fire arm from law abiding citizens then the guns will only be in the hands of the criminals and cops.

[Guest eureka]

What happened that "bloody and violent "summer?

[pioneer]

censored my post!what i said needs to be said!

[I miss Reagan]

Crysight. I think there needs to be limits. Fleabag is right, you can't have people walking around with RPG's. I trust myself with a gun but not the drunk yahoo next door. And I think Eureka makes a good point, that more people are killed by gun accidents than are saved by them. I believe in pre-registry limits. That is hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols if they are registered and for sporting purposes (target shooting). I think hollywood is also guilty for creating a culture of violence. Perhaps we need to start cracking down on them.

[WageSlave]

Alrighty, because I used a word that has upset the administrators of this forum, my post was deleted do to lack of political correctness. Even though there are many white supremacists on this board who have extremely harmful view points. Here we go again.

What I never see raised in the American debate over gun control, is the issiue of exactly why it is considered constitutional.

The American revolutionaries were in favour of an armed citizenry, and the right to form militias, so that you could "throw the bastards out" if they started to act like an empire. As they have since at least WW2.

The right to bare arms was not meant to be reason for white bigots, to use them against minorities who happen to live in their nighborhoods. As is often the case, hence the "protecting my family" argument they always give you.

Liberal enough?

[caesar]

How many victims were killed or injured while attempting to defend themselves with guns? Is it not convenient for this to be shown?

Plus, how many innocent people are killed by the "defensive" acts. Many do the shoot first and ask questions later; killing innocent people looking for help. How many kids accidently shoot themselves or another. How many more guns get into American schools and kill. How many disgruntled employees go and do a shootem up in the USA compared to Canada.

I don't want or need a gun under my pillow to feel safe.

[pioneer]

wage slave you are way off base!shooting minorities in there neighbourhoods!it s the other way around,ten fold!the majority population are not the shooters in the states,just like in canada!care to debate this! :angry:

[PocketRocket]

  Crysight.  I think there needs to be limits.  Fleabag is right, you can't have people walking around with RPG's. 

I agree. No one can reasonably claim that they need an RPG for sporting purposes, or for self defense, at least not until the Hell's Angels start driving tanks instead of hogs.

I trust myself with a gun but not the drunk yahoo next door. 

Easy solution, shoot him.

And I think Eureka makes a good point, that more people are killed by gun accidents than are saved by them. 

That's why they're called "accidents". If people were saved by gun accidents, then they wouldn't be accidents.

(I know what you mean, but it was too god to resist)

I believe in pre-registry limits.  That is hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols if they are registered and for sporting purposes (target shooting). 

I have no problem with a registry, but don't try to take away my old M-1, or my Enfield, or even my little .22 repeater.

I think hollywood is also guilty for creating a culture of violence.  Perhaps we need to start cracking down on them. 

Hollywood makes movies that they think will sell. It's all about money. If people were not so fascinated by violence, there would be no market for the movies. But there is supposedly a moral to every story, and the gratuitous violence is usually a means to an end, ie; the bad guys lose and the good guys live happily ever after, or until the sequel, whichever comes first.

How many victims were killed or injured while attempting to defend themselves with guns? Is it not convenient for this to be shown?

How many people have lost fingers while operating a skilsaw??? An intelligent person learns how a tool works, and what safety measures to use before operating it. If I shoot myself in the foot, it's my own stupid fault.

I was being taught firearm safety by the time I was 5 years old. It ain't rocket science. Any idiot can learn firearm safety simply by reading about ten pages of text. If they choose not to do so, then they deserve no more sympathy than the guy who cuts off his own fingers.

  Plus, how many innocent people are killed by the "defensive" acts. Many do the shoot first and ask questions later; killing innocent people looking for help.

This is why people have kneecaps. If an intruder does not identify him/her self immediately upon request (halt, who goes there), take out the kneecap, then ask questions.

How many kids accidently shoot themselves or another.  How many more guns get into American schools and kill.

How many people are killed by drivers with road rage??? Your example merely show a need for proper education and storage of firearms and ammunition.

How many disgruntled employees go and do a shootem up in the USA compared to Canada.

Well, if all the employees were armed, the shooter wouldn't get very far. "Oh look, a man with a gun shooting at us, I guess we better kill him". End of story. Perhaps the shoot-em-uppers would think twice.

I don't want or need a gun under my pillow to feel safe.

And that self-satisfied sense of security will last until your home has been broken into.

Just a bit of info here....it is illegal to own a handgun in Canada unless you are licensed specifically for handguns. I am not. I could, however, for about $400-$700 get a pistol within 24-48 hours with a simple phone call. Anything from a PPK to a Glock to a nice little ladies' .25 cal pocket-pistol. It would be an unregistered handgun. For about $1200, I could buy an unregistered M-16. Just about anything in between is readily available. This is in a city of about 65,000 in Northern Ontario, not NYC or GTA.

Here's a touchstone for you, if there are bikers in your town, there are unregistered, illegal firearms for sale.

If legislation is passed banning firearms, does ANYONE seriously believe that bike gangs and other criminal organizations will suddenly get rid of all their weapons??? If you do, your naivete is beyond comprehension.

On the other hand, if a burglar KNOWS that a particular homeowner is armed, the likelyhood is that said criminal will proceed up the street a bit and try breaking in someone else's house.

[caesar]

How many people have lost fingers while operating a skilsaw??? An intelligent person learns how a tool works, and what safety measures to use before operating it. If I shoot myself in the foot, it's my own stupid fault.

I was being taught firearm safety by the time I was 5 years old. It ain't rocket science. Any idiot can learn firearm safety simply by reading about ten pages of text. If they choose not to do so, then they deserve no more sympathy than the guy who cuts off his own fingers.

Parents seem to keep tools less accessible to young children than they do their hand guns. An untrained child that kills accidently; does deserve sympathy as does his/her victim.