Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.

[Thief]

What culture does not have rage?. What person does not have a moment of lost sanity? Can you predict that point? Should we let be armed at all times?

so you do see the problem.....
disarming is the solution?.....I think not
disarming gives the advantage to those who won't disarm.

I'll give up my gun when my fellow man becomes sane.

wait for it......

 

[David1967]

Pure fantasy? I don't think so.

If you know anything about muggers, you know they are bullies, and what are bullies? They are cowards. They rely on fear and intimidation. Once you stand up to them they end up becoming push overs even when they have the victim outnumbered and outgunned.

If my weapon was concealed, you wouldn't know I had a gun, now would you. So, no, you'd be in danger because you'd be caught off guard.

Most criminals don't want to have a shoot out. They'd rather get what they want, push around defenseless people, because it's easier. They don't want conflict. So when they come up against conflict, they panic. Guess what corrupt governments want? Gun control. Because it's easier to run over someone with your military than it is to fight against a population that is armed to the teeth. I mean it's common sense. Why would a criminal risk his life to take down someone they know is armed. They usually won't even fight back once they see an innocent with a gun, unless they have an army of gang members backing them up. But even then, they just end up being push overs.

Here is an example of guns saving the day.

Outstanding. Good for him.He may well have saved lives.

 

[Revoltingest]

And people with a strong opinion of a controversial subject such as this tend to cite statistics that favor their cause.

Aren't those statistics the only valid statistics?
Anything which doesn't corroborate is boooOOOOoooOOOoooOOooogus!

 

[Glaurung]

Pure fantasy? I don't think so.

I did not say that guns are never used successfully for self-defence. I said the majority of cases, guns either do nothing nor make things worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/guns-self-defense-study_n_7608350.html?section=australia

The study, released Wednesday by the Violence Policy Center, found there were 258 justifiable homicides involving civilians using firearms in 2012, compared with 8,342 murders by gun. Even if a criminal isn't shot down, the study found that civilians rarely use guns to protect themselves. "Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior with a firearm" only 0.1 percent of the times they were targeted by a crook.

http://theweek.com/articles/585837/truth-about-guns-selfdefense

Research published this year in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that the 80 million Americans who keep guns in the home were 90 percent more likely to die by homicide than Americans who don't.

Again, the idea that firearms make you safer is pure fantasy. In fact, you're far more likely to end up accidentally shooting yourself or a family member than you are a criminal intending you harm.

And as for opposing the government, I shouldn't have to point out how silly such a notion is. Your typical civilian militia would be a nuisance at best. This isn't the eighteenth century. (Where such a thing was plausible)

 

[David1967]

Aren't those statistics the only valid statistics?
Anything which doesn't corroborate is boooOOOOoooOOOoooOOooogus!

Aren't those statistics the only valid statistics?
Anything which doesn't corroborate is boooOOOOoooOOOoooOOooogus!

Its easy to shop for statistical evidence that fits a persons viewpoint. And evidence to the contrary is considered irrelevant or fabricated. There have been so many threads on this topic with opinions being so passionate that I don't recall anyone budging at all on their position. Dialing 911 is no substitute for having the means to protect yourself and your family from from violence. The police will come, but we can't always get there fast enough. You just can't ask the bad guy to please wait while you call the police.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its easy to shop for statistical evidence that fits a persons viewpoint. And evidence to the contrary is considered irrelevant or fabricated. There have been so many threads on this topic with opinions being so passionate that I don't recall anyone budging at all on their position. Dialing 911 is no substitute for having the means to protect yourself and your family from from violence. The police will come, but we can't always get there fast enough. You just can't ask the bad guy to please wait while you call the police.

Additionally, when I do see studies cited, they're presented in isolation....as though they make the argument by themselves.
Typically, studies must be examined to see what scenarios they cover, & then there's interpretation of the findings.
After this, they must be part of an argument about applicability & meaning in the real world.
Often, when I've cited Kleck's work, I'll temper his results with criticism by his foes.
Even this usually fails to reach common ground.

 

[David1967]

Additionally, when I do see studies cited, they're presented in isolation....as though they make the argument by themselves.
Typically, studies must be examined to see what scenarios they cover, & then there's interpretation of the findings.
After this, they must be part of an argument about applicability & meaning in the real world.
Often, when I've cited Kleck's work, I'll temper his results with criticism by his foes.
Even this usually fails to reach common ground.

Sounds like an honest and informative approach. No wonder it "usually fails to reach common ground. "

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I did not say that guns are never used successfully for self-defence. I said the majority of cases, guns either do nothing nor make things worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/guns-self-defense-study_n_7608350.html?section=australia


http://theweek.com/articles/585837/truth-about-guns-selfdefense


Again, the idea that firearms make you safer is pure fantasy. In fact, you're far more likely to end up accidentally shooting yourself or a family member than you are a criminal intending you harm.

And as for opposing the government, I shouldn't have to point out how silly such a notion is. Your typical civilian militia would be a nuisance at best. This isn't the eighteenth century. (Where such a thing was plausible)

Accidents do happen but not everyone who has them ends up hurting innocents. Guns have not only helped stopped criminals but also wild animals as well as corrupt governments. Revolutions have happened you know, and some governments were overthrown. I think people should be trained in gun safety and how to use it properly but I am not likely to hurt someone I care about or myself. I have a better chance falling down the stairs than I do shooting myself.

IF you take anyone here and plop them in the middle of a crime ridden ghetto, I can PROMISE you, they are going to feel safer if they have a gun. They will encounter criminals but they will survive a lot longer if they have something to protect themselves with.

Most people however are not criminals. That's what makes gun laws so dumb. They limit the innocent and only give criminals the advantage. Listen, criminals are going to get guns anyway, you should at least let the innocent have some to protect themselves.

Corrupt governments are trying to rule, not to destroy. They make examples, blow up a couple things but they are extremely afraid of an armed population. Why do you think so many of them tried to take the guns away from them? For fun? They did it because they'd have a much harder time fighting off a population that outnumbers them and is armed to the teeth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's stupefying that people believe that having a gun guarantees you'll be able to defend yourself. Being caught off guard, being beaten on a draw, even a knife attack can render a gun defense useless. And there is always the possibility of your own gun being turned against you. If you think guns will always save the day and you'll always be able to defend yourself, you haven't thought things through enough. Perhaps people should read In Cold Blood if they think guns guarantee their safety.

IF you have a corrupt culture it doesn't matter if they are not allowed guns. Criminals still find it. If gun bans actually work, we wouldn't see criminals with guns, yet they have them anyway.

Japan has effectively banned guns, they are very rare, and if you aren't supposed to have one it's extremely difficult to get them.

Actually it would help. There's a reason why many corrupt governments called for gun control. And it was to control the population. It's much easier to run them over with your military if they are disarmed. They thought it was important. Otherwise they wouldn't have called for it.

And yet you see a number of countries with no guns or very strict gun laws and you don't see their governments trying to run them over.

If you know anything about muggers, you know they are bullies, and what are bullies? They are cowards. They rely on fear and intimidation. Once you stand up to them they end up becoming push overs even when they have the victim outnumbered and outgunned.

That is not a wise assumption to make. You should not assume a mugger is a coward and a push over, but that they are dangerous, because they may actually pose a grave danger to your life and well-being. If you stand up to them, you must be willing to attack, because many of them will shoot first if you hesitate at all. Though if you're being robbed the statistics are likely they aren't going to harm you and they will flee at the first sign of trouble, it is never the less a potentially fatal mistake to assume that is what will happen.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

It's stupefying that people believe that having a gun guarantees you'll be able to defend yourself. Being caught off guard, being beaten on a draw, even a knife attack can render a gun defense useless. And there is always the possibility of your own gun being turned against you. If you think guns will always save the day and you'll always be able to defend yourself, you haven't thought things through enough. Perhaps people should read In Cold Blood if they think guns guarantee their safety.

Japan has effectively banned guns, they are very rare, and if you aren't supposed to have one it's extremely difficult to get them.

And yet you see a number of countries with no guns or very strict gun laws and you don't see their governments trying to run them over.

That is not a wise assumption to make. You should not assume a mugger is a coward and a push over, but that they are dangerous, because they may actually pose a grave danger to your life and well-being. If you stand up to them, you must be willing to attack, because many of them will shoot first if you hesitate at all. Though if you're being robbed the statistics are likely they aren't going to harm you and they will flee at the first sign of trouble, it is never the less a potentially fatal mistake to assume that is what will happen.

Believe just because they haven't run them over yet, doesn't make them any less corrupt. That's an old trick government would like to play. Where they limit your freedoms and people eventually get used to the idea, and then when a crisis happens, what happens? They start martial law, make up excuses as to why they had to do it then start rounding people up. Then they make examples of people and scare everyone into submission.

They are cowards by doing what they do. Are you telling me it's not cowardly for them to sneak up and attack someone who is unarmed and defenseless while you are armed? Only cowards do that. And yeah, a lot of them end up being push overs. Because they are interested in getting what they want and saving their skin. They rely so much on fear and intimidation that when someone stands up to them, they usually back off. I have seen this, even personally. And also if you're in a certain neighborhood in the ghetto, you're going to wish you had a gun.

Guns are dangerous and can kill you or others if you're not trained well enough. Doesn't mean you have to be a master marksman to handle it, just need to know the basic safety instructions. But hey, I'll take the chance. Try facing armed criminals and corrupt soldiers with your bare hands. Not going to be easy.

 

[Glaurung]

Accidents do happen but not everyone who has them ends up hurting innocents. Guns have not only helped stopped criminals but also wild animals as well as corrupt governments.

I'm not saying everyone has accidents. I'm saying an accident is far more likely than the 0.1% occurrence of successful of self-defence in the case of a property crime.

Revolutions have happened you know, and some governments were overthrown.

We live in the world of professional standing armies, smart missiles and drones. If some dystopian, authoritarian regime were to take control of the US, what do you think you're going to accomplish with your gun? Not that such a thing is at all likely anyway. Most of the civilised world has not fallen into autocratic regimes because of gun control. As an Australian, my chance of being shot is infinitesimal, because we're not dumb enough to let anyone with a cowboy fantasy roam the streets armed. Have you stopped to wonder why mass shootings are almost unheard of anywhere else in the industrialised world but the US?

I think people should be trained in gun safety and how to use it properly but I am not likely to hurt someone I care about or myself. I have a better chance falling down the stairs than I do shooting myself.

No one is saying that possessing a gun will result in tragedy, just that you are more likely to either die by your own weapon, or accidentally kill a family member than you are a criminal. It's pure sophism to deny otherwise, because that is what the hard numbers show. So the claim that it's about self-protection just isn't rational. If it were really about self-protection, then you wouldn't keep around a weapon that increases your own homicide chance by 90%.

IF you take anyone here and plop them in the middle of a crime ridden ghetto, I can PROMISE you, they are going to feel safer if they have a gun.

Your promises don't mean all that much, because they're not based on reality. For one, I wouldn't hang around crime ridden ghettos. And if someone were to try to rob me, I would just hand over my valuables rather than risk antagonising my attacker making things potentially much worse. Even if I were sure I could take my attacker on, a phone and a bit of cash are never worth a violent situation. I can guarantee you that wits are a far better way to protect yourself than carrying a gun.

Most people however are not criminals. That's what makes gun laws so dumb

It's not about what most people do. It's the fact that in the US it's far too easy for any malcontent to amass enough firepower to kill scores of people with ease. There is no good reason for it but to placate the masturbatory fantasies of the gun lobby and its sympathisers.

They limit the innocent and only give criminals the advantage. Listen, criminals are going to get guns anyway, you should at least let the innocent have some to protect themselves.

But we've been through this, guns fail abysmally at protecting innocents in the vast majority of cases. Armed civilians did nothing to stop the Umpqua shooting.

Student and Air Force vet John Parker Jr. was legally armed and ready for action when shooter Chris Harper-Mercer went on a rampage and killed nine people at Oregon's Umpqua Community College in early October. But Parker and several other veterans on campus resisted the urge to enter the fray, fearing police would mistake them for additional shooters.

Further, where I live it's rare for even criminals to have guns. Yeah, knife crime may go up, but I'll take my chances with that guy than the one with the glock.

Corrupt governments are trying to rule, not to destroy. They make examples, blow up a couple things but they are extremely afraid of an armed population.

Seriously, stop it.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I agree. And as a police officer I have some experience behind my opinion.

Thank you. It is up to us now, civilians, police officers ect. to keep a good lookout as criminals can strike in many forms. An armed population in addition to good police can help diminish the crime population.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Believe just because they haven't run them over yet, doesn't make them any less corrupt. That's an old trick government would like to play. Where they limit your freedoms and people eventually get used to the idea, and then when a crisis happens, what happens? They start martial law, make up excuses as to why they had to do it then start rounding people up. Then they make examples of people and scare everyone into submission.

But there are no signs of this happening. However, in America we have tons of guns but we are increasingly loosing our rights, the police are becoming increasingly militarized, and government corruption runs amok.

They are cowards by doing what they do. Are you telling me it's not cowardly for them to sneak up and attack someone who is unarmed and defenseless while you are armed? Only cowards do that. And yeah, a lot of them end up being push overs. Because they are interested in getting what they want and saving their skin. They rely so much on fear and intimidation that when someone stands up to them, they usually back off. I have seen this, even personally. And also if you're in a certain neighborhood in the ghetto, you're going to wish you had a gun.

Again, that is an unwise assumption to make. I agree it's statistically likely to happen, but even still it is a potentially fatal assumption to make. It's also possibly that you may just anger someone who is methed out and dangerous. Though unlikely, they may be severely mentally ill and not have any grasp on reality. You just cannot assume the person will scare easily if you are going to stand up to them.

Try facing armed criminals and corrupt soldiers with your bare hands. Not going to be easy.

Actually, once I have faced the armed criminals (gang members, actually, a few friends and I were jumped by a group of them) once, with my bare hands, and they were beat down pretty badly. But, our advantage was we had some training and practice in combat whereas they were a group of punks. It could have easily ended differently though, had they not been a group of untrained wild-swinging hooligans.

An armed population in addition to good police can help diminish the crime population.

That claim of an armed populace and lower crime doesn't make any since. America has a ton of guns, and many crime problems. Japan has very few guns and very little crime. Canada and the Nordic countries do not have as many guns as America, but they have far less crime.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I'm not saying everyone has accidents. I'm saying an accident is far more likely than the 0.1% occurrence of successful of self-defence in the case of a property crime.


We live in the world of professional standing armies, smart missiles and drones. If some dystopian, authoritarian regime were to take control of the US, what do you think you're going to accomplish with your gun? Not that such a thing is at all likely anyway. Most of the civilised world has not fallen into autocratic regimes because of gun control. As an Australian, my chance of being shot is infinitesimal, because we're not dumb enough to let anyone with a cowboy fantasy roam the streets armed. Have you stopped to wonder why mass shootings are almost unheard of anywhere else in the industrialised world but the US?


No one is saying that possessing a gun will result in tragedy, just that you are more likely to either die by your own weapon, or accidentally kill a family member than you are a criminal. It's pure sophism to deny otherwise, because that is what the hard numbers show. So the claim that it's about self-protection just isn't rational. If it were really about self-protection, then you wouldn't keep around a weapon that increases your own homicide chance by 90%.


Your promises don't mean all that much, because they're not based on reality. For one, I wouldn't hang around crime ridden ghettos. And if someone were to try to rob me, I would just hand over my valuables rather than risk antagonising my attacker making things potentially much worse. Even if I were sure I could take my attacker on, a phone and a bit of cash are never worth a violent situation. I can guarantee you that wits are a far better way to protect yourself than carrying a gun.


It's not about what most people do. It's the fact that in the US it's far too easy for any malcontent to amass enough firepower to kill scores of people with ease. There is no good reason for it but to placate the masturbatory fantasies of the gun lobby and its sympathisers.


But we've been through this, guns fail abysmally at protecting innocents in the vast majority of cases. Armed civilians did nothing to stop the Umpqua shooting.


Further, where I live it's rare for even criminals to have guns. Yeah, knife crime may go up, but I'll take my chances with that guy than the one with the glock.


Seriously, stop it.

What do you do? You give up your valuables despite that a criminal threatened your life? Who knows, maybe he was going to harm you anyway even after taking your stuff. Some are just sadists as opposed to just thieves.

You wouldn't normally hang around ghettos but if you were around one or near one, you're going to wish you had something to protect yourself with. It is natural for a human to have the ability to defend themselves and it is their right to defend themselves against any harmful entity, be in crook, crooked cop, drug lord, corrupt politicians, ect.

Also look at it this way. Assuming the crook doesn't harm you and just takes your stuff, what is he going to do next? He's going to do the same thing, possibly hurt someone else. Those are lives you could have helped if you stopped that crook instead of letting him traumatize and harm more people before he gets caught. I know there's a risk taking him on, and I don't care. Life is full of risks and I never give a criminal what they want. I can make a difference by standing up for myself and stopping those who would harm others. We all can, if we do our part. A criminal likes to prey on the weak. Show them you're not.

And no, I won't stop it.

 

[Glaurung]

What do you do? You give up your valuables despite that a criminal threatened your life? Who knows, maybe he was going to harm you anyway even after taking your stuff. Some are just sadists as opposed to just thieves.

You're really clasping at straws here. Sure I may be unfortunate enough to come across someone who intends to just shoot me anyway regardless of my cooperation. But in either case he has the drop so how again would my being armed change that at all? Far more likely, is that once my robber has taken my valuables he will leave. Which is better than risking a violent confrontation in which there is no assurance of coming out on top. And over what? $50 dollars and a bruised ego? Is that really worth risking my life over?

Secondly, as a Christian I believe personal violence should be avoided. I'm not a pacifist, but if I have a reasonable means of avoiding violence then I feel morally obligated to do so. Keeping my easily replaced, ageing smart-phone isn't a just cause for violence.

You wouldn't normally hang around ghettos but if you were around one or near one, you're going to wish you had something to protect yourself with.

For goodness sake man. Do you believe that a potential attacker is going to slap you with a glove and challenge you to fair combat? No, they're going to corner you with weapons already drawn ready to gun you down at the slightest hint of resistance. Guns strongly favour the attacker for obvious reasons. And most of the time the attacker is going to be the criminal.

Also look at it this way. Assuming the crook doesn't harm you and just takes your stuff, what is he going to do next? He's going to do the same thing, possibly hurt someone else. Those are lives you could have helped if you stopped that crook instead of letting him traumatize and harm more people before he gets caught. I know there's a risk taking him on, and I don't care. Life is full of risks and I never give a criminal what they want. I can make a difference by standing up for myself and stopping those who would harm others.

Three possibilities.
The criminal sees that you're armed and attacks someone else. Changing nothing.
You confront the criminal, and he shoots you. He takes your stuff and nothing changes. Except that now you're a crime statistic.
You shoot the criminal, now having blood on your hands over petty valuables. You also have years of potential legal problems even if you are eventually acquitted of any wrong doing.

You're stretching to make this some big moral issue, but it's really not convincing. If you really care about reducing crime, then support education. Support access to social services, greater income equality and entry level jobs that actually pay a living wage. Few criminals are evil (yes, there are murderous sociopaths out there but they are rare) crime for the most part is fed by social and economic despair. Guns do nothing whatsoever to address that.

And no, I won't stop it.

I would actually respect gun supporters a whole lot more if they were just honest about it. "We like guns because they make us feel tough, and that feeling is worth all the social consequences of easy availability." While I think that's despicable, at least it's honest. The view that having guns is going to allow you to stand up to drug cartels, crooked cops and corrupt dystopian governments is not something anyone halfway functional can take seriously. That's why you need to stop making the argument.

 

[bobhikes]

so you do see the problem.....
disarming is the solution?.....I think not
disarming gives the advantage to those who won't disarm.

I'll give up my gun when my fellow man becomes sane.

wait for it......

Except I'm not asking you to disarm. I'm asking for the ability to keep people safe by limiting where and when people can bring guns.

 

[Thief]

Except I'm not asking you to disarm. I'm asking for the ability to keep people safe by limiting where and when people can bring guns.

they do that here in the state where I live.

you can have a permit to carry.....pass the test and pay a large fee

you may then carry the gun to your car...where you are suppose to unload it and lock it down.
if you leave your vehicle with your firearm.....where will you go with it?
no where

there are little ban stickers everywhere

 

[metis]

Sweden has far fewer guns than Finland for historical reasons, yet their gun violence is much higher. Here police usually don't fire guns at suspects, maybe a handful less than ten times a year. In Sweden the amount is closer to a hundred.

I'm not certain your stats are correct on this, so please check this out: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Finland/Sweden/Crime

 

[metis]

And people with a strong opinion of a controversial subject such as this tend to cite statistics that favor their cause.

Which is why I only used international stats that are generally recognized as being objective. If you have alternative stats that indicate that what I've used are wrong, then please post them.

 

[Jumi]

I'm not certain your stats are correct on this, so please check this out: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Finland/Sweden/Crime

I checked it out, there was nothing about police use of firearms there. I had a graph on this that I'm not finding at the moment, but you'll see firearms are a bigger problem in Sweden than in Finland (or Norway):

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_police_fired_a_gun_only_six_times_in_2013/7701005

In Sweden:

1995: 1 dödad av polisens skott
1996: 0
1997: 0
1998: 1
1999: 3
2000: 2
2001: 1
2002: 1
2003: 1 (17 avlossade skott varav 7 varningsskott och 10 verkanseld)
2004: 1 (28-14-14)
2005: 1 (18-9-9)
2006: 1 (11-3-8)
2007: 0 (22-12-10)
2008: 0 (36-16-20)
2009: 1 (24-11-13)
2010: 0 (22-7-15)
2011: 1 (62-32-30)
2012: 0 (37-15-22)
2013: 4 (17-8-9 till och med den 15 augusti 2013)

Källa: Rikspolisstyrelsen

Firearms are a bigger problem in Sweden while their number of firearms are much lower. It's nothing comparable to US though.