Guns used for lawful self defense

[Blind groper]

Non-US societies don't have to deal with the same dangers inherent in US society, though.

Wrong.

Criminals are ubiquitous. Every country has its share. Including violent criminals.
Here in NZ, we have gangs of people who sell drugs and are violent towards each other and towards non criminals. Carrying hand guns, though, is not the answer. Making hand guns available to law abiding people simply makes them just as available to criminals, and guess who has the greatest desire to own them and use them!

In the USA, which is the only western country where hand guns are easy to obtain, 8,000 homicides and 12,000 suicides happen each year (20,000 unnecessary deaths) due to hand guns. In every other western nation, deaths due to hand guns are very few and far between. It is no coincidence that America has twice to five times the murder rate compared to any other western nation.

[FBM]

Non-US societies don't have to deal with the same dangers inherent in US society, though.

Wrong.

Criminals are ubiquitous. Every country has its share. Including violent criminals.
Here in NZ, we have gangs of people who sell drugs and are violent towards each other and towards non criminals. Carrying hand guns, though, is not the answer. Making hand guns available to law abiding people simply makes them just as available to criminals, and guess who has the greatest desire to own them and use them!

In the USA, which is the only western country where hand guns are easy to obtain, 8,000 homicides and 12,000 suicides happen each year (20,000 unnecessary deaths) due to hand guns. In every other western nation, deaths due to hand guns are very few and far between. It is no coincidence that America has twice to five times the murder rate compared to any other western nation.

Compared to the US, very few of your criminals already have guns. Not a fair comparison. The societies aren't comparable in that respect.

[Blind groper]

Compared to the US, very few of your criminals already have guns. Not a fair comparison. The societies aren't comparable in that respect.

Very true.

But did you bother asking yourself why very few of our criminals have guns?

For a start, carrying rifles is too obvious. And hand guns are banned. Guess why very few of our criminals carry guns, and hence why our murder rate is 0.9 killings per 100,000 people per year compared to 4.2 for the USA.

[FBM]

Compared to the US, very few of your criminals already have guns. Not a fair comparison. The societies aren't comparable in that respect.

Very true.

But did you bother asking yourself why very few of our criminals have guns?

For a start, carrying rifles is too obvious. And hand guns are banned. Guess why very few of our criminals carry guns, and hence why our murder rate is 0.9 killings per 100,000 people per year compared to 4.2 for the USA.

Well, if you can show me how to go back in time and prevent the US population from being saturated with firearms practically since its foundation, I'll gladly work on it. Like I said before, we inherited this unique situation, but blaming history isn't going to be a very practical solution. Neither will simply outlawing handguns. There's a truth in the bumper sticker slogan that reads: If you outlaw handguns, only outlaws will have handguns. I'd rather have the good guys have guns to defend themselves than have them become sitting ducks for a well-armed outlaw population. And once the pickings become easy, I'll bet the number of outlaws with guns will soar. If they gave a shit about the law in the first place, they wouldn't be outlaws.

[Blind groper]

Well, if you can show me how to go back in time and prevent the US population from being saturated with firearms practically since its foundation, I'll gladly work on it

Not necessary.

The USA can take a tip from Switzerland. Among western nations, and after the US, the Swiss have the biggest percentage of its population that own guns. Yet their murder rate (0.7) is a small fraction of that in America, and hand gun murders almost never happen.

Why?
The Swiss have a total ban on anyone, except police and a few security people, carrying hand guns in public.
The first step to the USA reducing hand gun murders is to do the same. When it is a prison offence to have a hand gun on your person in public, this practice will quickly become unpopular. The murder rate will fall in proportion to the reducing numbers of people carrying hand guns.

The restrictions on ownership of hand guns would be something to follow up with. If you cannot carry a hand gun in public, then the perceived need for one for self defense disappears, since a rifle or shotgun at home is a much better self defense weapon.

Jim and I have talked of American gun culture being insane. Just as an example : in 2011, the entire nation of Germany and its entire police force, used just 85 bullets fired at criminals.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... -2011?lite
In the same year, in Los Angeles, in one incident, police fired 90 bullets at a single unarmed man. Is that insane or what?

The Iraq war shocked Americans with its toll on its soldiers. 4,400 soldiers killed. The same number die in civilian gun shot incidents every 7 weeks back in good ol' mainland USA! And yet we have people arguing here that widespread gun ownership and use is a good thing. Sheesh!

[FBM]

Well, if you can show me how to go back in time and prevent the US population from being saturated with firearms practically since its foundation, I'll gladly work on it

Not necessary.

The USA can take a tip from Switzerland. Among western nations, and after the US, the Swiss have the biggest percentage of its population that own guns. Yet their murder rate (0.7) is a small fraction of that in America, and hand gun murders almost never happen.

Why?
The Swiss have a total ban on anyone, except police and a few security people, carrying hand guns in public.
The first step to the USA reducing hand gun murders is to do the same. When it is a prison offence to have a hand gun on your person in public, this practice will quickly become unpopular. The murder rate will fall in proportion to the reducing numbers of people carrying hand guns.

The restrictions on ownership of hand guns would be something to follow up with. If you cannot carry a hand gun in public, then the perceived need for one for self defense disappears, since a rifle or shotgun at home is a much better self defense weapon.

Sounds like a false cause fallacy coupled with a false analogy fallacy.

The Swiss have a lower overall crime rate compared to the US, and the lower homocide rate is simply one aspect of that. To say that the low homicide rate is a result of their restrictions on carrying a handgun is jumping to a conclusion that you should first justify with legitimate premises. What was the homocide rate before the restriction? Was there a steep drop in hangun murders after the imposition of that restriction? We need to see a direct cause-and-effect correlation in order to accept your claim.

Even if it were so, the Swiss population =/= the US population, because they have very distinct cultural histories and live in very distinct social environments in the present. Again, the US criminals already have practically free and unfettered access to firearms simply because the country is already saturated with unregistered weapons, and the criminals don't give a shit about the law in the first place. Bank robbery is illegal, but we still have bank robbers.

Should all handguns be outlawed everywhere in the US today, the police would only be able to disarm the people who have registered weapons; ie, those who are law-abiding in the first place. A moratorium on the manufacture and import of handguns? No problem for the criminals. There are plenty of ready-and-willing suppliers across the border who would drool at the opportunity to sell illicit handguns to US criminals.

Sorry, man, but the genie is out of the bottle over here. There is simply no practical way to put it back in. We stand a lot more chance of enforcing regulations that the public would accept than outright prohibition, which would result in quite a few gun battles itself. Increasing penalties for illegal firearm ownership and especially for using them in a crime, is reasonable. Disarming the law-abiding public so that they cannot protect themselves from the ubiquitous, gun-toting criminals isn't going to work in the US. I'm not even sure it has worked elsewhere, as I have yet to see conclusive, cause-and-effect data on it. If I see it, I'll agree that it worked in that country, that environment, but that still doesn't mean that it would work in the US, which has a unique cultural history as well as current social environment.

[Blind groper]

The Swiss have a lower overall crime rate compared to the US, and the lower homocide rate is simply one aspect of that.

Not correct.
I looked up crime rates a while back, and calculated crime rate per capita. Surprisingly, the crime rate for the USA and for Switzerland, both, is 0.04 crimes per person per year (excluding traffic offenses). Of course, it is difficult to compare crime rates across nations, since definitions of what constitutes a crime do vary. But it appears that the US and Switzerland are not much different.

On the claim that it is impossible to restrain hand gun homicide, I have to disagree. If carrying a hand gun is illegal for everyone, then the police will have another tool for controlling criminals and drug dealers and criminal gangs. Once they drive the point home by arresting a number of criminals who carry guns, the number carrying will drop.

Let me repeat. 50% of all homicides in the USA are by hand guns. I am happy to accept that this is criminals, not law abiding citizens. But you cannot have laws that apply only to one group. They have to apply to everyone. The death toll from hand gun homicide (and suicide) will drop as soon as the number of hand guns in use fall.

[FBM]

...The death toll from hand gun homicide (and suicide) will drop as soon as the number of hand guns in use fall.

And your evidence for this claim is?

Edit:

http://www.tourismandaviation.com/653-c ... untry.html

Crime Statistics > Total crimes (per capita) (most recent) by country

For those wants to check the safety and security of a country before you go. Here is the list ……..
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
...
# 20 Switzerland: 36.1864 per 1,000 people

[Blind groper]

Evidence
Out of 20 odd advanced western nations, only the USA has hand guns freely available, and only the USA has large numbers of hand gun homicides. I would think it is rather obvious that fewer hand guns means fewer hand gun homicides. Especially in the hands of criminals.

[FBM]

Evidence
Out of 20 odd advanced western nations, only the USA has hand guns freely available, and only the USA has large numbers of hand gun homicides. I would think it is rather obvious that fewer hand guns means fewer hand gun homicides. Especially in the hands of criminals.

"I would think it is rather obvious" =/= evidence, nor do the facts establish a 1:1 cause-and-effect relationship. Also, see my edit of my previous post. You will see some error in the "data" you presented earlier. I'm beginning to suspect that I may be able to find others.

[Blind groper]

You will see some error in the "data" you presented earlier. I'm beginning to suspect that I may be able to find others.

As I pointed out before, crime rate estimates vary according to what definitions you use. I do not dispute the numbers you posted, but the data I put up was from equally valid statistics. Just that definitions vary. Makes this kind of discussion difficult.

However, let me use your data.
You show NZ at 105 and USA at 80 crimes per 1, 000 people. If NZ has a higher crime rate, then why is it, we have a much, much lower homicide rate, if gun ownership is not the cause? 0.9 vs 4.2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

Actually, I can use your figures for Switzerland to make the same point. Switzerland has (by your figures) 45% of the crimes, but 17% of the homicides per capita. If not due to difference in gun ownership, why the disparity?

[Robert_S]

Come within 20 feet of me while threatening me with a knife and you'll get no warning at all before I shoot you dead.

Above is a good example of the sickness of loving guns. It is ultimately all about power.

Damned right it's about power. It's about my power to defend myself against violent armed criminal aggression and come out the winner. That's my right.

"Don't threaten me!'
"You're power hungry"

[FBM]

You will see some error in the "data" you presented earlier. I'm beginning to suspect that I may be able to find others.

As I pointed out before, crime rate estimates vary according to what definitions you use. I do not dispute the numbers you posted, but the data I put up was from equally valid statistics. Just that definitions vary. Makes this kind of discussion difficult.

However, let me use your data.
You show NZ at 105 and USA at 80 crimes per 1, 000 people. If NZ has a higher crime rate, then why is it, we have a much, much lower homicide rate, if gun ownership is not the cause? 0.9 vs 4.2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

Actually, I can use your figures for Switzerland to make the same point. Switzerland has (by your figures) 45% of the crimes, but 17% of the homicides per capita. If not due to difference in gun ownership, why the disparity?

Yes, figures can be manipulated in a number of ways. What I want to see is something conclusive that there is an indisputable 1:1 relationship between strict handgun restrictions and the homicide rates, as well as overwhelming data that support that such prohibition would work in the US. Until that is available, it's a huge speculation that what applies to Switzerland or other countries would apply equally well in the US. If, indeed, that is, that the legislation is the cause of the lower homicide rates in Switzerland in the first place, which has yet to be established.

[JimC]

FBM wrote:

Sorry, man, but the genie is out of the bottle over here. There is simply no practical way to put it back in. We stand a lot more chance of enforcing regulations that the public would accept than outright prohibition, which would result in quite a few gun battles itself. Increasing penalties for illegal firearm ownership and especially for using them in a crime, is reasonable. Disarming the law-abiding public so that they cannot protect themselves from the ubiquitous, gun-toting criminals isn't going to work in the US. I'm not even sure it has worked elsewhere, as I have yet to see conclusive, cause-and-effect data on it. If I see it, I'll agree that it worked in that country, that environment, but that still doesn't mean that it would work in the US, which has a unique cultural history as well as current social environment.

I think this is a fair summary, unfortunately...

It's a "you can't get there from here" situation. I see little point in gun control advocates in the US suggesting anything other than an attempt to more rigorously perform mental health checks before guns can be purchased...

[FBM]

FBM wrote:

Sorry, man, but the genie is out of the bottle over here. There is simply no practical way to put it back in. We stand a lot more chance of enforcing regulations that the public would accept than outright prohibition, which would result in quite a few gun battles itself. Increasing penalties for illegal firearm ownership and especially for using them in a crime, is reasonable. Disarming the law-abiding public so that they cannot protect themselves from the ubiquitous, gun-toting criminals isn't going to work in the US. I'm not even sure it has worked elsewhere, as I have yet to see conclusive, cause-and-effect data on it. If I see it, I'll agree that it worked in that country, that environment, but that still doesn't mean that it would work in the US, which has a unique cultural history as well as current social environment.

I think this is a fair summary, unfortunately...

It's a "you can't get there from here" situation. I see little point in gun control advocates in the US suggesting anything other than an attempt to more rigorously perform mental health checks before guns can be purchased...

Which is precisely what I suggested in another thread, but got shit-stormed by the other extreme of the spectrum.