Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun violence worries poll respondents
Two-thirds are “very concerned” about the scope of gun violence in America, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released today.
The poll, taken before and after the Aug. 24 Empire State Building shooting, found that 65 percent of voters think gun control is more important than protecting gun owner rights.
http://www.politickernj.com/59539/gun-violence-worries-poll-respondents#ixzz26FrRiFYw
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)When I lived there I found that gun ownership was generally demonized or denigrated in the more populated suburbs of NYC and Philly.
Not so much in West Milford though.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's the paradox of the "gun rights" argument. The purpose of easy access to guns is that supposedly it allows people to protect themselves from criminals. But there is ample evidence to show that the net effect is the opposite -- more violence and more homicide.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Most of America is quite safe with the exception of some urban areas that are overrun with gangs battling each other for their share of the drug trade. If drugs were legalized tomorrow, the homicide rate would start to drop significantly.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But, if you compare the US to the rest of the developed world, or if you examine the peer reviewed statistical studies that isolate the effect of gun ownership on homicide, you find consistently that gun availability significantly increases homicide rates.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)vying for a piece of the illicit drug trade and concentrated in the big urban centers. 99% of legal gun owners will never commit a gun crime.
So you assertion that gun availability significantly increases homicide rates is, technically correct, but the increase is in the criminal underworld, not the general, law abiding population.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not sure where you get your gang stats from, but the stats I've seen gangs account for around 15% of homicides. For example:
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems
I'm not sure if 99% of gun owners will never commit a crime, or where you got that number.
Of course, the percentage of gun owners that commit a crime is completely irrelevant. It's a great example of just picking a useless number for dramatic effect. What matters is that increased gun availability results in more innocent people getting shot and killed.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)There is no doubt that increased availability of firearms means that not only will good people be able to use them but bad people will, too.
This does not change the fact that the vast majority of people who own firearms, in excess of 97% - are not involved in firearm crimes every year. They can't be - there aren't enough firearm crimes to go around. That's not a number for dramatic effect, that is the truth.
Yes, with 200+ million firearms in circulation, bad people will do bad things with firearms. That's just the way it is when people have the freedom to own firearms.
Not sure where you get your gang stats from, but the stats I've seen gangs account for around 15% of homicides.
I don't believe that for an instant. What else but the drug trade would be causing urban areas to be the centers of violence?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Of course more gun availablity means more people get shot, but the ones getting shot are gang on gang, not the law abiding gun owners.
What is your experience with dealing with gang violence? Not meant as a call out, just asking.
Mine is almost 30 years as a cop, several of those working in the gang unit.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't mean to discount your experience, but the statistical evidence doesn't support what you are saying. I'm sure that, as a cop working in the gang unit, you saw a lot of gang violence. But surely you undertand that you didn't see everything, and that it is necessary to look at statistical evidence in a scientific way in order to reach valid conclusions.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Thanks. I'll look at the stats. but my experience tells me that lawful citizens aren't the ones shooting each other, it's the criminal element that are far and away the ones shooting each other.
Also, there is the domestic violence element but thats not a huge number, also suicides account for appox. 50% of killings, so, technically speaking, you're correct when you say that more availability of firearms results in more people being shot.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That's the paradox of the "gun rights" argument. The purpose of easy access to guns is that supposedly it allows people to protect themselves from criminals. But there is ample evidence to show that the net effect is the opposite -- more violence and more homicide.
The primary purpose of owning firearms is to preserve liberty, not safety.
The fact that they can also be used to protect safety is just a happy side-effect.
Even if firearms had a net effect of making us less safe most people would prefer to take their chances by having control over their own destiny. That is freedom.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The only plausible link to any fundamental right would be if guns actually allowed people to be safer, protecting their right to life. But overall, the net effect is the opposite.
Also, I don't know where you get the idea that "most people" would rather take their chances and live in a world rife with gun violence than life an a safer world with less guns.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I suggest you re-read the second amendment. Guns are the tools that allow the people to serve in militias to protect the security of free states.
The only plausible link to any fundamental right would be if guns actually allowed people to be safer, protecting their right to life. But overall, the net effect is the opposite.
Completely wrong. The objective of firearm ownership is not safety, it is the ability to engage in warfare if necessary. That is inherently unsafe. But freedom isn't free.
The purpose of life is not to seek safety at the expense of freedom. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would forsake essential liberty in an attempt to gain a little temporary safety are deserving of neither liberty nor safety."
I'd rather be free to protect myself, my family, and my property and suffer the inherent risk of owning a firearm than to give up that right and compromise on my ability to protect myself, my family, and my property.
Also, I don't know where you get the idea that "most people" would rather take their chances and live in a world rife with gun violence than life an a safer world with less guns.
Well, there are 40-80 million of us, anyway.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I too worry about our out of control and ill-trained cops.
We need to ramp up the selection and training process and hold them to higher standards while on duty.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but I take it upon myself to practice at least twice a month with my service weapon at my own expense. I also carry my own Colt AR-15 in the trunk of my patrol car and practice with it at my own expense when I shoot my service weapon.
I've also gone through the Front Sight combat tactical course at my own expense because I want to be well trained to handle situations that may arise, although I did get to write it off on my taxes along with the ammo I purchased on my own.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)
rDigital
(2,239 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Anyone that responds to the google dumps is automatically a stalker. I was the first to be given that label. That's the best response he/she's got if there is a response at all.
Hoplophobia sure produces some paranoid side effects. It's a serious condition that merits more research.
