Do you really believe?

[sabre73]

:shrug: I am just curious about what people actually believe and not what I THINK I've heard that people believe.

The topic I am wondering is this:

Do you truly believe that taking guns away from LEGAL gun owners will put a stop to violent crimes with firearms. Yes or No and Why.

It seems that there is an awful lot of "The Dems believe this" or "The Reps believe that" and I would like to hear the honest truth from those who care to share.

And please, Lets try and keep this thread as polite as possible.

[LaurenG]

1. No, I've never believed that

my ex was a cop and even he knew better than that. The people who want to do bad things will find a way to have guns, and anything else they need to help them do their bad things.

[Kutjara]

2. Well, the UK banned handguns about ten years ago...

...and gun crime has actually gone up in the intervening years (mostly the result of cheap imports of illegal weapons from Eastern Europe falling into the hands of drug gangs). What's more, knife crime has skyrocketed, as more people feel the need to carry some sort of weapon "for protection." These weapons are then readily to hand in situations that would formerly have been settled with a fistfight.

There's a complex dynamic at work, for sure, but it's clear that drawing a direct equation between banning guns and reducing crime is naive.

[sabre73]

3. Well put.

I have often read about the trends in Violent crimes in areas where guns were outlawed or unavailable and it seems to me that the stronger the ban is enforced the more likely the crime will be committed with a knife and in many cases that I have read, Swords.

The end result is usually an increase in such crimes and often an increase in fatalities.

[Kutjara]

4. Funny you should mention swords.

A dramatic increase in the use of "samurai swords" to commit violent crime has recently caused the UK government to ban them, too. Soon, I'm sure, they'll be banning kitchen utensils and anything vaguely pointy.

[sabre73]

5. Katanas seem to be the sword of choice

That is the number one sword sited in most of these cases.:wtf:

[Kutjara]

6. I guess the perps have been watching too much...

..."Highlander," "Blade," "Pulp Fiction," and "Kill Bill" and want to use a sword that makes them feel like a superhard "ninja." Pathetic.

[SteveM]

17. Soon they will be labeled "assault Katanas!"

[benEzra]

7. No, I do not believe that taking guns from the law-abiding would reduce criminal misuse...

any more than banning alcohol reduced alcohol abuse in the long run, or banning cannabinoids and opiates reduced the abuse thereof.

Targeting misuse and leaving responsible owners/users alone makes much more sense, IMHO.

BTW, I not only believe in responsible gun ownership, I practice it... :)

[sabre73]

14. Nice

I have never used the 9mm LS but it looks to be a decent piece!

Nice setup on the SKS..... Is that an EOTECH?

I strongly approve of your exceptional Photography skills!:yourock:

[benEzra]

16. Thanks!

The rifle is actually a SAR-1, a non-automatic civilian AK derivative. The sight is a Kobra, which is a Russian-made counterpart to the Eotech.

More photos here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x1177

[OffWithTheirHeads]

8. Well, making pot illegle sure stopped people from smoking it

didn't it?

[sabre73]

11. You know

I think you are on to something here!:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[RL3AO]

9. No. A society where only criminals and police have firearms is not one I want to be in.

[sabre73]

10. I Could not agree more.

And I am a cop!

I would say that most of us LEOs think the same way though our political supervisors (Chiefs etc) tend to proclaim the opposite.

[DavidMS]

12. I don't think there is much of a causation

Civilian (legal) gun ownership is influenced by crime rates but does not in and of itself cause crimes. I would suspect that if there was a positive or negative correlation, the NRA or HCI would actually have real academics and statisticians do defensible research on it. Right now as far as I know, no one has done the sort of defensible research to put this one to rest. Doubtless, Trained gun owners who are at greater risk of violent crime (people with an ex under a restraining order, some retail shop owners, etc) would individually benefit. Everyone else may or may not, I think its rather unlikely that I would be in such a situation.

[sabre73]

13. That is the kind of stuff I was hoping to read. Thank you.

Though gun ownership (legal) is certainly influenced by crime rates I would have to point out that for most of us it was not THE influence. A lot of us started as hunters and began shooting with our families at a young age and that lead us to become gun owners ourselves. (putting it as simply as possible) but there still is a LARGE number of legal owners that are influenced by violent crime rates that is TRUE.

However, the NRA could put forward such stats today put together by real academics and statisticians but then the evidence would most likely be viewed as biased and skewed. The stats exist and are readily available through many credible sources other than the internet (If it is on the net it must be true!) :sarcasm:

I am grateful for your input DavidMS and I wish you the best.

In closing I would like to say that I too was secure in the thought that I would not be put in the situation but I chose a path of caution all the same. As a direct result of that caution my family is alive and well because I was ready when it actually did occur. I hope and pray you never find yourself there as no one should ever have to go through that.

Thank you. :toast:

[mvccd1000]

15. Not to pick at you David...

... but I would guess the five women who walked into a Lane Bryant store the other day thought the same thing. (Again, not trying to start an argument, just pointing out that "unlikely" is not the same as "never.")

DavidMS wrote: "I think its rather unlikely that I would be in such a situation."

[SteveM]

18. If a dozen women had been there, statistically, one would have been armed.

[mvccd1000]

19. Even in Illinois? nt

[SteveM]

28. Ooops! Must have happened in the kingdom of Chicago.

[HiDemGunOwner]

20. I disagree....

There has been lots of research on the subject. Unfortunately any thing that seems to support gun rights seems to get buried by the MSM while any thing that supports gun control, no matter how flawed (Kellerman's study comes to mind) seem to be repeated often enough that the public takes the conclusions as truth. Some interesting studies that I read lately are from the 2001 Journal of Law and Economics. It devoted an entire issue to research related to the issues surrounding guns and crime. Here's the abstract from one of the articles on concealed carry and crime deterrent:

"An analysis of the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime requires particular distributional
and structural considerations. First, because of the count nature of crime
data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate
data, least-squares methods yield unreliable estimates. Second, use of a single dummy
variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right-to-carry laws is likely to
introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis. In this
paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic
effects of right-to-carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies. We find
that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and
that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers
of reported murders, rapes, and robberies."

Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLIV (October 2001)

[sabre73]

21. Great clipping

Case in point (again) Vermont! Friendliest state (they say) in the US and one of the safest to live in.

[HiDemGunOwner]

22. I recall you saying you taught Constitutional studies as part of your job.

If you are interested in scientific studies that are relevant to the gun-control issues, this publication, and this issue in particular, seems like a great one to review.

Aloha

[sabre73]

23. Great

I am a Law instructor and Firearms instructor for our Agency. Currently I am not teaching at the Academy but I will be going back here very soon. I have to get my field time in or I go stir crazy but then it is back off to teaching new cadets.

They too will benefit from articles like these

Thanks

[HiDemGunOwner]

24. There was one on the "Impact of Firearm Laws on Police Offer Deaths"

that I haven't had time to read yet, but the abstract is below. Let me know if you have difficulty getting it (assuming you want it...) and we'll see what we can do to get it to you. Be safe!

"This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws
and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed
weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement
officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects
this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons
had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher
police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states
exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower
rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower
felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding
citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may
help reduce their risk of being killed."

[jody]

25. Link please. n/t

[HiDemGunOwner]

33. See response to Saber below...let me know if you still want so we can work something out n/t

[sabre73]

26. I sure do want it. Thanks

:headbang:

[HiDemGunOwner]

27. Why don't you PM me

and I will try to get it to you that way. Can you attach a file to a PM on this forum? If not, I may need an e-mail address.

Jody...why don't you do the same. I can't give you a link because it's a pdf document in my files, not something off a webpage.

I am kinda new to the forums so this is just a suggestion...I am happy to consider something you feel would be easier.

[HiDemGunOwner]

29. Sorry...I guess I can't send PMs,

so I don't know if I can receive them either. Any suggestions about how to get you (and Jody) the article(s) are welcome.....

[sabre73]

30. I have been trying to figure it out myself

but if you can email it to me at [e-mail] I would be grateful!
this is an email account I set up just for such occasions!

[HiDemGunOwner]

31. Done...let me know if you don't get them. n/t

[sabre73]

39. Got them!

Sorry I have not been able to write but I have been away. I will let you know if there are any problems with the links when I have time to look at them but I must tend to my first priority (my wife and children) as I have been away for a week and I will be going back out for another week here soon.

Thanks again!

[AlinPA]

32. Is not clear to me who you think LEGAL gun owners are. I think there may be some people who for the

good of society should not have guns.

[Endangered Specie]

37. like who? and more importantly, how do you standardize the determination of

"some" people?

[EMdamascus]

34. Of course not!

I may be new here, but I have been lurking for a few years. One of the main reasons I joined was I am in total amazement of the amount of anti gun folks here. I have shouted at the screen too long. Why is it that certain members cannot listen to a rational argument with FACTS cited, and still hold to the anti gunner propaganda?

[Xenotime]

35. Yes. It will stop shootings in the home

[ac2007]

36. No, it won't

It might stop negligent discharges of guns previously owned by those who live there but it won't stop shootings in the home from criminals breaking in on the now-unarmed family or from police shooting the same in error.

Funny how gun control doesn't seem to have the desired effect of peace and safety now does it?

Eliminating legal gun ownership will do NOTHING to curb illegal uses of the same.

[sabre73]

38. Sorry all. Been away for Survival training!! And WTF?

GUNS CAUSE "SHOOTINGS IN THE HOME" just like pencils cause misspellings!

I am sorry but that is not an accurate statement by any means. Case in point, While I was away training there was a shooting in Illinois. ILLINOIS!!! In case you don't know, Illinois has very strict "gun control". People have been disarmed (even the Police when they are off duty can't carry their guns) and look what it DID NOT STOP!!!!!

I know that some will want to argue that this was a campus and not "home" so I will turn to an older piece of news from about two years ago in Texas.

a man was shot by two home invaders (who were illegal aliens from the Country of Mexico) when they broke into his house. He had no firearms himself ergo NO GUNS to even the odds. He was shot dead. Still a shooting in the home even though he had no guns. There should have been a shooting with the opposite result. Justice would be served to the two men though. They later broke into a home that they thought had no one at home. The were wrong. A NINE YEAR OLD GIRL had arrived home shortly before her parents got home from work and she was home alone when they broke in. Here is the difference. She was an accomplished trap and skeet shooter winning several awards for her age group and then some!! She new how to use a gun and WHEN to use a gun. She got her dads 12 gage shotgun and shot the intruders as they came up the stairs and headed for her room. Both men died. One was carrying the same gun used to kill their last victim.

Guns are used to save lives far more than they are used take them. And if you disagree then I will just have to say that I value the life of the 9 year old child over the two (deservedly dead) intruders one thousand times over each of them.

[dmallind]

40. Mostly not, but in some cases there is a point

All but the most irrational gun fan (and I'm a gun fan) would admit that there are SOME murders wher the absence of a gun would have meant absence of the murder. The "heat of the moment" arguments where a gun is present certainly have one more possibility where effective lethality can be introduced, and it's certainly possible that a person irrational enough to grab a gun and shoot might have been stopped or fought off if they had picked up a carving knife instead. But in turn we have the following problems left to consider.

Anyone irrational enough to shoot a family member in an argument must surely be irrational enough to stab them or hit them with heavy things instead, so it's not like there is total overlap between guns and deaths.

We have no way of knowing how many fatal shootings would not have been fatal stabbings or bludgeonings absent guns.

Even if we, as we rationally must and I already did, admit that the number is not zero, it has to be abalance against the number of deaths PREVENTED by guns in the home which would not have been prevented otherwise. Here, whether you admit it willingly or not, no rational gun control fan can say that number is zero.

So that argument comes down to which hypothetcial number you think is lower.