I would say youre used to weapons to such a degree that you cannot fancy a world without them. In fact since you were handling guns since you were 6, probably you cant. I dont mean to flame, but thats how it sounds to me. [/B][/QUOTE]
Your right, I cant, and I dont have to, its the joys of being an american citizen. And that does nothing to negate my opinion. Despite being surrounded by guns I have yet to commit a crime with one. And Ive also Id like to point out there are many regions on this planet with limited availibility of guns yet very high violent crime rates. The two in the US may corrleate, but correlation does NOT indicate causation!
You missed my point about the comments about how extrapolating generalities based on sweden for the need for self defense and other things is a faulty premis. Most of the world is NOT like sweden or many other european countries which, since the events of the previous centuries have become rather homogenious. With again docile populations, thats why crime in sweden and other european countries is the way that it is, not because of gun control.
my buddies that are still staunch nra activists are quick to point out that one of the first things Hitler did was force the populace to register their guns.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B] The two in the US may corrleate, but correlation does NOT indicate causation![/B][/QUOTE]
True, and of course, until anyone has conducted a study of it, it cannot be proven. Which is what someone should do..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]thats why crime in sweden and other european countries is the way that it is, not because of gun control. [/B][/QUOTE]
And how do you know that the populations of Sweden and other european countries are not docile because of gun control?
There have been some studies, for example, when Australia started the gun buyback program, the number of homicides fell from 99 in 1996 to 54 in 1998.
When the Firearms Amendment Act was approved in Britain, homicide rates fell from an average of 62 per year in 1994 to 1996 to 52 since then.
To jump back into the thread, you just pointed out the wonderfully bizzare joy of statistics.. In that they can be made to lie
There have been studies, trust me, Ive read them, this is what I studied in college.
The australian number you cited is interesting, because 1996 was a very bizzare year in that a special incident happend The port Aurthur mass murder which a mad man went on yes a shooting spree and killed 36 people. Secondly the data your citing indicates ONLY firearms homicides. The total number of homicides in Australia in 1996 was 348, The total number of homicides in Australia in 2000 was 346.
Murder in Australia peaked in 1998 at 386. the homicide rates post gun ban mirror those rates they had before 1996 and its rather unfortunate event.
There are plenty of reaserch out there showing there is no way to make any claim positive or negative about the impact of the gun ban.
As for the murder rate in England the statistics you quote are flat out wrong. The murder rate in England and wales has been rising since about 1995, even though gun murder rates have dropped , it shows that people are happy killing people with other means.
I suggest you check out the following link [url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf[/url]
Its the British Governments own data on crime upto 2000.
In contrast with the static Australian rates and increasing English rate, the US homicide rate has actually been dropping over the past 10 years.
Oh and to muddy the waters you have to consider how each nation counts "homicides"
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.
Self defense does figure in the US homicide rates as does cases where its deemed justifiable, as does cases that get reduced to man slaughter, or the offender is deamed mentaly incompetant for trial, they all end up in the stats.
Lastly, if you look at violent crime over all, muggings, assualts with force and rapes, you are less likely to be victimized by such crimes in the US then any other western nation save Japan. And Japan has severe under reporting issues.
[quote][i]originally posted by Tyvar:[/i[b]]As for the murder rate in England the statistics you quote are flat out wrong. The murder rate in England and wales has been rising since about 1995, even though gun murder rates have dropped , it shows that people are happy killing people with other means. [/b][/quote]
[quote]MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in the 1990's.
TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent(see Chapter 3)."[URL=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf](source- PDF file)[/URL] So when you take into account changes in recording crime, there was an actual decrease in the violent crime rate. Since 1997, the overall UK crime rate has fallen by 27%. Burglary has dropped 39%. Vehicle thefts have dropped 32%. Violent crime has declined 26%[URL=http://www.policesupers.com/scripts/currentnews.ASP?news_id=314](source)[/URL]. The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at [url]www.snopes.com,[/url] a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends."Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." [URL=http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm](source)[/URL] . Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback [URL=http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/hvr.html](source)[/URL] .[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) [URL=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084](source][/URL] and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide [URL=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/7/467](source)[/URL] . Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: Guns don't kill.
TRUTH:Guns make it easier to kill people. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun [URL=http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm](source)[/URL] . Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." [URL=http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf](source- PDF File)[/URL].[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US.
TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. According to the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey) guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year [URL=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr](source)[/URL]. The NCVS surveyed over 90,000 people. In contrast, Kleck only surveyed about 5,000 people. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the NCVS provides a more reliable estimate of the number of defensive gun uses in the US. An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using methods similiar to Kleck's, it could be concluded that nearly 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.
"Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias. Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. [34] One question asked: 'Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?' [Page 1438] Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, 'Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?' and 6% answered 'Yes.'By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists."[URL=http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm](source)[/URL][/quote]
[quote]MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.
TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000 [URL=http://www.mmvsgogr.ch/Others/Swiss_Transportation_Troops.htm](source][/URL] . There are about 3 million Swiss households [URL=http://www.statistik.admin.ch/stat_ch/ber01/eu0105.htm](source][/URL].400,000/3,000,000= 0.133. Therefore, there is a military assault rifle in about 13% of Swiss homes. Switzerland also has rather strict gun control laws.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: The handgun ban in Washington D.C. caused an increase in crime.
TRUTH: The handgun ban has prevented 47 deaths each year [URL=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/325/23/1615](source)[/URL] Gun control has saved lives.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.
TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other [URL=http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_traffic.ASP](source)[/URL] . So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH:Gun ownership is a protection against political tyranny.
TRUTH: Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime [URL=http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.htm](source)[/URL] .It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny. Gun control laws were enacted in Germany to disarm Hitler and those in the Nazi militia. In that case, gun control was a protection against political tyranny.
[/quote]
Ahh good you brought up the infamous british revision to their crime statisics.
Do you know how the british statiscs work? They use interviews as a basis for establishing a baseline metric for crime rates, and then mix this with the reported crime rate.
For discussions sake here is the current statsics from england
"There were 853 deaths initially recorded as homicide by the police in 2003/04.
• The 2003/04 figure was 18 per cent lower than that recorded in 2002/03. This represents 190
fewer homicides, but most of these can be accounted for by the inclusion of 172 Harold
Shipman murders in 2002/03. Although committed in previous years they came to light in the
official inquiry and were therefore recorded by Greater Manchester Police in 2002/03.
Excluding these offences, the fall was two per cent."
they had a 2 percent drop from the pervious year, we will need to wait and see if this trend continues, note the there were still more murders then in 2000.
5.7 SEXUAL OFFENCES
Sexual offences are significantly under-reported to the authorities. Police and government action
to support the victims of sexual assaults is likely to have increased the numbers of such incidents
reported to the police, and therefore recorded by them. The introduction of the NCRS in 2002 is
likely to have further increased the recording rate, and the implementation of the Sexual Offences
Act in May 2004 will have a further impact on the 2004/05 figures. Trends in the number of
recorded sexual offences are therefore unlikely to reflect real experience of such crimes.
• Within the 2003/04 total of 52,070 sexual offences, the police recorded 26,709 indecent
assaults on a female and 1,942 offences of gross indecency with a child.
• The number of recorded rapes was 13,247, 93 per cent of which were rapes of a female.
There were also 4,070 recorded indecent assaults on a male.
• The total number of recorded sexual offences rose by seven per cent in 2003/04, to account
for five per cent of total recorded violence and 0.9 per cent of all police recorded crime in
2003/04.
So we have a rise there.
If you go through the report and carefully pull out the actuall REPORTED crime rates as in those which police are called you would notice that still every year in england the police are called on to deal with more crime then the year piror. In fact a reading of it will introduce you to the wonderfull concept that this set of statistics about crime is actually at odds with the officaly recorded stats.
secondly they "reduced" crime by creating the catagory 8a offenses meaning "minor wounding" and dont count these as "violent" crimes. Where as in the US we would classify them at least as "assualts attempted"
The following link takes you to the recorded crime statistics for england since 1898, its a very interesting read.
Which for the Record is ALL the US Department of Justice uses, statistics compiled about the actual activities of all the police departments in the nation.
Last but not least the most recent reports show that firearms related crime is on the RISE.
1. The first myth actually reinforces the point I was making, in that the gun ban has shown no known impact on the crime rates in Australia. either way.
2. The New England Journal of medicine article needs to be gone through, I have, but to point out a few things, Male homicide rates and female homicide rates have some serious differences in them. In the US men are less likely to attempt homicide, but much more likley to succede in the attempt, with ANY means. Secondly males prefer to use hanguns for suicide for just that reason. IF you take this into account the deviation for hanguns and suicide isnt that extreme.
What really messes up international comparison is the US suicide rate is lower then the suicide rates most European nations, encluding those of England and France.
3rd point, those sources are highly biased, and contradict others Frankly other then the US no nation with a reliable reporting of statiscs and a high firearms ownership exists, save Israel. And they have other problems. Although Finland does come close by some metrics as does Norway. And as I will rebut in a moment, so does Switzerland.
4. read the Gary Kleck is a reputable scientist, give me some more time to dig up the literature, not just from him but those who oppose him, for the record that argument could be used to refute ANY statsical sampling including that used in the British crime report your other site cited. The Kleck report included MANY control questions to cut down false reporting and was actually a fairly detailed survey with cross questioning to establish validity of the position. However I do belive there is something to the critisms, Kleck has got to be overstating things.
5. The Swiss question is interesting, if you go to the Swiss defense forces you will find they claim 550,000 members of the militia system which brings it upto 18%
here is the jist of the current swiss law
On June 20, 1997, the Swiss Parliament adopted a federal law on arms, arms accessories and ammunition (Arms Act), which entered into force on January 1, 1999. As a general rule, the Arms Act requires a permit for each transaction involving weapons or relevant parts of weapons purchased from an authorized gun dealer's shop. Permits for purchasing weapons are issued by the competent authorities of the Cantons, which have to ensure that the necessary legal requirements are fully met. The selling party has to verify the absence of any legal obstacle on the buyer's side (18 years of age, absence of an apparent risk to the buyer or third persons, no entry in the Register of Convictions for Violent Crimes and Misdemeanors). Subsequent transfers either by sale or by another transaction among private individuals have to be documented through a written contract between those individuals themselves, which they have to keep for at least ten years. In addition, foreign nationals without a permanent residence permit in Switzerland need an authorization to purchase weapons or relevant parts of weapons from private dealers as well. Foreign nationals must obtain their permit from the competent authority of the Canton in which the purchase will take place. In order to obtain a permit, foreign nationals have to present an official certificate issued in their home country to prove that they are entitled to purchase a weapon or a relevant part of a weapon.
In addition to requiring the above-mentioned permit to purchase weapons, the Arms Act also requires a special certificate to bear arms in public. A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks. To obtain a permit to bear arms one also has to pass an examination on the correct handling of weapons as well as a test on legislation on the use of firearms. Permits are normally valid for a specific type of weapon and for the entire territory of Switzerland, but are limited to five years.
As you can see, not terribly restrictive, Ive seen UN figures that place the estimates of firearms in homes in Switzerland at as high as 35%
As for the rest of the stuff, its all fairly subjective hyperbole and can be fought over time and time again.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Ahh good you brought up the infamous british revision to their crime statisics.
Do you know how the british statiscs work? They use interviews as a basis for establishing a baseline metric for crime rates, and then mix this with the reported crime rate. [/B][/QUOTE]
Speaking as a former Sociology student, you shouldn't mix quantitative statistics (surveys/records) with qualitative data (individual interviews.)
The end result will inevitably be skewed and wholly inaccurate.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Reaver4k [/i]
[B]You have to Register your Car or Truck, Your Pets and a pile of the crap you own. So whats the big deal about Registering a Gun?? [/B][/QUOTE]
In the US you dont have to register your cats, just dogs, and that depends on the county you live in, some places you dont have to register them
And in the US you dont register alot of crap you own, just your car, plane, boat, cause they move around and stuff.
Next the registration issue is a prickly one for a simple reason, confescation can be conducted efficently if you have a registration system in place, without one any confescation method is going to miss tons of stuff.
This is probably more an american psychological issue here. The originating moment of the the American Revolution was an attempt by the british to sieze field artillery owned and operated by the Massachussets state assembly, and by owned and operated I mean unlike the national guard of today this gear was TOTTALY the massachusetts gear, its like the state police with howitzers. (Dont laugh, one of the sherifs departments down in Arizona owns a 155, and no I dont know why.)
If there was a basicly a formal understanding in any agreement towards registration that confiscation would mean a civil war, and everybody knew that was the stakes I think alot less people would be leary of it.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
This is about freedoms, not trying to sculpt a social order from the ground up. If I want to own a gun, use it responsibly, and not come after you and try to kill you, I have that right. You also have the right to not own a gun. If someone breaks into either of our homes, I have the right to defend myself and you have the right to try and rehabilitate him as he's coming at you with a gun. Or, if you've somehow pulled a coup and we're not allowed to have guns anymore, and [i]if[/i] that miraculously has stopped him from having a gun, then you'll have a few more seconds as he's coming at you with a knife. Or you may actually have less time if he's a stormtrooper with an assault rifle. But, you can at least die with the comfort that this scumbag still has a second chance at life and may yet turn his life around. Too bad you won't be around to see it, eh?
Some people use cars to run people over. I have an idea, how about we ban cars! Some people use beer to sleep with chicks who would otherwise think they were ugly. That violates the woman - let's ban beer! Some people use computers and the internet to steal your identity and after that all your hard earned money, how about we take them away too? Right-wing conspiracy theorists, hear me: [b] NO MORE INTERNET FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION! [/b]When it comes to the internet, carnivore, the Patriot Act, it's a slippery slope leading straight to tyranny, but when it's guns it's a measure for our own protection - why is that?
Gun control is something brought up after every major incident involving crazies and guns so that legislators can go home and say, "Look what I did! I made you safe. Now vote for me!" It's much easier to discuss than more relevant issues like the budget and Alaskan drilling. God forbid they stop filibustering judicial appointees.
So far I've managed to come up with three major categories on why someone killed another:
1) Premeditated intention
2) Accedent (Ignorance or fluke)
3) Sudden Emotion Burst (ie fear or panic)
A gun ban/control will not stop number one. If someone wants someone dead they will find a way. I would hypothosize this is independent with breaking into and robbing a house.
Number two can be best solved with a gun ban. If people don't have guns then accedents of ignorance or fluke can't happen. With education the ignorance factor can be reduced to minimal levels, but deaths by flukes can still happen.
The third is the most tricky and complex. This is where your robbers and product of drug addiction falls under. Will gun control or gun ban help reduce this factor? I do not know, this isn't my area of knowledge. I know large reforms at the societal level can knock big chunks off of this.
The next step is taking the pritty statistics and breaking them down into these three categories.
croxis, I'd like to see, out of pure interest, which category you would put this hypothetical situation under:
It's 10pm, I'm walking home. I happen to be passing through a dimly lit area, and suddenly I'm face to face with some monster on heroin withdrawals. He feverishly tells me to hand over my money or he'll kill me, I start backing away, but he launches at me. Long story short, we end up on the ground struggling, he pulls a knife and I crush his windpipe to stop the attack.
I've now taken a life. Was it premeditated? I don't think so. Was it an accident? No, I used lethal force with full understanding of the consequences to stop the attack. Was it a sudden emotional burst? I was afraid, yes. I did not panic. Was the fear for my life motivation for using lethal force? Definitely. Was it the fear itself that launched the counterattack that led to the death of the attacker? No, it was what I knew I had to do to survive. It wasn't entirely thought, and it wasn't entirely instinct either.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]So far I've managed to come up with three major categories on why someone killed another:
1) Premeditated intention
2) Accedent (Ignorance or fluke)
3) Sudden Emotion Burst (ie fear or panic)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually that is exactly the distinctions that are made in the US criminal justice system. There are three levels of manslaughter on which you may be tried:
Murder in the 1st degree: Premeditated murder -> The individual starts with the intent to end another person's life
Murder in the 2nd degree: Death caused by intentional harm done -> Individual did not have intent to kill, but but to do harm, but by those actions cause the death of another person
Murder in the 3rd degree: Involuntary Manslaughter -> Individual did not intend to kill or injure, but actions taken caused, either directly or indirectly, the death of another. Example: driving drunk
CurZ, I had 4 in mind when i first started (self defence), I just frgot it as I used the bathroom before I was finished typing the post. But you are right, it is techniclly the third option, which makes it very complex and very grey.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]So far I've managed to come up with three major categories on why someone killed another:
1) Premeditated intention
2) Accedent (Ignorance or fluke)
3) Sudden Emotion Burst (ie fear or panic)
A gun ban/control will not stop number one. If someone wants someone dead they will find a way. I would hypothosize this is independent with breaking into and robbing a house.
Number two can be best solved with a gun ban. If people don't have guns then accedents of ignorance or fluke can't happen. With education the ignorance factor can be reduced to minimal levels, but deaths by flukes can still happen.
The third is the most tricky and complex. This is where your robbers and product of drug addiction falls under. Will gun control or gun ban help reduce this factor? I do not know, this isn't my area of knowledge. I know large reforms at the societal level can knock big chunks off of this.
The next step is taking the pritty statistics and breaking them down into these three categories. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually when you look at accidental firearms deaths in the US your looking at an very low number, less then a 1000 per year. In fact I think in recent years, accidental firearms deaths has been known to out be out stripped by accidental deaths via ingestion of toxic gasses.
Curz, the only problem I see with your hypothetical is people like me would get prison time because thats the kind of stuff I was taught to do.
Sometimes you dont realize just how well you have been trained until you have to use it. Hand to hand combat is quite quick, and its easy to get carried away.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Curz, the only problem I see with your hypothetical is people like me would get prison time because thats the kind of stuff I was taught to do.
Sometimes you dont realize just how well you have been trained until you have to use it. Hand to hand combat is quite quick, and its easy to get carried away. [/B][/QUOTE]
And these things are what I would imagine most courts are unable to fathom, thus making it much easier for juries and judges to put people in jail for it. Which brings us to the usefulness of a law for people like us, that allows the use of lethal force in a situation where one feels lethal force is absolutely necessary, without necessarily having to stand trial for it. Although, I still go by the old saying "Rather tried by twelve than carried by six.", I'd rather do what it takes to survive a real attack and take my chances with a court than let any criminal on the street have control over my survival.
[QUOTE] the registration issue is a prickly one for a simple reason /---/ confiscation can be conducted efficently if you have a registration system in place[/QUOTE]
But can you mention... a real instance of state successfully confiscating weapons from *any* significant portion of seriously opposed people?
I tried to remember... and failed. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough... but I could only remember gradual processes of disarmament conducted by oppressive regimes. No quick confiscation.
In every instance of totaliatarian state arising... had people really *wanted* to oppose, they *could* have fought back. It never changed overnight. No regime had the power to change it overnight. First they conquered the minds of people. With weapons, they dealt later.
Which would imply... that while the right to own a weapon is not compromised... demanding that the weapon be registered, and facilities of safe storage presented... might not at all weaken deterrents to totalitarian power.
It might however strengthen obstacles to guns getting stolen.
Because the safty argument is being used, it must be addressed. I never said it warrented legislation either because of it. All I did was provide a means for breaking down the death/wounded numbers.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]But can you mention... a real instance of state successfully confiscating weapons from *any* significant portion of seriously opposed people?
I tried to remember... and failed. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough... but I could only remember gradual processes of disarmament conducted by oppressive regimes. No quick confiscation.
In every instance of totaliatarian state arising... had people really *wanted* to oppose, they *could* have fought back. It never changed overnight. No regime had the power to change it overnight. First they conquered the minds of people. With weapons, they dealt later.
Which would imply... that while the right to own a weapon is not compromised... demanding that the weapon be registered, and facilities of safe storage presented... might not at all weaken deterrents to totalitarian power.
It might however strengthen obstacles to guns getting stolen. [/B][/QUOTE]
nazi germany. First Hitler ordered the registration of every weapon, then they were taken from "most" of the German people. People identified as unwilling to support the nazis.
Extreem situation I know, but I believe it fits the bill.
Partly does, yes. Then again... partly not. Even the Nazi regime did not attempt confiscating guns violently or rapidly.
Sufficient time existed for resistance to develop, for people to use weapons against the regime. People merely declined from doing it. Too many had already surrendered their mind to apathy, threat or manipulation of perceived reality.
Ultimately, in every civil war... the firepower of handguns is merely the beginning. Civil wars usually proceed by the military being split along political lines, and its resources being used by both parties to conflict.
If enough people decide to fight, they become a formidable obstacle regardless of initially having (or not having) handguns. Because they devise ways to obtain proper weapons (or build those).
Comments
[B]
I would say youre used to weapons to such a degree that you cannot fancy a world without them. In fact since you were handling guns since you were 6, probably you cant. I dont mean to flame, but thats how it sounds to me. [/B][/QUOTE]
Your right, I cant, and I dont have to, its the joys of being an american citizen. And that does nothing to negate my opinion. Despite being surrounded by guns I have yet to commit a crime with one. And Ive also Id like to point out there are many regions on this planet with limited availibility of guns yet very high violent crime rates. The two in the US may corrleate, but correlation does NOT indicate causation!
You missed my point about the comments about how extrapolating generalities based on sweden for the need for self defense and other things is a faulty premis. Most of the world is NOT like sweden or many other european countries which, since the events of the previous centuries have become rather homogenious. With again docile populations, thats why crime in sweden and other european countries is the way that it is, not because of gun control.
[B] The two in the US may corrleate, but correlation does NOT indicate causation![/B][/QUOTE]
True, and of course, until anyone has conducted a study of it, it cannot be proven. Which is what someone should do..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]thats why crime in sweden and other european countries is the way that it is, not because of gun control. [/B][/QUOTE]
And how do you know that the populations of Sweden and other european countries are not docile because of gun control?
There have been some studies, for example, when Australia started the gun buyback program, the number of homicides fell from 99 in 1996 to 54 in 1998.
When the Firearms Amendment Act was approved in Britain, homicide rates fell from an average of 62 per year in 1994 to 1996 to 52 since then.
There have been studies, trust me, Ive read them, this is what I studied in college.
The australian number you cited is interesting, because 1996 was a very bizzare year in that a special incident happend The port Aurthur mass murder which a mad man went on yes a shooting spree and killed 36 people. Secondly the data your citing indicates ONLY firearms homicides. The total number of homicides in Australia in 1996 was 348, The total number of homicides in Australia in 2000 was 346.
Murder in Australia peaked in 1998 at 386. the homicide rates post gun ban mirror those rates they had before 1996 and its rather unfortunate event.
There are plenty of reaserch out there showing there is no way to make any claim positive or negative about the impact of the gun ban.
As for the murder rate in England the statistics you quote are flat out wrong. The murder rate in England and wales has been rising since about 1995, even though gun murder rates have dropped , it shows that people are happy killing people with other means.
I suggest you check out the following link [url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf[/url]
Its the British Governments own data on crime upto 2000.
In contrast with the static Australian rates and increasing English rate, the US homicide rate has actually been dropping over the past 10 years.
Oh and to muddy the waters you have to consider how each nation counts "homicides"
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.
Self defense does figure in the US homicide rates as does cases where its deemed justifiable, as does cases that get reduced to man slaughter, or the offender is deamed mentaly incompetant for trial, they all end up in the stats.
Lastly, if you look at violent crime over all, muggings, assualts with force and rapes, you are less likely to be victimized by such crimes in the US then any other western nation save Japan. And Japan has severe under reporting issues.
[url]http://www.guninformation.org/[/url]
[url]http://www.policesupers.com/scripts/currentnews.ASP?news_id=314[/url]
[quote]MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in the 1990's.
TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent(see Chapter 3)."[URL=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf](source- PDF file)[/URL] So when you take into account changes in recording crime, there was an actual decrease in the violent crime rate. Since 1997, the overall UK crime rate has fallen by 27%. Burglary has dropped 39%. Vehicle thefts have dropped 32%. Violent crime has declined 26%[URL=http://www.policesupers.com/scripts/currentnews.ASP?news_id=314](source)[/URL]. The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at [url]www.snopes.com,[/url] a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends."Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." [URL=http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm](source)[/URL] . Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback [URL=http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/hvr.html](source)[/URL] .[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) [URL=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084](source][/URL] and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide [URL=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/7/467](source)[/URL] . Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: Guns don't kill.
TRUTH:Guns make it easier to kill people. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun [URL=http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm](source)[/URL] . Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." [URL=http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf](source- PDF File)[/URL].[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US.
TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. According to the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey) guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year [URL=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr](source)[/URL]. The NCVS surveyed over 90,000 people. In contrast, Kleck only surveyed about 5,000 people. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the NCVS provides a more reliable estimate of the number of defensive gun uses in the US. An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using methods similiar to Kleck's, it could be concluded that nearly 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.
"Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias. Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. [34] One question asked: 'Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?' [Page 1438] Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, 'Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?' and 6% answered 'Yes.'By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists."[URL=http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm](source)[/URL][/quote]
[quote]MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.
TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000 [URL=http://www.mmvsgogr.ch/Others/Swiss_Transportation_Troops.htm](source][/URL] . There are about 3 million Swiss households [URL=http://www.statistik.admin.ch/stat_ch/ber01/eu0105.htm](source][/URL].400,000/3,000,000= 0.133. Therefore, there is a military assault rifle in about 13% of Swiss homes. Switzerland also has rather strict gun control laws.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: The handgun ban in Washington D.C. caused an increase in crime.
TRUTH: The handgun ban has prevented 47 deaths each year [URL=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/325/23/1615](source)[/URL] Gun control has saved lives.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.
TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other [URL=http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_traffic.ASP](source)[/URL] . So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.[/quote]
[quote]MYTH:Gun ownership is a protection against political tyranny.
TRUTH: Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime [URL=http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.htm](source)[/URL] .It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny. Gun control laws were enacted in Germany to disarm Hitler and those in the Nazi militia. In that case, gun control was a protection against political tyranny.
[/quote]
Do you know how the british statiscs work? They use interviews as a basis for establishing a baseline metric for crime rates, and then mix this with the reported crime rate.
For discussions sake here is the current statsics from england
[url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf[/url]
Its full of wonderfull little gems like
"There were 853 deaths initially recorded as homicide by the police in 2003/04.
• The 2003/04 figure was 18 per cent lower than that recorded in 2002/03. This represents 190
fewer homicides, but most of these can be accounted for by the inclusion of 172 Harold
Shipman murders in 2002/03. Although committed in previous years they came to light in the
official inquiry and were therefore recorded by Greater Manchester Police in 2002/03.
Excluding these offences, the fall was two per cent."
they had a 2 percent drop from the pervious year, we will need to wait and see if this trend continues, note the there were still more murders then in 2000.
5.7 SEXUAL OFFENCES
Sexual offences are significantly under-reported to the authorities. Police and government action
to support the victims of sexual assaults is likely to have increased the numbers of such incidents
reported to the police, and therefore recorded by them. The introduction of the NCRS in 2002 is
likely to have further increased the recording rate, and the implementation of the Sexual Offences
Act in May 2004 will have a further impact on the 2004/05 figures. Trends in the number of
recorded sexual offences are therefore unlikely to reflect real experience of such crimes.
• Within the 2003/04 total of 52,070 sexual offences, the police recorded 26,709 indecent
assaults on a female and 1,942 offences of gross indecency with a child.
• The number of recorded rapes was 13,247, 93 per cent of which were rapes of a female.
There were also 4,070 recorded indecent assaults on a male.
• The total number of recorded sexual offences rose by seven per cent in 2003/04, to account
for five per cent of total recorded violence and 0.9 per cent of all police recorded crime in
2003/04.
So we have a rise there.
If you go through the report and carefully pull out the actuall REPORTED crime rates as in those which police are called you would notice that still every year in england the police are called on to deal with more crime then the year piror. In fact a reading of it will introduce you to the wonderfull concept that this set of statistics about crime is actually at odds with the officaly recorded stats.
secondly they "reduced" crime by creating the catagory 8a offenses meaning "minor wounding" and dont count these as "violent" crimes. Where as in the US we would classify them at least as "assualts attempted"
The following link takes you to the recorded crime statistics for england since 1898, its a very interesting read.
[url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/100years.xls[/url]]
Which for the Record is ALL the US Department of Justice uses, statistics compiled about the actual activities of all the police departments in the nation.
Last but not least the most recent reports show that firearms related crime is on the RISE.
but I'll go by them by the numbers
1. The first myth actually reinforces the point I was making, in that the gun ban has shown no known impact on the crime rates in Australia. either way.
2. The New England Journal of medicine article needs to be gone through, I have, but to point out a few things, Male homicide rates and female homicide rates have some serious differences in them. In the US men are less likely to attempt homicide, but much more likley to succede in the attempt, with ANY means. Secondly males prefer to use hanguns for suicide for just that reason. IF you take this into account the deviation for hanguns and suicide isnt that extreme.
What really messes up international comparison is the US suicide rate is lower then the suicide rates most European nations, encluding those of England and France.
3rd point, those sources are highly biased, and contradict others Frankly other then the US no nation with a reliable reporting of statiscs and a high firearms ownership exists, save Israel. And they have other problems. Although Finland does come close by some metrics as does Norway. And as I will rebut in a moment, so does Switzerland.
4. read the Gary Kleck is a reputable scientist, give me some more time to dig up the literature, not just from him but those who oppose him, for the record that argument could be used to refute ANY statsical sampling including that used in the British crime report your other site cited. The Kleck report included MANY control questions to cut down false reporting and was actually a fairly detailed survey with cross questioning to establish validity of the position. However I do belive there is something to the critisms, Kleck has got to be overstating things.
5. The Swiss question is interesting, if you go to the Swiss defense forces you will find they claim 550,000 members of the militia system which brings it upto 18%
here is the jist of the current swiss law
On June 20, 1997, the Swiss Parliament adopted a federal law on arms, arms accessories and ammunition (Arms Act), which entered into force on January 1, 1999. As a general rule, the Arms Act requires a permit for each transaction involving weapons or relevant parts of weapons purchased from an authorized gun dealer's shop. Permits for purchasing weapons are issued by the competent authorities of the Cantons, which have to ensure that the necessary legal requirements are fully met. The selling party has to verify the absence of any legal obstacle on the buyer's side (18 years of age, absence of an apparent risk to the buyer or third persons, no entry in the Register of Convictions for Violent Crimes and Misdemeanors). Subsequent transfers either by sale or by another transaction among private individuals have to be documented through a written contract between those individuals themselves, which they have to keep for at least ten years. In addition, foreign nationals without a permanent residence permit in Switzerland need an authorization to purchase weapons or relevant parts of weapons from private dealers as well. Foreign nationals must obtain their permit from the competent authority of the Canton in which the purchase will take place. In order to obtain a permit, foreign nationals have to present an official certificate issued in their home country to prove that they are entitled to purchase a weapon or a relevant part of a weapon.
In addition to requiring the above-mentioned permit to purchase weapons, the Arms Act also requires a special certificate to bear arms in public. A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks. To obtain a permit to bear arms one also has to pass an examination on the correct handling of weapons as well as a test on legislation on the use of firearms. Permits are normally valid for a specific type of weapon and for the entire territory of Switzerland, but are limited to five years.
As you can see, not terribly restrictive, Ive seen UN figures that place the estimates of firearms in homes in Switzerland at as high as 35%
As for the rest of the stuff, its all fairly subjective hyperbole and can be fought over time and time again.
[B]Ahh good you brought up the infamous british revision to their crime statisics.
Do you know how the british statiscs work? They use interviews as a basis for establishing a baseline metric for crime rates, and then mix this with the reported crime rate. [/B][/QUOTE]
Speaking as a former Sociology student, you shouldn't mix quantitative statistics (surveys/records) with qualitative data (individual interviews.)
The end result will inevitably be skewed and wholly inaccurate.
Regards,
Morden
[B]You have to Register your Car or Truck, Your Pets and a pile of the crap you own. So whats the big deal about Registering a Gun?? [/B][/QUOTE]
In the US you dont have to register your cats, just dogs, and that depends on the county you live in, some places you dont have to register them
And in the US you dont register alot of crap you own, just your car, plane, boat, cause they move around and stuff.
Next the registration issue is a prickly one for a simple reason, confescation can be conducted efficently if you have a registration system in place, without one any confescation method is going to miss tons of stuff.
This is probably more an american psychological issue here. The originating moment of the the American Revolution was an attempt by the british to sieze field artillery owned and operated by the Massachussets state assembly, and by owned and operated I mean unlike the national guard of today this gear was TOTTALY the massachusetts gear, its like the state police with howitzers. (Dont laugh, one of the sherifs departments down in Arizona owns a 155, and no I dont know why.)
If there was a basicly a formal understanding in any agreement towards registration that confiscation would mean a civil war, and everybody knew that was the stakes I think alot less people would be leary of it.
Some people use cars to run people over. I have an idea, how about we ban cars! Some people use beer to sleep with chicks who would otherwise think they were ugly. That violates the woman - let's ban beer! Some people use computers and the internet to steal your identity and after that all your hard earned money, how about we take them away too? Right-wing conspiracy theorists, hear me: [b] NO MORE INTERNET FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION! [/b]When it comes to the internet, carnivore, the Patriot Act, it's a slippery slope leading straight to tyranny, but when it's guns it's a measure for our own protection - why is that?
Gun control is something brought up after every major incident involving crazies and guns so that legislators can go home and say, "Look what I did! I made you safe. Now vote for me!" It's much easier to discuss than more relevant issues like the budget and Alaskan drilling. God forbid they stop filibustering judicial appointees.
1) Premeditated intention
2) Accedent (Ignorance or fluke)
3) Sudden Emotion Burst (ie fear or panic)
A gun ban/control will not stop number one. If someone wants someone dead they will find a way. I would hypothosize this is independent with breaking into and robbing a house.
Number two can be best solved with a gun ban. If people don't have guns then accedents of ignorance or fluke can't happen. With education the ignorance factor can be reduced to minimal levels, but deaths by flukes can still happen.
The third is the most tricky and complex. This is where your robbers and product of drug addiction falls under. Will gun control or gun ban help reduce this factor? I do not know, this isn't my area of knowledge. I know large reforms at the societal level can knock big chunks off of this.
The next step is taking the pritty statistics and breaking them down into these three categories.
It's 10pm, I'm walking home. I happen to be passing through a dimly lit area, and suddenly I'm face to face with some monster on heroin withdrawals. He feverishly tells me to hand over my money or he'll kill me, I start backing away, but he launches at me. Long story short, we end up on the ground struggling, he pulls a knife and I crush his windpipe to stop the attack.
I've now taken a life. Was it premeditated? I don't think so. Was it an accident? No, I used lethal force with full understanding of the consequences to stop the attack. Was it a sudden emotional burst? I was afraid, yes. I did not panic. Was the fear for my life motivation for using lethal force? Definitely. Was it the fear itself that launched the counterattack that led to the death of the attacker? No, it was what I knew I had to do to survive. It wasn't entirely thought, and it wasn't entirely instinct either.
[B]So far I've managed to come up with three major categories on why someone killed another:
1) Premeditated intention
2) Accedent (Ignorance or fluke)
3) Sudden Emotion Burst (ie fear or panic)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually that is exactly the distinctions that are made in the US criminal justice system. There are three levels of manslaughter on which you may be tried:
Murder in the 1st degree: Premeditated murder -> The individual starts with the intent to end another person's life
Murder in the 2nd degree: Death caused by intentional harm done -> Individual did not have intent to kill, but but to do harm, but by those actions cause the death of another person
Murder in the 3rd degree: Involuntary Manslaughter -> Individual did not intend to kill or injure, but actions taken caused, either directly or indirectly, the death of another. Example: driving drunk
Jake
[B]So far I've managed to come up with three major categories on why someone killed another:
1) Premeditated intention
2) Accedent (Ignorance or fluke)
3) Sudden Emotion Burst (ie fear or panic)
A gun ban/control will not stop number one. If someone wants someone dead they will find a way. I would hypothosize this is independent with breaking into and robbing a house.
Number two can be best solved with a gun ban. If people don't have guns then accedents of ignorance or fluke can't happen. With education the ignorance factor can be reduced to minimal levels, but deaths by flukes can still happen.
The third is the most tricky and complex. This is where your robbers and product of drug addiction falls under. Will gun control or gun ban help reduce this factor? I do not know, this isn't my area of knowledge. I know large reforms at the societal level can knock big chunks off of this.
The next step is taking the pritty statistics and breaking them down into these three categories. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually when you look at accidental firearms deaths in the US your looking at an very low number, less then a 1000 per year. In fact I think in recent years, accidental firearms deaths has been known to out be out stripped by accidental deaths via ingestion of toxic gasses.
Sometimes you dont realize just how well you have been trained until you have to use it. Hand to hand combat is quite quick, and its easy to get carried away.
[B]Curz, the only problem I see with your hypothetical is people like me would get prison time because thats the kind of stuff I was taught to do.
Sometimes you dont realize just how well you have been trained until you have to use it. Hand to hand combat is quite quick, and its easy to get carried away. [/B][/QUOTE]
And these things are what I would imagine most courts are unable to fathom, thus making it much easier for juries and judges to put people in jail for it. Which brings us to the usefulness of a law for people like us, that allows the use of lethal force in a situation where one feels lethal force is absolutely necessary, without necessarily having to stand trial for it. Although, I still go by the old saying "Rather tried by twelve than carried by six.", I'd rather do what it takes to survive a real attack and take my chances with a court than let any criminal on the street have control over my survival.
[B]I never said it was high =Þ [/B][/QUOTE]
what I was getting at is it high enough to actually worry about and deal with via legislation?
But can you mention... a real instance of state successfully confiscating weapons from *any* significant portion of seriously opposed people?
I tried to remember... and failed. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough... but I could only remember gradual processes of disarmament conducted by oppressive regimes. No quick confiscation.
In every instance of totaliatarian state arising... had people really *wanted* to oppose, they *could* have fought back. It never changed overnight. No regime had the power to change it overnight. First they conquered the minds of people. With weapons, they dealt later.
Which would imply... that while the right to own a weapon is not compromised... demanding that the weapon be registered, and facilities of safe storage presented... might not at all weaken deterrents to totalitarian power.
It might however strengthen obstacles to guns getting stolen.
[B]But can you mention... a real instance of state successfully confiscating weapons from *any* significant portion of seriously opposed people?
I tried to remember... and failed. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough... but I could only remember gradual processes of disarmament conducted by oppressive regimes. No quick confiscation.
In every instance of totaliatarian state arising... had people really *wanted* to oppose, they *could* have fought back. It never changed overnight. No regime had the power to change it overnight. First they conquered the minds of people. With weapons, they dealt later.
Which would imply... that while the right to own a weapon is not compromised... demanding that the weapon be registered, and facilities of safe storage presented... might not at all weaken deterrents to totalitarian power.
It might however strengthen obstacles to guns getting stolen. [/B][/QUOTE]
nazi germany. First Hitler ordered the registration of every weapon, then they were taken from "most" of the German people. People identified as unwilling to support the nazis.
Extreem situation I know, but I believe it fits the bill.
Sufficient time existed for resistance to develop, for people to use weapons against the regime. People merely declined from doing it. Too many had already surrendered their mind to apathy, threat or manipulation of perceived reality.
Ultimately, in every civil war... the firepower of handguns is merely the beginning. Civil wars usually proceed by the military being split along political lines, and its resources being used by both parties to conflict.
If enough people decide to fight, they become a formidable obstacle regardless of initially having (or not having) handguns. Because they devise ways to obtain proper weapons (or build those).