What is it With You Guys?

[ERICOPOLY]

Now, what is the probability of ever needing your concealed firearm to defend your life from a man on the street? 

 

Weigh that against the chance of being killed in a car crash.

 

Then, what is the probability of needing a gun to defend your life from an intruder in your home?

 

Weigh that against the chance of being killed in a car crash.

 

 

My point is that rather than using automobile statistics to refute the benefits of curbing gun access, instead ask whether automobile statistics show that we need guns at all.

 

Then, of all the incidents where guns were necessary to protect life from attacker, ask whether single shot capacity firearm would have done the trick.  Or two shot or three shot.

 

Eric, that's a really hard question if not an impossible one because it's counterfactual.  You may be able to count home invasions which were thwarted - if you dig enough you might be able to compile data.  You will never be able to count home invasions which never occurred at all because of general deterrence (i.e. would-be burglars/crazies/rapists who know a lot of residents in certain areas are packing and want none of it).  Now about high-capacity magazines vs shotguns, I don't know.  Note also that that is only one possible scenario.  Really that isn't the point I was trying to make.  The point was to get some actual perspective on the actual risks.  Putting actual numbers to actual risks at least helps us get beyond the emotional reaction.  Which is why I chose to focus on the side I could quantify. 

 

Rational people can disagree on the magnitude of the benefits - I think those probably defy tangible counting.

 

 

Yes but there are effectively two issues here:

 

1) hobbyists/collectors

2)  serious self-defense folks

 

The people in the first category will never budge on allowing any restrictions to their love of their hobby.

The people in the second category can be reasoned with.  For example, for personal defense they will agree that we can have shotguns to defend our homes and a low-capacity sidearm for personal defense outside of the home.

 

The right to bear arms was granted before the first semi-automatic firearm was built.  And the words "well regulated militia" are in there.

[ubuy2wron]

Gun controls won't prevent mass shootings and what happened in Montreal proves it.

 

In 1989, Lepine shot female engineering students at Ecole Polytechnique with an assault weapon. There was a public uproar and much tighter gun controls were implemented especially on arms with military background. In 1992, Fabrikant goes on a shooting spree at Concordia University. In 1995, registration of all firearms is passed into law. Fast forward to 2006 and Gill enters Dawson College with an assault weapon. And this year, Bain kills one on election night after trying to enter the building where the PQ was celebrating its victory with an AK-47 which jammed.

 

That is four mass shootings in what I would consider a very safe city if I am to look only at the number of total homicides in a given year. When I lived in the States, I could not comprehend how many homicides were occuring on a weekly basis. So I assume that gun control may reduce the number of death committed by people trying to defend themselves or victims of theft, but that it won't do a thing against insane individuals shooting blindly.

 

I agree that looking at our society, our values, the media and things like video games in which the goal is to kill as many as you can, could do a lot more to prevent these horrors. Giving a goal to people, a sense of responsibility and the need to sacrifice a bit of your own pleasures for the good of society and others could do a lot. The hero generation understood that, it has been downhill ever since.

 

Cardboard

Gun control laws will not eliminate mass shootings it will reduce there incidence, end of story. Crazy people will always do crazy things. I just want to stop them from easily shooting a bunch of kids.

[Palantir]

Mr Parsad, I see your point, but guns are an important part of culture in some parts of the US, in places like rural areas...and given the huge number of people who hunt, it's unlikely to see them get banned.

[sswan11]

Here is how microeconomic theory applies: 

Consumption of guns (right to own a gun) has an externality effect.  That effect is that innocent people may be killed.  That is a cost to society that the individual who purchases a gun does not pay for in the price of a gun.  Additionally, there is the cost of greater policing, insurance, security (which are probably quite large) that gun-purchasing individuals do not bear.  Thus, US society is subsidizing those who purchase guns.

[sswan11]

Thus, from a purely economic theory point of view, it is predictable that those who own guns argue that they have the "right", as they do not bear the full cost -- they are being subsidized.

[ERICOPOLY]

I also saw a comment that the shooter suffered from a form of autism (according to a family member).

 

One idea (hopefully) is that this tragedy can be used to advocated for more public dollars directed towards autism diagnosis/therapy for children at a young age.

 

[Cardboard]

"Gun control laws will not eliminate mass shootings it will reduce there incidence, end of story."

 

Maybe but, Montreal proves otherwise. I can't think of any other North American city with 4 mass shootings in just over 20 years. Can you think of any? This despite some of the tightest gun laws, especially to get access to assault weapons. Maybe it is just an isolated case and that there have been fewer mass shootings overall in Canada on a per capita basis? Remember that you need 1/10 the occurrence and I doubt it is the case, although I don't have stats on it.

 

Better gun control will reduce what I tried to explain and what Parsad mentioned: per capita number of gun-related injuries or deaths. Unfortunately, that part gets into the self-defense mentality in the States. The majority of people down there who buy a gun (hand gun, shotgun or otherwise), purchase it to defend themselves, not to go hunting. There is a mentality that you can self defend yourself.

 

Up here in Canada, if you kill someone even if proven that you did it in self defense or to protect your own life, you are subject to a sentence of 3 years in jail. I can't think of too many up here who go buy a gun to primarily protect themselves. It is mostly to go hunting. We are being raised with the idea that you can't do your own justice. It is a very different mentality.

 

The other thing that is truly screwed up in the States, is that some States are now legalizing pot which will mean more consumption and less control over other drugs also including chemicals or pills. These things have been proven to help develop disorders in younger adults such as schizophrenia. If you want more trouble, keep having more of these in society and I guarantee you that the number of mass shootings will skyrocket. The guns, they will always find them one way or the other.

 

Cardboard

[rjstc]

I also saw a comment that the shooter suffered from a form of autism (according to a family member).

 

One idea (hopefully) is that this tragedy can be used to advocated for more public dollars directed towards autism diagnosis/therapy for children at a young age.

 

And you know from living in Ca just how many people that need help are wandering the streets. And those are the ones who are obvious. Not to condemn him but I believe it was during Reagan's governorship that Ca really started cutting back on assistance for people with mental disabilities to help balance budgets.

 

  Fast forward to today ans many of those troubled youths are being diagnosed with things like autism. Before they went undiagnosed and were called "Troublemakers". I have a grandaughter who is high functioning autistic. Society is just now starting to help these kids. The ones who are not getting enough help are time bombs waiting to go off.

[rjstc]

Up here in Canada, if you kill someone even if proven that you did it in self defense or to protect your own life, you are subject to a sentence of 3 years in jail. I can't think of too many up here who go buy a gun to primarily protect themselves. It is mostly to go hunting. We are being raised with the idea that you can't do your own justice. It is a very different mentality

 

That mentality works for normal people. Do you really think it will work on the nut cases or crooks or gang members?

[doc75]

Up here in Canada, if you kill someone even if proven that you did it in self defense or to protect your own life, you are subject to a sentence of 3 years in jail.

 

This is a popular misconception.  The law permits "reasonable force" for self-defense.  It is up to a judge to interpret the what is "reasonable" on a case-by-case basis.  But if you can prove that (a) you had good reason to believe you were going to be killed or seriously harmed, and (b) had no other option, then lethal force is deemed reasonable.  The (b) part is very important.  If it is possible for you to withdraw from the situation then you are obligated to do so, though I believe that in practice you have more leeway on this if an attack takes place inside your dwelling. 

 

From the Criminal Code of Canada:

 

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

 

Extent of justification

 

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

 

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

 

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

[txlaw]

Then, of all the incidents where guns were necessary to protect life from attacker, ask whether single shot capacity firearm would have done the trick.  Or two shot or three shot.

 

This is a very important point.

 

Assuming that there is a fairly unrestricted right to bear arms under the Second Amendment that may not be infringed by either federal or state governments, what exactly should be the scope of this right?  Does it cover anything more than single or six-shot firearms or shotguns?  What about assault weapons and explosives?  What about war machines, such as tanks and military planes?  What about drones that can be loaded up with weapons and explosives?  Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

 

Using a cost/benefit analysis, I prefer to draw the line at allowing non-automatic weapons for self defense and for hunting (it's a cultural thing -- especially, here in Texas).  If we must use an automobile analogy, I suppose I would say that gun control is like requiring people to wear seat belts or forbidding them to drink alcohol when they're in their cars.  It will, in fact, prevent a number of unnecessary deaths, and it is worth it to do so in this case.

 

The one important benefit that gets lost with such policies is the ability to "overthrow the government."  Frankly, in the modern age, the level of bearing arms you would need to overthrow even many local governments would require so much firepower that I think would be dangerous to society, generally.  So I would prefer other systems and policies to be set up that keep US governments in check rather than relying on the Second Amendment. 

 

I also would heavily restrict gun manufacturing capacity and output in the US.  I think it's terrible that guns manufactured here flood into the world and are used in wars, genocides, drug violence, etc.  If some other country wants to specialize in gun manufacturing, let them.  We don't need to make it so easy and efficient to manufacture and distribute these assault weapons.

[matjone]

I am with rkbabang.  Crime isn't the point.  The freedom to speak out against the government, and the freedom to own weapons to overthrow the government if need be, was the whole point of those amendments.  The people who wrote this into law knew human nature and what happens when people have too much power.

 

Look at what the U.S. did after one attack.  They were hauling people off in the middle of the night to secret torture facilities, indefinitely detaining them, without charging them with a crime or giving them access to a lawyer.  You want to give all the guns to these people?

 

They had also just fought a war against the British, so they needed to maintain a militia to protect their interests.  I don't think that has been a concern for the last 125 years, so the average citizen isn't going to need to go all "Red Dawn" on an invading China or North Korea...let alone try and overthrow their government by being armed. 

 

Of all the dictators who have been overthrown in the last 50 years, it didn't come from the citizens having weapons, but the fact that the generals in power under the dictator actually turned to support the general populace.  As Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela, Walesa and so many others have shown...the human spirit eventually takes care of tyrants and injustices.  Cheers!

 

 

 

I agree the chance of being invaded is pretty low.  The chance of the government going completely off the rails, given the right conditions, is not as low as everyone seems to think, in my opinion.  Like I said, look at how quick we forgot our principles after 9/11.  Looking back at the past 50 years, look at what our government has done.  Lied to start wars.  Kidnapped people, indefinitely detained them, and tortured them.  Spied on people without a warrant.  You could go on for hours.

 

 

This is one of those issues where I think both sides make good points.  There are wise people on both sides of it, and it's pretty rare that anyone changes their mind on it.  It's heartbreaking to see a school get shot up.  It's also heartbreaking to watch old footage of jewish families being marched to the gas chamber.

[alwaysinvert]

Then, of all the incidents where guns were necessary to protect life from attacker, ask whether single shot capacity firearm would have done the trick.  Or two shot or three shot.

 

This is a very important point.

 

Assuming that there is a fairly unrestricted right to bear arms under the Second Amendment that may not be infringed by either federal or state governments, what exactly should be the scope of this right?  Does it cover anything more than single or six-shot firearms or shotguns?  What about assault weapons and explosives?  What about war machines, such as tanks and military planes?  What about drones that can be loaded up with weapons and explosives?  Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

 

Using a cost/benefit analysis, I prefer to draw the line at allowing non-automatic weapons for self defense and for hunting (it's a cultural thing -- especially, here in Texas).  If we must use an automobile analogy, I suppose I would say that gun control is like requiring people to wear seat belts or forbidding them to drink alcohol when they're in their cars.  It will, in fact, prevent a number of unnecessary deaths, and it is worth it to do so in this case.

 

The one important benefit that gets lost with such policies is the ability to "overthrow the government."  Frankly, in the modern age, the level of bearing arms you would need to overthrow even many local governments would require so much firepower that I think would be dangerous to society, generally.  So I would prefer other systems and policies to be set up that keep US governments in check rather than relying on the Second Amendment. 

 

I also would heavily restrict gun manufacturing capacity and output in the US.  I think it's terrible that guns manufactured here flood into the world and are used in wars, genocides, drug violence, etc.  If some other country wants to specialize in gun manufacturing, let them.  We don't need to make it so easy and efficient to manufacture and distribute these assault weapons.

To be fair I don't think the argument is that you are going to be able to stand up to a national army or even 'beat' the police force with your handguns or shotguns, but rather at least make it uncomfortable for the people acting on behalf of the government if they try and enforce tyranny.

 

I.e if the government one day knocks on your door with the intent of confiscating all you own and rape your daughters you at least have the option to go down fighting and cause some collateral damage and maybe public policy problems for the government if you are armed. If you are unarmed you can't do diddly-squat.

 

And yes, I do realize this  is goofball territory for most people, but stranger things than rogue governments have happened in history - they are pretty common.

 

Now, this may be a strong argument or not, but I think this is a more correct representation than the idea of a militia full of nutters fighting nuclear weapons with peashooters.

 

When studying philosophy I learned the charity rule in logic class. That is you should always use the best possible version of the argument you are trying to knock down. If there is any board on the web where we should be able to adhere to that rule this is it :)

[txlaw]

To be fair I don't think the argument is that you are going to be able to stand up to a national army or even 'beat' the police force with your handguns or shotguns, but rather at least make it uncomfortable for the people acting on behalf of the government if they try and enforce tyranny.

 

I.e if the government one day knocks on your door with the intent of confiscating all you own and rape your daughters you at least have the option to go down fighting and cause some collateral damage and maybe public policy problems for the government if you are armed. If you are unarmed you can't do diddly-squat.

 

And yes, I do realize this  is goofball territory for most people, but stranger things than rogue governments have happened in history - they are pretty common.

 

Now, this may be a strong argument or not, but I think this is a more correct representation than the idea of a militia full of nutters fighting nuclear weapons with peashooters.

 

I wasn't saying that all gun advocates are crazy militia-types who want to overthrow the government, although there certainly are those types throughout the US.

 

In fact, I believe I did say that we should allow guns for self-defense, especially in the home.  That would include self-defense against state actors.

 

However, once we start talking about assault weapons or anything as or more dangerous, then I think we have to make decisions on what really is an acceptable scope of the right to bear arms given the costs.

[matjone]

I think it's underrated what people can do against a better armed force if there are a lot of them and they refuse to give up.  Look at Vietnam and Afghanistan.

[ERICOPOLY]

As far as hunting game goes...

 

Anything that flies is best addressed with a shotgun.

Several things on the ground (squirrels / turkeys) are best addressed with a shotgun.

Big game are best/adequately addressed with bolt action (single shot) rifles

 

The high magazine capacity is best for:

plinking/sport  (I agree, they are a lot of fun)

 

 

Problems with handguns/rifles for home defense:

Bullets travel through walls (unless you are using Glasers or other fragmenting ammo).

Shotguns are at the same time safer for you (drop the intruder on first shot) and for your neighbors (diffusion of power as pellets don't travel through your walls)

 

 

Your neighbor has a right to not be shot too.

[twacowfca]

As far as hunting game goes...

 

Anything that flies is best addressed with a shotgun.

Several things on the ground (squirrels / turkeys) are best addressed with a shotgun.

Big game are best/adequately addressed with bolt action (single shot) rifles

 

The high magazine capacity is best for:

plinking/sport  (I agree, they are a lot of fun)

 

 

Problems with handguns/rifles for home defense:

Bullets travel through walls (unless you are using Glasers or other fragmenting ammo).

Shotguns are at the same time safer for you (drop the intruder on first shot) and for your neighbors (diffusion of power as pellets don't travel through your walls)

 

 

Your neighbor has a right to not be shot too.

 

Don't you think you should use a bow and arrow to give the  burglar a sporting chance?  That would also allow more time to determine if the burglar is in fact a family member returning late or coming back inside after sleepwalking.  :)

[ERICOPOLY]

As far as hunting game goes...

 

Anything that flies is best addressed with a shotgun.

Several things on the ground (squirrels / turkeys) are best addressed with a shotgun.

Big game are best/adequately addressed with bolt action (single shot) rifles

 

The high magazine capacity is best for:

plinking/sport  (I agree, they are a lot of fun)

 

 

Problems with handguns/rifles for home defense:

Bullets travel through walls (unless you are using Glasers or other fragmenting ammo).

Shotguns are at the same time safer for you (drop the intruder on first shot) and for your neighbors (diffusion of power as pellets don't travel through your walls)

 

 

Your neighbor has a right to not be shot too.

 

Don't you think you should use a bow and arrow to give the  burglar a sporting chance?  That would also allow more time to determine if the burglar is in fact a family member returning late or coming back inside after sleepwalking.  :)

 

Shotguns are perfect for that.

 

Your first shell is a beanbag.  Should the guy get back on his feet and persist with the attack, the second one is the buckshot.

 

They have all kinds of non-lethal ammo for shotguns.  For example:

 

http://www.mkballistics.com/specs/MKB12%20GAUGE%20Ammo.htm

 

EDIT:  well, they can be lethal (just like punching somebody can be fatal).  So "less lethal" is the better term.

 

[Valuehunter7]

Americans will continue to watch their children and neighbors die until they pull their heads out of their a** over gun control.

 

Who can watch this unfold and not recognize it is a national 'sin' to not melt these senseless weapons down? (Don't respond please ... I know you lunatics are out there, and it is meant to be a rhetorical question.)

[ragnarisapirate]

It seems that most of these shootings are done by white males in their late teens/early 20s. As such, I propose that we simply execute all white males in their late teens/early 20s.

 

;)

[Parsad]

When people use a 200 year old law to justify their “right to bear arms” perhaps the type of arms they are allowed to bear should be limited to those in use at the time the amendment was written?

 

Very funny...and very accurate.  I couldn't agree more.  Cheers!

[EdWatchesBoxing]

Seeing that the handguns were owned by the mother, I wonder how secure they were in the house? I imagine they should have been locked up, but I know gun philosophy is different between Canada and the US. I read that CT has some of the tighter gun laws in the US. So was the kid just really screwed up and had easy access to the guns that weren't locked up?

 

This stuff comes to mind because I just took the two Canadian Firearms Safety Courses.

 

About banning violent video games, TV and movies, I don't think that's the problem. I play a lot of shooter games that's like virtual war. I'd like to think I'm a normal person and I have never felt the urge to go out and kill people in real life with guns. I would like to think that almost all people who play the same games are the same way. That shooter in Norway claimed to have trained with Call of Duty, etc. before going on that shooting rampage, but he was screwed up first, then started playing games. These type of games already having a rating slapped on them, so I would put the responsibility on the parent.

[Cardboard]

Too bad that they won't be able to question the mother. She had to be a little weird don't you think carrying 3 guns to defend herself in a nice and safe neighborhood in Connecticut?

 

Regarding Canada and the right to defend yourself, I stand by my argument Doc75. It is not popular misconception. If you read carefully what is written in the excerpt of the law that you brought up, it will not be hard at all to demonstrate that you could have resolved the matter otherwise. These events always happen quite suddenly and it is very hard to prove that you were in absolute danger of death or severe harm. There is almost always an element of "offense" to this or vengance vs pure defense. Having a gun to your head during a burglary would not count according to the law.

 

Moreover, you are not allowed to carry loaded weapons in public or in your car. To acquire hand guns legally is very difficult and handling much more restrictive. So you really can't defend yourself according to the law with weapons that would match the ones held by the tugs outside of your home. If you defy the law and kill someone in absolute self-defense on the street, you will do jail time, I guarantee it. Even the cops get in trouble shooting criminals.

 

Cardboard

[doc75]

Regarding Canada and the right to defend yourself, I stand by my argument Doc75. It is not popular misconception. If you read carefully what is written in the excerpt of the law that you brought up, it will not be hard at all to demonstrate that you could have resolved the matter otherwise. These events always happen quite suddenly and it is very hard to prove that you were in absolute danger of death or severe harm. There is almost always an element of "offense" to this or vengance vs pure defense. Having a gun to your head during a burglary would not count according to the law.

 

With all due respect, it sounds like you're stating your opinion about the law rather than stating facts about the law.  I am not a criminal lawyer, but the information I posted was what I was taught in several law courses, and it has been verified by everything I have read since taking those courses.  A 1 second Google search just spat back the following recent article, which even refers to the popular misconception:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/05/03/f-self-defence.html

 

I don't know why you think that a gun to the head in a burglary wouldn't constitute reasonable grounds for deadly force.  Maybe you're thinking that there's the option of not doing anything and hoping the burglar leaves in peace after getting what he wants.  Possible... but such cases have occurred in which the self-defender was not even charged, let alone convicted. See

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/07/bc-jewellershooter.html

 

In summary:

 

1) If you cause someone great injury or death while defending yourself in Canada, you can be sure that your actions will be very carefully scrutinized.  We certainly don't have "castle" laws like in some states.  You may well be charged.  But being convicted is a very different matter.

 

2) If you use a gun in self defense it is quite likely you will be prosecuted on weapons charges.  Favourites include "unsafe storage of a firearm" and "careless use of a firearm".  The legal process can be very costly but, if found guilty, you do not do jail time.

 

3) Various police forces and crown prosecutors in Canada have been known to aggressively pursue citizens who defend themselves, even by only moderately violent means.  I'm not sure why.  I personally think it is some type of power play where they want a monopoly on justice. In any case,  my understanding is that they rarely succeed, in the sense that the courts ultimately side with the defender.  But these stories do morph into urban legends.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard a story like "a robber broke into my friend's house and my friend hit him and now my friend is getting charged with assault". 

[yp]

I normally abstain from commenting on such things, but I can't help but add my opinion here.  This quote sums it up.  It is very similar to an argument made in "Bowling for Columbine":

 

http://fromonesurvivortoanother.tumblr.com/post/27657456666/tw-school-shootings-the-day-after-columbine-i

 

Definitely agree! Gun control is only a part of the solution in my view as well.

 

ex: