I Hate the Idea of Killing (even in Self-Defense), But I Hate the Idea of Gun Control Even More

[LAGC]

Is anyone else like me? Do you hate the idea that a wayward youth who might be wasted on hard-core drugs who has lowered inhibitions decides to commit home burglaries and robberies for mere financial gain should be given an effective death sentence over it, a.k.a. "killed due to occupational hazard" by a law-abiding gun owner?

I don't believe in the Death Penalty, and I certainly don't think mere thieves deserve to die for their crimes. If I were ever robbed and had the chance to pull a gun, if that wasn't enough to dissuade the perpetrator and I felt I actually had to shoot the perp, I would shoot to stop, not to kill. Whether that just be a leg wound or what have you, justice should be served in a court of law, not on the streets. I would hope the perp lived to face a jury, not to die at my hands.

But I hate the idea of gun control even more. The idea that law-abiding citizens should be disarmed, while the perps of course will still find ways to get weapons. While it would seem kind of nice to wish for a society where all guns just magically went away and people couldn't easily kill other people, the fact of the matter is they are here to stay. We can't hope to ever get rid of them, so the best we can do is to try to leverage who has them, so as to "even the playing field," so to speak.

Fact is, 99.9% of the time guns are fired for lawful recreational purposes... the millions of rounds people put down range every day on target practice or hunting. And of that remaining 0.1% where a gun is used either for criminal purposes or to stop a crime in progress? That doesn't justify taking away the right of the vast majority of legit uses from folks who mean no harm and are merely exercising their Constitutional rights.

We can minimize the cases of gun crime and even mass-shooting sprees by investing in our communities and working to reduce poverty and provide more mental health services to those who so desperately need it. The fact that Canada has just as many guns per capita yet hardly any of the violence we see should be a wake-up call that something is wrong with our society, and it's NOT the amount of guns in it.

Other Western governments can get away with more gun controls because they don't have as much violent crime to begin with. But if we don't work to solve the underlying reasons why people feel the need to resort to violent crime in the first place, trying to prohibit the particular tools they use to commit their crimes is a completely futile effort.

Who's with me here?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: +1)

[applegrove]

2. Nobody is talking about complete gun control when they are talking about an assault weapons'

ban.

[LAGC]

3. Yeah, but what good does it do?

What good did the 1994 ban do? It made particular STYLES of weapons more expensive to own. That's it.

It did nothing to address the problem of violent crime in our society. Until we address the underlying factors, more gun controls just aren't going to cut it.

[Statistical]

8. "assault weapons" are based on cosmetics.

It would be like banning cars that have chrome rims and spoilers to reduce drunk driving and calling them "assault cars".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. The misnamed assualt weapons ban takes away most modern firearms

those best for self defense

[benEzra]

70. True, they are just talking about outlawing the most popular civilian firearms in the United States.

Just like the anti-abortion types aren't talking about a complete ban on abortion when they want to ban elective abortions. They just want to ban most of them.

Jerry Falwell didn't want to outlaw all books either, just the ones that offended him.

[MichaelHarris]

4. another

rant from a one issue voter.

[LAGC]

6. Thanks, but I'm not a one-issue voter.

I'll never vote Republican, but I'll be damned if I'll vote for a gun-banning Democrat.

Fortunately, I live in Idaho (soon to be Montana), so I don't have to sit out elections. None of our local Dems would dare to be anti-gun, considering how rural and gun-friendly our Western states are.

[RamboLiberal]

7. This place is called DemocraticUnderground

If we were one issue voters we wouldn't be in DU.

We have a couple here, you being one, who seem to be one issue negative posters.

[MichaelHarris]

10. hahahaha

that's the 3rd time today you've made me laugh. My favorite is when you tried to promote a story about a CWP holder who grabbed the wrong guy, that was hilarious!

[Zoeisright]

5. You really think gun control is worse than mass killings?

That is just sad.

[LAGC]

9. I never said that.

What I said was that gun controls don't solve the problem of mass-killings. People who are intent on doing harm will still find a way. They will either steal a gun or make a bomb or use a big knife, either way many people die. Until we address WHY they feel the need to kill, we'll never stop such incidents from happening.

[PavePusher]

11. Gun control does not stop "mass killings".

Unless you have evidence to the contrary....?

[wtmusic]

14. More mass killers choose guns. That gun control wouldn't stop them

is a classic straw man.

[PavePusher]

30. Well, except for it being true and all...

whutevah

[wtmusic]

62. "Whutevah" doesn't get you out of your corner.

Are solutions which reduce incidence of a crime invalid only because they don't eliminate that crime?

Waiting for answer, not expecting one.

[PavePusher]

75. I haven't seen that your "solution"...

reduces instances.

Cite to evidence?

[movonne]

12. you have more restrictions getting a drivers license than getting a

gun..I am for having a gun if you want one but at lease you should have to take lessons and classes on when and how to use a gun...

[YllwFvr]

48. then it should be the same for all rights

classes and training on your chosen religion, which you pretty much already do in church, but you need a state issued card that can be taken away if you do wrong. Speech classes on how to be polite, if you swear or are verbally abusive, the card is taken and no more talking in public.

Either way, with a car you are more likely to be injured, plus its not a right. If you are poor, how do you pay for these classes and lessons? They would have to be free, paid for by increasing taxes.

[wtmusic]

13. I keep hearing the "more mental health services" argument

but it always sounds like an empty platitude. Do we test everyone annually for mental health? Would Jared Loughner have sought treatment?

Crimes perpetrated with the use of handguns may seem trivial in comparison to the number of times they're shot here, but our handgun statistics are horrendous compared with other civilized nations. Handgun ownership is illegal in Japan, and:

"Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.<25> Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.<26> The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.<27> The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.<29> Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.<30> People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.<31>"

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

[LAGC]

15. I think that speaks more about the rest of Japanese society than it does about lack of guns.

Robberies can just as easily be committed with knives. Why aren't they in Japan? Obviously there's something else minimizing the rate of robberies in Japan that we should seek to emulate in our culture, besides the guns.

[wtmusic]

17. No, robberies can't be "just as easily committed with knives".

Handguns are the weapon of choice in the vast majority - and there's a good reason.

[LAGC]

22. Only because they are available.

I'm sure most people who are intent on robbing would have no problem with putting a knife to someone's throat.

[wtmusic]

24. Guns are more available than knives?!

You can walk into virtually any sporting goods store in the US and walk out with a long, sharp hunting knife 5 minutes later.

Guns are used because they work.

[MrModerate]

29. And the same is true of handguns.

Maybe 10 minutes if you factor in choosing ammunition. And you're right that guns are used because they work. The lethality of a gun vs the lethality of even the wickedest knife is not remotely comparable.

[X_Digger]

28. Actually, no, handguns aren't the 'weapon of choice' in robberies..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

In 2006, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 22% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm.

[MrModerate]

32. Right. Because so many robberies are committed using threats of beating . . .

(fists and feet the "weapon" of choice). Take beating out of the equation and your percentages will change dramatically.

[X_Digger]

35. Not sure what your point is..

If I take a huge chunk of anything out of any stat, it'll change any percentage dramatically.

Care to clarify?

[MrModerate]

39. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well . . .

If you take our "robberies without weapons" (e.g., a robbery where the "weapon" is a fist) -- which I think you should if the topic being discussed is weapons of choice -- then I think you'll see a clear plurality of robberies being committed with guns. For that matter, even if you just look at the original 42% figure, that still (probably) puts guns in first place.

The site you referenced in your earlier post isn't currently working for me, or I would root around there for some numbers.

[X_Digger]

54. Fists are weapons.

So unless you're going to foam pad everyone's hands, I don't think it relevant to discount them.

Here's another link- http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_21.html

In some states, fists ('strongarm' in the FBIs list) outnumber guns- like California, Mississippi, or Ohio.

In others, guns outnumber fists- like Indiana, Maryland, and Michigan.

If you add them all up, Guns are used in 42%, 'strongarm' is 41%.

Most of the time, criminals who perform robberies do so without firearms.

[wtmusic]

55. How many attempted fist robberies result in a homicide? nt

[hack89]

57. Fists (and feet) kill more people than "assault weapons" . nt

[wtmusic]

60. Nice dodge.

Now answer the actual question, please. :eyes:

[hack89]

63. Just pointing out the greater threat to human life - that's all. nt

[YllwFvr]

49. society has a lot to do with it

we have more crime, they have far more suicides. They have also had some horrific mass knife attacks too.

[Cleita]

16. Let's put it this way.

Even the universe has laws and rules that govern it. So why do mortal men who aren't even a couple of genes removed from chimpanzees think that they can operate in a society without rules or laws governing their behavior? That's what you are asking for. No rules or laws. The rules don't have to be draconian. They just need to make sense and they have to be workable. The fact is if you guys don't come to the table and discuss this and be a part of the process, laws will be passed you may not like because you refused to admit that there is a problem. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress has woken up that legislative body and they will do something about it with or without you because they are at risk.

[aquart]

19. Nah.

Their precious Reagan was shot and they didn't do a damn thing. They won't for Arizona, either. In the end, all the killing was just a great viral ad for Glock.

[RSillsbee]

46. Reagan was shot

w/ a .22 caliber revolver

[aquart]

64. Which explains why so few people died that day?

Leaving us all feeling perfectly secure. I know that when the cops told me that the gun I'd faced was a .22, I felt much better.

[X_Digger]

20. I think that's a bit of wishful thinking..

The fact is if you guys don't come to the table and discuss this and be a part of the process, laws will be passed you may not like because you refused to admit that there is a problem.

Did you see this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=361274&mesg_id=361274

Representative Carolyn "that-shoulder-thing-that-goes-up" McCarthy and Senator Frank "I-never-read-a-gun-law-I-don't-like" Lautenberg's bill will be lucky to make it out of committee.

[aikoaiko]

61. "without rules or rules" -- do you have any idea how many laws there are already

governing access to firearms? No one on DU has ever asked for no rules or laws concerning firearm access. And only a few wackos outside of DU say such things are they are balanced by the same number of extremists who want to remove all firearms from civilian hands.

[Cleita]

65. I've been hearing that old canard ever since Waco

and Ruby Ridge, when I first started following this issue, yet we have had an escalation of gun violence since then even with yahoos showing up armed to Town Hall meetings during the last election. If those laws were effective laws, there should be less violence but there hasn't been. This is why we need effective laws to keep firearms out of the hands of civilians who shouldn't be able to own them or buy ammunition for them. No one is suggesting removing all firearms from all civilian hands but that may happen if the extreme side you mention get their way and you guys were too stubborn to come to the table with some real ideas that the majority of us could get behind.

[aikoaiko]

66. violent crime (including firearm homicides) have been going down for almost 2 decades.

What rise in violence do you see?

[X_Digger]

69. What 'escalation of gun violence since then' ?!?

It's down, lowest in 20 years.

[aquart]

18. You have got to stop listening to FOX.

[BeFree]

21. Put a gun in your hand and feel the POWER

That's it, in a nutshell.

Guns make people feel Powerful.

We need to control people who desire to feel more powerful via guns.
Test them. Once a month.
Make them jump through mental hoops before they can buy a gun. And then test them once a month.

[LAGC]

23. Would that reduce crime though?

What would stop a criminal from jumping through the mental hoops and getting retested to qualify on a regular basis?

Or would they just ignore the law and carry anyway?

[BeFree]

26. Stop them from buying guns

It will reduce crime.

People who have guns need to be well regulated. Much, much more well regulated.

[PavePusher]

31. Did you clear your postings...

through the correct government department? bout once a month or so?

[BeFree]

34. Did one of my postings make you bleed?

Where do such stupid comments come from?

[PavePusher]

40. No, and none of my guns has made anyone bleed either.

So, care to cast any additional aspersions?

[BeFree]

41. Pull the trigger, it might

Now why do people pull the trigger and make someone bleed? Eh?

Could be they just love the power that pulling the trigger gives them.
Those people need to be weeded out, right? IOW, well regulated.

[PavePusher]

44. I keep firearms for target shooting and self-defense.

You are attempting to equate me to being a criminal or would-be criminal.

Please stop your slander.

[YllwFvr]

51. he means

if his right to own a gun should have hoops that need to be jumped through, then why not your right to speak your mind?

[RSillsbee]

47. When you can get them to stop buying

Marijuana we'll talk

[YllwFvr]

50. then they will buy them through a private sale

and get no background check or mental health check at all. The law only stops those inclined to obey it. Straw purchases happen far too often, and its illegal, but they do it anyway. They dont care. Pass whatever law you want and people will break it because they dont care. It really is true, gun laws have zero impact on criminals. Unless they are being charged with them. Then half are dropped anyway :/

[spin]

58. Maybe handling a firearm makes YOU feel more powerful ...

handling a firearm does not have that effect on me.

I own firearms and I don't live in a fantasy world. Maybe that's the difference between us.

[RSillsbee]

79. Wow , all my guns must be defective then NT

[guitar man]

25. A wayward youth

A wayward youth breaking into my home would have a couple chances to change their mind about their actions. The first thing they will encounter will be an alarm and the next thing they encounter will be a formidable dog. Should they be persistent enough to proceed past those, and menace my family enough to make us fear for our lives, they will probably wind up with a .45 hole or two in them. It's not something I'd ever want to do in a million years, but considering the alternative... I owe my family better than that....

[MrModerate]

27. Any argument that includes the phrase "we can't hope to . . ." is suspect.

Lots of countries have successfully controlled firearms so that it never became an arms race that the criminals won.

I will tell you one thing: unless America tries to control guns, guns will continue to control America.

[X_Digger]

33. Lots of countries.. also had a low violent crime rate BEFORE gun control laws..

Kind of a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy to claim that one caused the other- especially when they didn't have much crime (gun or otherwise) to begin with.

[MrModerate]

36. Be careful. You could dislocate something trying that sort of solipsistic jiu-jitsu.

Don't know which countries you're referring to (please send me addresses and I'll consider emigration) but I was referring to Australia and the UK, which had very typical levels of violent crime when the 20th century's increased industrial production and multiple wars started making guns available to just about anyone who wanted one, and who have neverletheless managed the civilian ownership of guns in such a way that the criminals didn't win the arms race.

[X_Digger]

42. Err, you picked at least one bad example for your case..

In the UK, the first of many gun laws were passed when 'the boys came home' after WWI- most notably the 1920 Firearms Act. Part of this was the fear of a surge in crime, part was working class unrest (the brits weren't the only ones to worry about their very own Bolshevik revolution, though). Another revision to the Firearms act was made in the late 30's and another in '69, then 1997's virtual ban on handgun possession.

However, crime maintained a rather low rate until the mid 50's. The increase in crime accelerated (crime had been increasing by about 7-10% for much of the previous 70 years.)

Regarding murder rates, check Eric Monkkonen's work. His book, "Murder in New York City", makes an interesting comparison of the murder rate in New York to London. For the two hundred years that he studied (1780 - 1980), NYC consistently had a murder rate five times that of London, even with firearms removed from the calculations.

Depending on whether or not you believe the BCS, and which party is giving the report, even after 1997, gun crime continued to rise.

Here's an interesting article from my bookmarks-

http://www.historytoday.com/victor-bailey/crime-20th-century-britain -- it's a bit dated (1988), but it has some interesting information on the early 20th century.

[SPedigrees]

38. It's just like dems to focus on gun control

instead of demanding that the laws against inciting violence and fomenting hatred be enforced. No wonder republicans run rampant.

[OhioBlue]

43. I hate the idea of killing. I do not hate the idea of gun control

I actually don't connect with the thought that someone hates the idea of gun control. For me, gun control does not equal banning guns or taking away your guns.

We exercise gun control in our own home. My significant other is a hunter, from a long line of hunters. Me? I don't like guns in our home. For him, guns are passed down from Grandfather to grandson... it is tradition. My SO has several guns. He used to keep them in his bedroom leaning against the wall or hung on racks on the wall. Our compromise? He had to buy a gun cabinet and keep them locked up. We have a 3 year old son. We've had several suicides by gun, gun accidents, etc in our circle of friends, family and community. I won't make him sell his guns. He agrees to keep them locked up. I don't understand why it is so taboo in our society to discuss this issue as we do in our own families.

If clips were limited to 10 rounds... how would that be a horrible thing for anyone or go against the constitution? If we required concealed carry holders to go through more stringent training and testing.. how is that a bad thing? More education and professionalism would reinforce the responsibility one has with such a permit.

It is my opinion that people should be licensed to own handguns and they should go through training and testing. I'm sure you and many others disagree while others will agree with me. I'm open to a debate, however it seems NRA members and 2nd amendment purists, are not even open to such a discussion.

[YllwFvr]

52. not an unreasonable demand

to ask him to lock them up. If its your place, its quite all right.

Mag limits mean nothing in regards to crime. It would also nearly ban guns like aks and ARs. Thats half the fun of shooting a rifle like that. Also most pistols come with mags of higher capacity, and Im sure the gun manufacturers would require a complete change in the factories to make all low capacity mags, costing a fortune to do so. My own pistol, common enough for police to carry, came with 17 round mags. I dont consider that high cap, its from the factory that way.

Down a slightly different path, it would go against the bill of rights, in my mind at least, because the second amendment isnt about hunting. It isnt about plinking or shooting competitions. It allows those things to be done, sure. Its for self defense, and its the reset button on our government. We were armed back then with muskets, the same guns used by standard infantry. Now we have ars and aks, very similar guns to what armies around the world are issued. The 2a is about fighting an invading force, aiding our armies, or to fight our government directly. Its would be difficult enough when modern armies have tanks and planes, though numbers would help the armed citizen, but when we are using inferior firearms as well? When I go to the range they limit me to 3 rounds in my rifle, and 6 rounds in a pistol. Its not for safety, but its also extremely annoying. Because of that I usually try and go to a friends house and shoot there. Its much more fun to be able to fill it up and not have to reload all the time. If you dont shoot, then you cant realize how much it can be a pain and its rough on the hands.

Competition shooters would be effected in a big way. They almost all use higher capacity magazines because its all about speed, and less mag changes can make or break you in the scores.

By the way, while Jared L may have used a 33 round mag in arizona, the VT shooter used plenty of 10 round mags. Mags are so quick to change, high capacity or low makes little difference, so banning them will accomplish nothing.

Training and such should be up to the state, not the federal government. Some states require training, some do not. Im of the opinion it should not be required. By all means if you are going to carry, get training. Its a very smart thing to do, but required? To make use of the right you have to get training? To me that sounds silly. Replace gun with another right. To pray before your meal, you must get training. To speak at your town council meeting, or to your state representative, you must first get training.

For the record, you might label me as a 2a purist, but Im anti NRA.

[OhioBlue]

76. I do appreciate your reply

You explained your position well without snark or any hostility. Thank you for that. It did help me to understand things from your point of view.

I don't see the 2nd amendment as intending to be a reset button on the Government, however I see it as intended to create a militia before there was a standing, well regulated and trained armed forces, police forces, etc. I see the right to keep and bear arms as a right that the Federal Government cannot take away (from the entire citizenry), but they can however regulate. (I say from the entire citizenry, because I don't think there is anything wrong with taking that right away from certain people that have done things that cause them to lose that right (some convicted felons, people that have shown extreme irresponsibility and cause harm to others) or people that have serious mental problems and are shown to be a threat to themselves and others)

I will tell you that before, I never understood the argument against banning certain guns based on the 2nd amendment or the founding father's wishes - in my mind, they may have never envisioned an AK - so why would we presume to know they would be in favor of allowing them in the hands of citizens? I understand your position and those who make that argument much better know. I had never considered the argument that citizens have the right to have arms similar to the government.

I've probably heard your line of reasoning before... but actually the way you put it did flip a little switch for me. I do understand what you are saying. I don't agree, but I understand. And as for the clips that hold 33 vs. 10 - you made some good points. I think it is a discussion our country should have and would like to see an honest debate between someone that can make points like you made as well as a counter. I wish our Congress and media could work like that - with honest, well researched and respectful debate. My mind could be changed on this to think it would not be a good idea to limit rounds to 10 - perhaps others could too.

[PavePusher]

56. Are you willing to hold our other Civil Rights...

to the same standard of access?

Because if you aren't, then you are correct: the matter is not open to discussion.

One does not ask government permission to exercise a Right.

[RSillsbee]

45. I don't ever want to kill another human being again as long as I live

But if I have to choose between that and dying or that and dying and leaving my family at the mercy of a home invader. I'm pretty sure what choice I'm going to make

[YllwFvr]

53. +1

this ^
I carry every day. Heaven forbid I have to use it. Ive hunted for a few years, but never had the chance to shoot but for once. I enjoyed being outdoors and watching the wild life. I did have a deer in my scope once, but I didnt have the heart to kill such a fine animal. Its not like I needed the meat. If I had, maybe it would have been different. I dont even go anymore, that took most of my enjoyment out of it.

I do agree with RSillsbee though. If I had to choose between my family, myself, or a criminal, I could make that choice. Being armed isnt a guarantee of safety, just like having an alarm in your house doesnt make you immune to danger. But it could help. Ill take that help and maybe it will be enough if some day I need it.

Ill add, people sometimes use the "I dont expect a fire but I have a extinguisher" and "I dont expect a wreck, but I wear my seat belt". If I may suggest, keep a small extinguisher in your car. I had a fire while driving and it was pretty terrifying. Watching the investment of a car go up with all your stuff inside. Started above my girl friends feet in the wiring. I never thought to need something like that. Have one now though! Like above, doesnt mean my car wont burn to a shell like before, but it could help.

[NaturalHigh]

59. Great post.

[KansasVoter]

67. Wow, and this mentality causes many loaded guns to be found by kids.

[RSillsbee]

68. There are no children living in my household

When my grand children come to visit the only guns not locked in a safe are that one I carry and the one my wife carries.

The grand children are not allowed unsupervised access to the area of the house which the safe is in.

[KansasVoter]

77. Yes, kids never find hidden guns! Jesus!

[X_Digger]

78. Do the lit'luns carry a blow torch, too?

Perhaps you missed the word 'safe' in his post?

[RSillsbee]

80. None of my guns are hidden

There are two keys to the safe One on my key ring one on the wife's.

The grandkids know exactly where the guns are are and they know that they can't get into the safe.


They also know that we don't discuss the fact that grandpa has guns.

[X_Digger]

71. I think we need to add another item to that list in another thread..

The Lovejoy: No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Imagery is optional:

[KansasVoter]

72. Funny you mock kids dying. Says a lot.

[X_Digger]

73. No, I mock people trying to use the death of a child to push their particular agenda. n/t

[KansasVoter]

74. Sure you do.