The Big Gun Control Thread

People kill people with knives. People kill lots of people with guns.

Paleocon wrote:

Believe it or not, a pistol is really not any less expensive than a rifle or shotgun. You can get a Glock 19 like the one Loughner used for a little under $500 at just about any gun store in Maryland. For that money you could buy a Mossberg 590 milspec 12g and still have money left over for a tactical light, laser, and ammunition.

Except if you look at the published reports on gun trace data you'll see that the most frequently recovered handguns involved in homicides aren't $500 Glocks...they're $100 Saturday Night Specials.

Malor wrote:
Texas and California are polar opposites with equivalent levels of crime in their major cities.

Which is a pretty good indication that guns don't cause crime.

And the flip side of that is also true. Texas has extremely lax gun laws, including concealed carry, and yet they have similar levels of crime as a state with one of the toughest/most complex. So that's a pretty good indication that arming the population doesn't decrease crime or make anyone safer.

And you still can't get past the fact that guns are used in a lot of crime and as we've seen from this thread and others, the vast majority of those guns were originally legally purchased. So when a 2nd Amendment enthusiast lobbies to make sure there are still loopholes in the gun laws, he's making it that much easier for criminal to get their weapons.

Bear wrote:

What makes me crazy about the whole gun control debate and this is not directed at anyone in particular in this thread.

Guns look cool, guns look powerful. They make big noises and are really really popular in the movies! THEY'RE NOT FOR SURVIVAL (unless you live in Alaska or Afghanistan) OR DEFENSE TOOLS (unless you're member of the 10th Mountain Division) ANYMORE....not for the general population anyway. Lets not pretend that the chance of someone defending themselves with their home with their own gun is unbelievably low. You're far more likely to get shot with your own gun than you are to stop a home invasion. If that's not the case then your guns probably aren't secured properly.

Which is why the top of this page was dedicated to gun owners who just had to bling out their boring old hunting rifle and make it look like an AK. They're not doing that because it will make them better hunters, better target shooters, or make them safer. They're doing it so they can pretend they're a bad ass.

LarryC wrote:

My understanding was that if you go to a lot of criminal hotspots on purpose and then try to stop armed criminals by any means necessary, you are more likely to be shot. Is this not true in America?

I don't have any statistics on how many officers are shot running towards crimes in progress, but based on what I see on the news a lot of cops get shot being taken by surprise.

Overall it's rare for cops to get killed by gunfire. According to this group, out of the 116 officers killed on duty in 2009, only 49 were shot. Another 48 died in vehicle-related incidents. There are something like 700,000 police officers in the United States (maybe higher if federal agents are included). That would make the rate something like 6.5 per 100,000 people. More than average for the population as a whole, but not as high as some segments of the population.

Funkenpants wrote:
LarryC wrote:

My understanding was that if you go to a lot of criminal hotspots on purpose and then try to stop armed criminals by any means necessary, you are more likely to be shot. Is this not true in America?

I don't have any statistics on how many officers are shot running towards crimes in progress, but based on what I see on the news a lot of cops get shot being taken by surprise.

It's rare for cops to get killed by gunfire. According to this group, out of the 116 officers killed on duty in 2009, only 49 were shot. Another 48 died in vehicle-related incidents. There are something like 700,000 police officers in the United States (maybe higher if federal agents are included). That would make the rate something like 6.5 per 100,000 people. More than average for the population as a whole, but not as high as some segments of the population.

Okay. Let's back up. The point is that police officers don't have the same personal safety concerns as private citizens. Given that police officers die more from gunfire taken in the line of duty than the average population as a whole, would this not indicate what I said? Would you say that a police officer armed with a gun would be similarly effective in effecting an arrest of an armed criminal as that armed with something other than a gun?

I'm perfectly willing to bet that less than 33% of all people who died in 2009 died of gunfire.

Context, Funkenpants. Context.

LarryC wrote:

The point is that police officers don't have the same personal safety concerns as private citizens. Given that police officers die more from gunfire taken in the line of duty than the average population as a whole, would this not indicate what I said?

The police rate is actually much lower than for that of a black guy, which is somewhere around 18 per 100,000. The risk for everyone living or working in bad neighborhoods seems close enough to group them together in terms of actual risk of death by shooting.

The British seem to have an approach that begins with an officer being unarmed, and then arming only special squads or in situations where there's a risk of gunfire breaking out. It's a rare approach, but it seems like it's worked for them for a long time. It would never work here, because here a policeman's gun is not just a self-defense weapon but also a symbol of authority.

I understand context. I understand your argument completely. But that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you, any more than if I repeat myself 10 times you'll agree with me. This is the internet. People can understand each other completely without agreeing on anything.

Funkenpants wrote:

I understand context. I understand your argument completely. But that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you.

Of course not, but you might want to respond with something that's actually relevant to what I'm saying. Let's clarify. My point is that police officers do not have the same concerns with personal safety as private citizens due to the nature of their work. If you don't agree with that, you're going to have to say something to the effect that law enforcement and dealing with armed criminals as a professional hazard doesn't materially affect your personal safety. And that guns are unnecessary in the apprehending of criminals who are armed with guns.

Bear wrote:

What makes me crazy about the whole gun control debate and this is not directed at anyone in particular in this thread.

Guns look cool, guns look powerful. They make big noises and are really really popular in the movies! THEY'RE NOT FOR SURVIVAL (unless you live in Alaska or Afghanistan) OR DEFENSE TOOLS (unless you're member of the 10th Mountain Division) ANYMORE....not for the general population anyway. Lets not pretend that the chance of someone defending themselves with their home with their own gun is unbelievably low. You're far more likely to get shot with your own gun than you are to stop a home invasion. If that's not the case then your guns probably aren't secured properly.

The reality is that guns make a lot of guys feel like bad asses. Can we please stop pretending that they do anything more than pump up self esteem. I've walked with many guns of many varieties and when you're carrying them you feel dominant. That's all fine and I support your right to own one (with some specific restrictions). The functional practical use of guns in modern society has all but evaporated unless your profession requires them. Gun ownership is far more about self esteem and showing off than anything else. Do you really think anyone gives a sh*t that you might have a concealed carry permit? If not, why do people insist on telling others? The only reason I care at all is because I don't want to get shot by you because you're a careless nitwit.

If you disagree, ask yourself this question. Why do a lot of people still hunt? It's not like its an efficient way to gather food? Hell it's not even really necessary for anything other than entertainment. When you kill something with a gun, you feel powerful. You feel like you've won something. Your survival is no longer an issue. Owning that gun and killing the game makes you feel.......like a badass.

Now zombies....thats an entirely different gun discussion!entertainment than necessity.

Maybe this hits too close to home but if my favorite history teacher in the world wasn't armed when the Burger King he was in was being robbed, he would be dead and his influence on countless students who were inspired to appreciate history and politics would never have happened.

Edwin wrote:

Maybe this hits too close to home but if my favorite history teacher in the world wasn't armed when the Burger King he was in was being robbed, he wouldmight be dead and his influence on countless students who were inspired to appreciate history and politics would never have happened.

Important correction there.

Jonman wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Maybe this hits too close to home but if my favorite history teacher in the world wasn't armed when the Burger King he was in was being robbed, he wouldmight be dead and his influence on countless students who were inspired to appreciate history and politics would never have happened.

Important correction there.

Maybe, but considering the criminals had already shot the store manager for not complying I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think they would shoot him.

LarryC wrote:

My point is that police officers do not have the same concerns with personal safety as private citizens due to the nature of their work.

We're getting to the stage of repetition. I don't consider that an important distinction. Both officer and private citizen have the same desire: neither wants to get shot by a criminal. If statistics indicate that both groups have similar risks of being shot by an armed criminal, why would we not treat both equally regarding the need for self-defense weapons?

Police have more training in the use of weapons to cut down on accidents, but that's an argument for greater training requirements for the legal possession of weapons rather than for an outright ban on the private ownership of guns.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't consider that an important distinction. Both officer and private citizen have the same desire: neither wants to get shot. If statistics indicate that both groups have similar risks of being shot by an armed criminal, why would we not treat both equally regarding the need for self-defense weapons?

Because you haven't established that both groups are similar enough that handing guns to one is the same as handing guns to the other. A private citizen who has a gun could stay for a shootout or even go to a place with a shootout rather than run away, which is what he or she ought to be doing. A policeman doesn't have a choice either way. Armed or otherwise, he has to investigate.

We went through this already. As I said, we can eliminate flight or compliance as an option in those cases where an unarmed victim was actually shot. As I said, we're in the point of repetition here.

Funkenpants wrote:

We went through this already. As I said, we can eliminate flight or compliance as an option in those cases where an unarmed victim was actually shot. As I said, we're in the point of repetition here.

You said it, but you didn't present anything compelling or convincing, nor did you present anything relevant on that angle.

To recap:

Me: Private citizens, when confronted by an armed criminal element, can always run.

You: Plus, there have been enough shootings of unarmed victims during crimes to indicate that compliance and flight aren't the simple solutions you make them out to be. The fact that we have unarmed victims of crimes is evidence of the opposite. Or are you suggesting that unarmed people frequently don't try to flee or comply with armed criminals?

I did NOT say that compliance and flight are simple or foolproof solution to armed threats, and whether or not they're simple solutions doesn't say how effective they are at preventing gunfire injuries amongst civilians. Nevertheless, private citizens have this options and policemen do not. We are repeating this because you missed the point both times.

A direct rebuttal along these lines would have you presenting evidence that civilians heading towards a crime scene are equally in danger of being shot as those running away. Go.

A couple of people have pointed out that gun laws don't have any effect on crime.

So what do they effect?

I am not being snarky, I am curious.

Kier wrote:

A couple of people have pointed out that gun laws don't have any effect on crime.

So what do they effect?

I am not being snarky, I am curious.

I think the more accurate statement would be that no one really know if a particular gun law has or doesn't have any effect on crime.

The pro-gun crowd will argue that outright bans like what D.C. had didn't lower crime, therefore restrictions on gun ownership is pointless. The pro-gun control folks will argue that the fact someone could drive 20 minutes out of D.C. and pick up a gun and bring it back to D.C. means you can't say restricting gun ownership doesn't have any effect on crime because gun ownership wasn't really restricted. The chain, as they say, is only as strongest as its weakest link or, in this case, the state with the laxest gun laws.

We know that firearms are used extensively in the commission of crimes--from homicide to the much, much more common robbery and aggravated assaults. Essentially, firearms are involved in nearly a quarter of all violent crimes and two-thirds of all homicides. So it's not a stretch to say that restricting the availability of firearms would have reduce crime. It wouldn't stop everyone from committing a robbery if they didn't have a gun, but there'd definitely be a percentage who wouldn't without their machismo crutch.

And as much as everyone wants to believe that firearm homicides are all about drugs, the stats just don't back them up. Homicides involving drug laws and gangs only account for 10% of the total.

The biggest reason people get shot and killed is the mundane argument that gets out of hand. Arguments account for 25% of all firearm related homicides. This tidbit also means that the easy availability of firearms *creates* criminals. Had Joe Sixpack not had a gun in his house when he got into an argument with his buddy, he'd only be arrested for a scuffle if at all. Instead now he's a murderer.

They tend to affect personal feelings of security in some instances. Areas who passed Concealed Carry Laws say brief drops in Burglary or Breaking and Entering crimes, which ticked back up. This is the answer, I think that passes constitutional muster-licensing and training. Among gun owners, homicides are the rarest among hunters and those with CC permits; which I think speaks to training, education, and money working to weed out the irresponsible.

Guns are used to prevent or fight a crime in civilians with similar frequency to police officers-it is exceedingly rare.

This is a country where the police have no inherent duty to respond to your distress. What are you supposed to do?

And I can also craft a cherry picked argument for disarming cops too-a kid in Oakland, and a 7 year old in Detroit may still be alive. I can also ponder that if the statistics are a wash, why burn calories trying to ban them?

The whole situation of a Burger King join being robbed at gunpoint makes me really sad. People are standing to gain so little (in terms of the loot) are risking so much (in terms of possible consequences), they should be really desperate for money. They probably have no money, no opportunities, no future worth worrying about, and probably not much brains -- yet they have guns.

LarryC wrote:

You said it, but you didn't present anything compelling or convincing, nor did you present anything relevant on that angle.

Yet another person I didn't manage to convince or compel in an internet debate. This is, like, the 10,000th time this has happened.

LarryC wrote:

A direct rebuttal along these lines would have you presenting evidence that civilians heading towards a crime scene are equally in danger of being shot as those running away.

Why would a civilian head towards a crime scene? The civilian is typically already at the crime scene when the crime begins.

OG_slinger wrote:

Except if you look at the published reports on gun trace data you'll see that the most frequently recovered handguns involved in homicides aren't $500 Glocks...they're $100 Saturday Night Specials.

not quite $100. The most common pistol used in crimes is the Hi-Point C-9. They generally go for around $165 and you pretty much get what you pay for. For that money you can get two surplus Mosin Nagant rifles and still have money left over for a crate of surplus Russian ammo.

Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Except if you look at the published reports on gun trace data you'll see that the most frequently recovered handguns involved in homicides aren't $500 Glocks...they're $100 Saturday Night Specials.

not quite $100. The most common pistol used in crimes is the Hi-Point C-9. They generally go for around $165 and you pretty much get what you pay for. For that money you can get two surplus Mosin Nagant rifles and still have money left over for a crate of surplus Russian ammo.

You can find old Lorcins, Brycos, or Ravens for less than $100 (all of which topped the BATF guns used in crimes list for years). Either way, they're not Glocks. They're cheap, small, concealable, and high caliber semi-automatics, which is why they're bought and not surplus Mosin Nagant rifles.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Except if you look at the published reports on gun trace data you'll see that the most frequently recovered handguns involved in homicides aren't $500 Glocks...they're $100 Saturday Night Specials.

not quite $100. The most common pistol used in crimes is the Hi-Point C-9. They generally go for around $165 and you pretty much get what you pay for. For that money you can get two surplus Mosin Nagant rifles and still have money left over for a crate of surplus Russian ammo.

You can find old Lorcins, Brycos, or Ravens for less than $100 (all of which topped the BATF guns used in crimes list for years). Either way, they're not Glocks. They're cheap, small, concealable, and high caliber semi-automatics, which is why they're bought and not surplus Mosin Nagant rifles.

My point was that the small and concealable is a lot more of an issue than price. Handguns are no less expensive than longarms.

Paleocon wrote:

My point was that the small and concealable is a lot more of an issue than price. Handguns are no less expensive than longarms.

Except that what consistently ends up at the top of the ATF gun trace reports are the cheap handguns. $500 Glocks don't make the list, so that means that criminals are price sensitive.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

My point was that the small and concealable is a lot more of an issue than price. Handguns are no less expensive than longarms.

Except that what consistently ends up at the top of the ATF gun trace reports are the cheap handguns. $500 Glocks don't make the list, so that means that criminals are price sensitive.

I think we are, to some extent, talking past one another.

Certainly, crooks tend to purchase cheaper handguns over more expensive ones, but I was addressing the particular statement that crooks buy handguns in the first place because they are inexpensive. I don't think that is true and, moreover, it is not the case that they are any less expensive than long guns.

The determining factor of whether or not a crook buys a handgun is whether he wants a handgun. The economics do not determine whether or not he will purchase a handgun or a rifle or a shotgun. And in that particular calculus, it is probably the ability to conceal it that makes it more attractive to him.

Paleocon:

There is also the ability to store it and carry it easily. A small gun can be stuffed into your pants without affecting your ability to run and vault fences very much. It's also easier to throw away in a manner that's not too obvious and where it can't easily be found. Getting rid of a rifle can be more challenging, and carrying it around means you can't do other things with your hands.

Paleocon wrote:

I think we are, to some extent, talking past one another.

Certainly, crooks tend to purchase cheaper handguns over more expensive ones, but I was addressing the particular statement that crooks buy handguns in the first place because they are inexpensive. I don't think that is true and, moreover, it is not the case that they are any less expensive than long guns.

The determining factor of whether or not a crook buys a handgun is whether he wants a handgun. The economics do not determine whether or not he will purchase a handgun or a rifle or a shotgun. And in that particular calculus, it is probably the ability to conceal it that makes it more attractive to him.

I agree with you that small and concealable are attributes some people like in their firearms, I'm just not comfortable saying its the only thing.

I guess the biggest issue I had was with you comparing the price of SNS's to surplus 19th-century Russian rifles and saying the price of handguns and long guns are the same. Even a cheap Chinese-made SKS is double the price of a cheap handgun and, unless you're buying a .22, you aren't going to find rifle that is within $100 or so of a SNS. Handguns are the cheapest firearm by far and cheap is a powerful force for shaping purchasing behavior.

I mean if you were a straw purchaser for a local gang and walked into a gun store with $1,500 you could either get ten or so SNS's or five or so rifles. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you literally get more bang for your buck with the handguns.

Mosin-Nagant isn't 19th century, it's 20th. In 19th, the standard issue was a smooth-bore Berdan.

It was first made in 1891.

Handguns by nature of being handguns are not less expensive than rifles. With the Mosin, Paleocon has cited a prime example of a cheap rifle, not in .22 rim fire, which costs a comparable amount to the pistols which you have cited.