5 ms·

Living here in India it's surprising to see the mostly unregulated Gun sale in the US. I believe it's a right the constitution of US grants to its citizens. Bu

Living here in India it's surprising to see the mostly unregulated Gun sale in the US. I believe it's a right the constitution of US grants to its citizens. But I've read that this is a major cause for higher homicidal rate in the US. It seems like common sense to us here that allowing nearly everyone to purchase Guns is counter-productive and will only result in more violence. Correct me If I am wrong, I understand this is a highly polarized issue in US and it's election time too.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- glhaynes 14y ago
  This is indeed oversimplifying. A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it; it's not a universally obvious truth. The person you're replying to obviously doesn't think so, at least. Regarding your second point: yes, some criminals will still get some guns no matter how many laws are passed banning them or how much money is spent on enforcing those laws. But that doesn't mean they're wholly ineffectual. Criminality is not some binary state where either you're an innocent meek upright citizen or you're a hardened criminal with trivial access to any amounts of every sort of weaponry that has ever been devised regardless of legal status. [Edit: I want to note that I personally feel ignorant enough on the topic to not take a strong stance for or against gun control — what has seemed to work for many countries to curtail violence would not necessarily work for the United States for a number of reasons including culture, guns already in the country, etc. But that's no reason to make bad arguments either way.]
  - protomyth 14y ago
    The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1). Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well. 1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001
  - harshreality 14y ago
    A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it That's not how the government in the U.S. is supposed to operate. You're supposed to have to make a strong case for "the government should..." The benefit is that gun possession by criminals might be reduced eventually? That's speculative, depends on enforcement tactics, and ignores that violent crime rates are not a simple function of criminal gun possession; it is a complicated function including culture, criminal gun possession, deterrent effect of non-criminal gun possession, police presence, specific factors inducing gun crime (including gangs and drug turf wars, or drug addiction), and the environment of the local neighborhood. The cost of a gun ban in the U.S. is that it would require tens of millions of citizens to forfeit property, and it removes one option they have for defending themselves. Even if you successfully make a case that guns should be banned, there's a nearly insurmountable obstacle: that a gun ban would be unconstitutional.
- superxor 14y ago
  When you talk about self-defense, even here in India one is allowed to own a gun if he gets a license. It's not impossible to own a gun here, it is just more regulated. That way not every Tom, Dick and Harry can own a gun. Criminals can get hands on weapons in one or the other way. But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution. It's better to work towards a better Law and order system. And, don't make statements like 'You are wrong'. These are issues our and your forefathers have been trying to solve, there is still no absolute right/wrong yet.
  - maratd 14y ago
    > But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution. Actually, it's an excellent one. It creates a disincentive to committing crimes. If there's a higher chance of getting your head blown off while robbing someone, you're less likely to rob someone. It's that simple. In fact, that's how things have worked for thousands of years up until guns show up. Who ever heard of sword control? For some reason, governments all around the world are now busy trying to restrict your property rights. A truly sad state of affairs.
    - TomGullen 14y ago
      Sword control and gun control is a terrible comparison. Replace the guns with swords in crime, do you think equal numbers of people would die? Obviously not, guns are far more easy to kill with, less physically demanding and ranged. With a sword pretty much everyone has a good chance of running away, a massacre isn't really possible.
      - harshreality 14y ago
        Then why did Australia and the UK ban swords? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594297517.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594297517.h... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm
- badclient 14y ago
  1. That sounds like very subjective reasoning. Imagine someone saying "the government should not decide how much to tax me, I should." 2. Citation?
  - timtadh 14y ago
    "No taxation without representation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representat... Only being taxed by duly elected individuals is a founding principle of the US. The American revolution was literally about that issue.
- prophetjohn 14y ago
  The criminals in, for instance, the UK aren't really getting them anyway. At least not to the extent that someone in the US could obtain a gun illegally. The reason that criminals in the US would be able to get them tomorrow if guns were outlawed today is because there are so many guns. And there are so many guns because production and sale has been legal and easy for so long. So while it's true that the short-term result of outlawing guns means that only criminals can get them (which is kind of a tautology), eventually, the ability to illegally acquire a firearm would get much more difficult, like it is in, for instance, the UK. That said, I do not support all firearms being outlawed. I think they should be heavily regulated and some should be entirely illegal, but mainly I'm disagreeing with the argument that I tend to hear so often.
  - maratd 14y ago
    While the rate of crimes committed with a gun may be lower in the UK, violent crime as a whole is much higher. Five times higher than my home of NYC. You can easily attribute this to a lack of guns. If there's less of a chance being shot, you have a higher incentive to commit crime. http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crim...
    - JabavuAdams 14y ago
      And yet the same is not true of Toronto, Canada. There are complex cultural issues at work -- it's not just about prevalence of gun ownership.
      - maratd 14y ago
        Crime in Toronto is fairly low. Gun control laws in Canada are similar to those in the US. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
        JabavuAdams 14y ago
        > Gun control laws in Canada are similar to those in the US Not true. It is illegal to use a firearm for self-defence in Canada -- pointing a firearm at another person is an offence under the Criminal Code. Except in the sketchiest of gang-infested neighbourhoods, one would not assume that urban home-owners would have guns, so there's no psychological deterrent there. Even the idea of using possibly lethal force to defend property is not really mainstream here.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  Protect you from what exactly? A crazed lunatic coming to hurt your family? How realistic is this situation exactly? I imagine the most likely situation they would be used in defence is for home robberies. The safest thing to do when being robbed is let them have whatever they want. You would be an idiot if you added a gun into the equation and blood started being shed.
- philwelch 14y ago
  You forgot number 3: The whole country started when common people picked up weapons and forcefully overthrew an occupying government they no longer wanted around. Self-defense against criminals is very nice to have, but it's not the reason it was written into the constitution as a civil right. The reason is that legitimate government exists only at the consent of the governed, and so the people deserve the power to revoke that consent by any means necessary, or at least to defend themselves against government oppression.
louischatriot 14y ago
I agree. Military fact: offense is always superior than defense (no tank is immune to rockets/artillery, there is no nuclear shield able to stop a missile etc). Same goes with guns: if someone wants to kill you, he will be able to do it, even if you have a gun with you (sneaking up on someone is not that hard). More guns indeed means more guns in the hands of violent people. Common sense (for me at least) says "this is idiotic"
- protomyth 14y ago
  Uhm, statistics don't really show that. North Dakota is one of the most gun heavy per population states in the union. 2008 had 4 murders, all of which didn't use a gun(1). I would say your "gun not a defense" argument is also wrong as home invasions tend to be one area to research to show counter examples. 1) http://www.ag.state.nd.us/reports/bcireports/crimehomicide/MURDER08.pdf http://www.ag.state.nd.us/reports/bcireports/crimehomicide/M...
- sixbrx 14y ago
  You're overgeneralizing. Let me overgeneralize in the same vein then, "Camping beats offense". In my house, in a home invasion, I'm a camper. I'd rather camp with a gun than a knife.
protomyth 14y ago
You might actually want to look at what kills people in the US statistically. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf [PDF] Homicide is down at 15th and had been going down for a number of years. So increasing gun ownership is not tipping the balance up.
gzavitz 14y ago
People have access to many types of lethal weapons. To me it seems silly to try and regulate everything, so why even start with guns?
badclient 14y ago
Correct me If I am wrong, I understand this is a highly polarized issue in US and it's election time too. You are correct that this is a very polarizing issue.
to3m 14y ago
It's also common sense to see that allowing nearly everybody to purchase guns will result in reduced violence, because the potential immediate penalty for violence is higher. It's up to you which you believe, and after making your decision I suggest you use google to find further justification for it.
- JabavuAdams 14y ago
  This isn't really true since people and especially small-time violent criminals aren't especially rational actors. The more likely outcome is ongoing gang/tribal violence and blood-feuds, as we've seen throughout history.
- philh 14y ago
  > It's up to you which you believe, and after making your decision I suggest you use google to find further justification for it. This is exactly the wrong order to do things in. Assuming you value truth, then it's not up to you which you believe. You have to look at the evidence first, and then believe whichever one is best supported. Ask questions before you shoot. http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/
  - to3m 14y ago
    Yes, that would be one valid interpretation of my post.
smokeyj 14y ago
> But I've read that this is a major cause for higher homicidal rate in the US. Explain what "cause" means. It's not like a gun can walk around and start popping people. I would say people are the "cause" for homicide, and we have many instruments at our disposal to use. What if violent movies and television caused violence? Should we ban television and movies? > allowing nearly everyone to purchase Guns is counter-productive and will only result in more violence. What if I told you it took violence to take people's guns away and prevent them from having them? Then would you support banning guns? At that point you would be in favor of using violence to prevent self-defense.
shawndumas 14y ago
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. ~ Mahatma Gandhi, My Experiments with Truth (1927) [1] ---- [1]: http://notableandquotable.blogspot.com/2008/02/gandhi-on-gun-control.html http://notableandquotable.blogspot.com/2008/02/gandhi-on-gun...
- RyJones 14y ago
  Almost. The full quote has "act" capitalized[1], along with a better explanation of what he's on about. [1]: http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/11/29/the-gandhi-quote/ http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/11/29/the-gandhi-quote/
mgarfias 14y ago
You don't have guns there because of crime, but rather because the Brits wanted to keep you disarmed in order to control your population better. Gandhi himself said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

glhaynes 14y ago
This is indeed oversimplifying. A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it; it's not a universally obvious truth. The person you're replying to obviously doesn't think so, at least. Regarding your second point: yes, some criminals will still get some guns no matter how many laws are passed banning them or how much money is spent on enforcing those laws. But that doesn't mean they're wholly ineffectual. Criminality is not some binary state where either you're an innocent meek upright citizen or you're a hardened criminal with trivial access to any amounts of every sort of weaponry that has ever been devised regardless of legal status. [Edit: I want to note that I personally feel ignorant enough on the topic to not take a strong stance for or against gun control — what has seemed to work for many countries to curtail violence would not necessarily work for the United States for a number of reasons including culture, guns already in the country, etc. But that's no reason to make bad arguments either way.]
- protomyth 14y ago
  The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1). Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well. 1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001
- harshreality 14y ago
  A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it That's not how the government in the U.S. is supposed to operate. You're supposed to have to make a strong case for "the government should..." The benefit is that gun possession by criminals might be reduced eventually? That's speculative, depends on enforcement tactics, and ignores that violent crime rates are not a simple function of criminal gun possession; it is a complicated function including culture, criminal gun possession, deterrent effect of non-criminal gun possession, police presence, specific factors inducing gun crime (including gangs and drug turf wars, or drug addiction), and the environment of the local neighborhood. The cost of a gun ban in the U.S. is that it would require tens of millions of citizens to forfeit property, and it removes one option they have for defending themselves. Even if you successfully make a case that guns should be banned, there's a nearly insurmountable obstacle: that a gun ban would be unconstitutional.
superxor 14y ago
When you talk about self-defense, even here in India one is allowed to own a gun if he gets a license. It's not impossible to own a gun here, it is just more regulated. That way not every Tom, Dick and Harry can own a gun. Criminals can get hands on weapons in one or the other way. But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution. It's better to work towards a better Law and order system. And, don't make statements like 'You are wrong'. These are issues our and your forefathers have been trying to solve, there is still no absolute right/wrong yet.
- maratd 14y ago
  > But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution. Actually, it's an excellent one. It creates a disincentive to committing crimes. If there's a higher chance of getting your head blown off while robbing someone, you're less likely to rob someone. It's that simple. In fact, that's how things have worked for thousands of years up until guns show up. Who ever heard of sword control? For some reason, governments all around the world are now busy trying to restrict your property rights. A truly sad state of affairs.
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    Sword control and gun control is a terrible comparison. Replace the guns with swords in crime, do you think equal numbers of people would die? Obviously not, guns are far more easy to kill with, less physically demanding and ranged. With a sword pretty much everyone has a good chance of running away, a massacre isn't really possible.
    - harshreality 14y ago
      Then why did Australia and the UK ban swords? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594297517.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594297517.h... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm
badclient 14y ago
1. That sounds like very subjective reasoning. Imagine someone saying "the government should not decide how much to tax me, I should." 2. Citation?
- timtadh 14y ago
  "No taxation without representation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representat... Only being taxed by duly elected individuals is a founding principle of the US. The American revolution was literally about that issue.
prophetjohn 14y ago
The criminals in, for instance, the UK aren't really getting them anyway. At least not to the extent that someone in the US could obtain a gun illegally. The reason that criminals in the US would be able to get them tomorrow if guns were outlawed today is because there are so many guns. And there are so many guns because production and sale has been legal and easy for so long. So while it's true that the short-term result of outlawing guns means that only criminals can get them (which is kind of a tautology), eventually, the ability to illegally acquire a firearm would get much more difficult, like it is in, for instance, the UK. That said, I do not support all firearms being outlawed. I think they should be heavily regulated and some should be entirely illegal, but mainly I'm disagreeing with the argument that I tend to hear so often.
- maratd 14y ago
  While the rate of crimes committed with a gun may be lower in the UK, violent crime as a whole is much higher. Five times higher than my home of NYC. You can easily attribute this to a lack of guns. If there's less of a chance being shot, you have a higher incentive to commit crime. http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crim...
  - JabavuAdams 14y ago
    And yet the same is not true of Toronto, Canada. There are complex cultural issues at work -- it's not just about prevalence of gun ownership.
    - maratd 14y ago
      Crime in Toronto is fairly low. Gun control laws in Canada are similar to those in the US. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
      - JabavuAdams 14y ago
        > Gun control laws in Canada are similar to those in the US Not true. It is illegal to use a firearm for self-defence in Canada -- pointing a firearm at another person is an offence under the Criminal Code. Except in the sketchiest of gang-infested neighbourhoods, one would not assume that urban home-owners would have guns, so there's no psychological deterrent there. Even the idea of using possibly lethal force to defend property is not really mainstream here.
TomGullen 14y ago
Protect you from what exactly? A crazed lunatic coming to hurt your family? How realistic is this situation exactly? I imagine the most likely situation they would be used in defence is for home robberies. The safest thing to do when being robbed is let them have whatever they want. You would be an idiot if you added a gun into the equation and blood started being shed.
philwelch 14y ago
You forgot number 3: The whole country started when common people picked up weapons and forcefully overthrew an occupying government they no longer wanted around. Self-defense against criminals is very nice to have, but it's not the reason it was written into the constitution as a civil right. The reason is that legitimate government exists only at the consent of the governed, and so the people deserve the power to revoke that consent by any means necessary, or at least to defend themselves against government oppression.

louischatriot 14y ago

I agree. Military fact: offense is always superior than defense (no tank is immune to rockets/artillery, there is no nuclear shield able to stop a missile etc). Same goes with guns: if someone wants to kill you, he will be able to do it, even if you have a gun with you (sneaking up on someone is not that hard). More guns indeed means more guns in the hands of violent people. Common sense (for me at least) says "this is idiotic"

protomyth 14y ago
Uhm, statistics don't really show that. North Dakota is one of the most gun heavy per population states in the union. 2008 had 4 murders, all of which didn't use a gun(1). I would say your "gun not a defense" argument is also wrong as home invasions tend to be one area to research to show counter examples. 1) http://www.ag.state.nd.us/reports/bcireports/crimehomicide/MURDER08.pdf http://www.ag.state.nd.us/reports/bcireports/crimehomicide/M...
sixbrx 14y ago
You're overgeneralizing. Let me overgeneralize in the same vein then, "Camping beats offense". In my house, in a home invasion, I'm a camper. I'd rather camp with a gun than a knife.

protomyth 14y ago

You might actually want to look at what kills people in the US statistically. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf [PDF] Homicide is down at 15th and had been going down for a number of years. So increasing gun ownership is not tipping the balance up.

gzavitz 14y ago

People have access to many types of lethal weapons. To me it seems silly to try and regulate everything, so why even start with guns?

badclient 14y ago

Correct me If I am wrong, I understand this is a highly polarized issue in US and it's election time too. You are correct that this is a very polarizing issue.

to3m 14y ago

It's also common sense to see that allowing nearly everybody to purchase guns will result in reduced violence, because the potential immediate penalty for violence is higher. It's up to you which you believe, and after making your decision I suggest you use google to find further justification for it.

JabavuAdams 14y ago
This isn't really true since people and especially small-time violent criminals aren't especially rational actors. The more likely outcome is ongoing gang/tribal violence and blood-feuds, as we've seen throughout history.
philh 14y ago
> It's up to you which you believe, and after making your decision I suggest you use google to find further justification for it. This is exactly the wrong order to do things in. Assuming you value truth, then it's not up to you which you believe. You have to look at the evidence first, and then believe whichever one is best supported. Ask questions before you shoot. http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/
- to3m 14y ago
  Yes, that would be one valid interpretation of my post.

smokeyj 14y ago

> But I've read that this is a major cause for higher homicidal rate in the US. Explain what "cause" means. It's not like a gun can walk around and start popping people. I would say people are the "cause" for homicide, and we have many instruments at our disposal to use. What if violent movies and television caused violence? Should we ban television and movies? > allowing nearly everyone to purchase Guns is counter-productive and will only result in more violence. What if I told you it took violence to take people's guns away and prevent them from having them? Then would you support banning guns? At that point you would be in favor of using violence to prevent self-defense.

shawndumas 14y ago

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. ~ Mahatma Gandhi, My Experiments with Truth (1927) [1] ---- [1]: http://notableandquotable.blogspot.com/2008/02/gandhi-on-gun-control.html http://notableandquotable.blogspot.com/2008/02/gandhi-on-gun...

RyJones 14y ago
Almost. The full quote has "act" capitalized[1], along with a better explanation of what he's on about. [1]: http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/11/29/the-gandhi-quote/ http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/11/29/the-gandhi-quote/

mgarfias 14y ago

You don't have guns there because of crime, but rather because the Brits wanted to keep you disarmed in order to control your population better. Gandhi himself said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."