Incidence of Defensive Gun Use Far Outweighs Offensive Gun Use

[Boris]

which time period are you looking at?

[MMMMMM]

"I would like to add that I generally echo HDPM’s sentiments. There are costs to liberty and freedom. Morons and hatemongers are free to publish and disseminate trash just as they are free to purchase a firearm and use it. Call it a social freedom tax if you want, but the alternative of less freedom and liberty for all would entail MUCH MORE of a social cost. Thus, I always opt for individual liberties and freedom and the free exercise thereof.

-Zeno"

Hear ye, hear ye.

[andyfox]

I think we're actually on the same page. If a criminal uses a gun in the commission of a crime, lock him up for a set period of time, no judicial discretion. (Note that the conservative Supreme Court Chief Justic Rehnquist recently spoke out against legislatures mandating minimum setences for crimes). Repeat offender, lock him up and throw away the key. If we really are serious about wanting to stop violent crime, make the penalaty severe and unyielding. There'd be both a deterrent effect and we'd rid ourselvces of the worst offenders. No need for Gestapo tactics.

[andyfox]

What we ought to do is ban the use of guns in the commission of a crime. By "banning" it I mean to make the punishment severe and certain. And to make sure guns are not used accidentally lethally, all who own them should be trained properly (which I think, for the most part, they are), and held responsible, with severe and certain punishment, if the gun is used other than for self-defense.

Drugs are addictive. Guns are not. (At least I hope not.)

[andyfox]

Indeed there are costs to liberty and freedom. But someone having the freedom to shoot you is not freedom, it is a denial of freedom for you. Government's main responsibility is to protect its citizenry. We stop for red lights even though it impedes our freedom of movement in the interest of the common good and common sense.

Guns have nothing to do with freedom and liberty. Why can't I be free and at liberty to have a tank and some weapons of mass destruction?

But I still love you.

[andyfox]

They also have societies where laws mean very little.

[andyfox]

Shooting deaths are not a natural by-product of a free society. Death is the great anti-freedom. If you are shot dead, you are being denied your freedom. Supposedly we join together in a society for the common good. We necessarily give up some individual rights. The essence of good government is to determine where the line forms.

And where does that line form on weaponry? Should we be entitled to only those arms that are necessary for a well-regulated militia? To those that are necessary to protect us from being herded into camps like your and my relatives were? Our government has weapons of mass destruction, will guns really protect us if it turned fascist?

[MMMMMM]

No matter, it still would refute Diplomat's claim regarding gun violence being highest in the U.S. amongst modern democracies.
And if you say you can't count Russia or Brazil, who is left for comparison then but the Euro-weenies, and the Asian democracies who of course have too strong a sense of work ethic and discipline and pride to embrace widespread criminal violence (gun or otherwise) on a level comparable to that in the USA. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

And didn't we before discuss and find that the rate of muggings in London now surpasses that of muggings in NYC (oh those wonderful English laws forbidding firearms, or even the carrying of any item you might use to defend yourself). This isn't rocket science, but some like to think that the way they think things ought to be is the same as the way things are. Laws restricting weapons for persponal defense don't prevent violent crime, and as Ray Zee says, I'd rather not have to use a broom to defend myself. Also how else can a frail or elderly person possibly be anything but a victim to a violent attacker if that person is denied any effective means of self-defense.

[HDPM]

To answer this post and the one above, I think we fundamentally disagree on the function of government. I do not think that the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens in a mundane day-to-day way or that we give up individual rights by forming governments. Rather, I think the function of government is to protect individual rights. So in a sense the purpose is to protect people, but I view it differently. A person should first protect himself. When that fails, a government can legitimately punish a criminal. And the government should set up civil courts so that disputes can be litigated in a civil context, if not civilly. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I think the government should have military power to provide for defense from outside invasion. But I think government's primary purpose is allowing individual rights, not in seeking some ambiguous "common good." I also think "society" is mostly a myth. It is just a lump of individuals, all with different interests. So the government does protect us, but only if its goal is the protection of individual rights. Individual rights can only flourish in a country of laws. The government should protect that, not do mundane crap like protect people from addiction or gambling or whatever. Or streal from some to provide retirement or medical care to others.

A citizenry armed only with small arms can prevent tyranny by a much heavier armed government. I have posted on this before. In a worst case scenario, how much ground can the military hold in the US? Not much. Factor in the fact the gov won't be likely to nuke its own stuff and that soldiers will desert. As before I am not advocating or hoping for the worst case scenario. Just saying it is near impossible for our military to hold ground agains a lightly armed but determined foe.

[MMMMMM]

andy if you are stabbed dead or clubbed dead it is the same damn thing.

OWNING a gun does NOT endanger your neighbors, but using it irresponsibly does. Same with OWNING a car, or using it irresponsibly.

Our government should be in the business of protecting RIGHTS. SELF-DEFENSE is a NATURAL RIGHT.



Rehgarding deterrence to tyranny: this too has been discussed on this board. The widespread ownership of guns PLUS those people in government and military and police forces who would rebel (hopefully) if government turned facist would jointly create a grand deterrent force. Also it is an impediment and deterrent to foreign invasion. Take away the right of people to own guns and you are just asking, no make that BEGGING, for a fascist government to take over at some point.