Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gun control"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Gun Control and Genocide: reply)
(Gun Control and Genocide: Christmas spirit?)
Line 249: Line 249:
  
 
: Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims.  That is self-evident.  If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of [[gun control]], then I'd sure like to see it.  Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 
: Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims.  That is self-evident.  If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of [[gun control]], then I'd sure like to see it.  Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
::The millions of victims in the cases above were spread all over the place in small populations. Would such populations, even if they did all manage to gather together in one huge group, armed with small arms and rifles have been able to defend themselves against armies armed with airplanes, armor and artillery? Have you been inbibing too much Christmas spirit? By the way I think your contribution is great. The bloggers will love it. Merry Christmas! [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 13:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 13:42, 24 December 2007

! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.
Conservlogo.png

Quote: "This right is a natural right which we are endowed by our Creator with, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense."

This assertion requires citation to comply with the Commandments, as, no matter how rational and obvious, it is a personal opinion. Additionally, it would be useful, and would strengthen the assertion, if a clearer explanation of the constitutional right to carry tools really exists, vis-a-vis pre-existing natural rights. If a constitutional scholar is available, it would be great if he could comment here, as the Second Amendment is of the utmost importance and we should support it more clearly.

I agree, the wording of the Second Amendment is hardly explicit. Also, Jesus reprimanded Peter for trying to defend them with a sword, so whether our Creator wants us to defend ourselves with guns is debatable. --Daniel B. Douglas 12:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Besides: the "natural" sic for (inalienable?) right stems for the Declaration of Independence not from the Constitution. --Crackertalk 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my version was more clear and accurate, but it's your site. Palmd001 09:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Second Amendment gives 'The People' - that is The American People (not persons as in individuals) the right to arm itself, specifically against the British who claimed sovereignty over the American People, forbidding them to bear arms except under the King.

Countries with gun control have fewer homicides, as do US states with gun control. And as Daniel B Douglas points out Jesus requires his followers to turn the other cheek: I certainly don't remember God asking us to arm ourselves to the teeth. KT

The Bill of Rights is specifically about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If you think Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a pacifist then you should read about His second coming in the Book of Revelations. In all countries without a similar version of our 2nd Ammendment right have fewer individual freedoms and rights. Gee, if only we were like other countries, sigh.--Roopilots6 19:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Patriot Act

Cut:

Interestingly enough, the USA PATRIOT Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the PATRIOT ACT are often opposed to gun control.

What does "another law that restricts liberties" mean? Is it a "restriction" that any overseas phone call I make to a suspected terrorist will be monitored?

Where is the contradiction between wanted terrorists thwarted, and wanting to defend oneself against muggers and rapists? --Ed Poor 09:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

VIRGINIA TECH

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? Jacobin 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Any time is a good time to help craft a balanced article presenting arguments for and against gun control laws. I have seen arguments on both sides enough to fill up several books.
Can you boil it down to 2,000 words or less?

well, cars still kill wayyy more people.Jaques 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Uhm... So anything that kills less that cars per year should be legal to have and use? Timppeli 22:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
47,000 fatal car accidents per year in the U.S. versus around 1,000,000 non-fatal uses of guns in self-defense. I'd ban cars on that basis, but there's obviously much more to it. Do we have an article summarizing the findings of John Lott, the statistician who wrote More Guns, Less Crime? --Ed Poor 22:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Question: What happens if one of the students who was shot had a gun with which to defend himself? Answer: there would be less people dead then there are now. --CPAdmin1 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Counter question: How many students would be killed every year in shootouts in schools, if we allowed people to carry guns there? I bet even the accidental shootings would kill more people nationwide, not to mention all the things people can do when they are angry, gang related stuff and so on. Timppeli 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Question: what happens if the murderer hadn't been able to get a gun? Answer: there would be many less people dead then there are now. -AmesGyo! 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


Question: Who are and who are not prevented from getting guns by gun control laws? Answer: Law abiding citizens are prevented from getting guns and criminals are not. --HSDad 22:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Reply Regardless of what the laws are a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one. Look an how effective (not very) the laws against illegal drugs are. gun control takes the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. --CPAdmin1 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
More likely he would use some other weapon to kill. Like run over someone with his car.Jaques 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Well they have so-called "motor-voter" laws that enable people who get driver's licenses to register to vote.
Perhaps they could draft a "motor-toter" law, to issue every driver a handgun? Carjackings would go WAY down. Rob Pommertalk

The argument that criminals would still get guns if they wanted them has some foundation in logic, however, it has no foundation statistically. A comparison to England will suffice. It bears out the conclusion that while some criminals still get guns, it is fewer - the mental & physical block of having to break another law just to get a gun actually deters gun crime :-) -AmesGyo! 22:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Allso should be concidered where the criminals get their guns, those dont show up from nowhere. Most are stolen from those who have legally purchased them. Less gun owners, less weapons around to be stolen. Timppeli 22:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
or stolen from a cop. ya, all cops have guns. Jaques 12:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Guys, all of this is good stuff, but please consider before posting whether it's better to go to the Debate topics. Are you planning to help write a balanced article here? --Ed Poor 22:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Read this information via Hot Air. -- AmeriCan 03:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We've got a discussion going on here already: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Would_the_repeal_of_gun_control_laws_make_incidents_like_today%27s_shooting_at_Virginia_Tech_less_likely_to_occur%3F DanH 04:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Gun Control Leads to gun confiscation.

I am planning to remove this because it has no reference. -Brian

If everyone, including children old enough to pull a trigger, owned a gun, would there be more or fewer shootings of human beings, accidental or intentional? I'm including felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, legal aliens, and aliens from outer space.

Somewhere else in the world

I'm wondering if it would be useful to add something about Singapore, which has some of the most extrems laws about gun control. Something like :

"In Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", ie owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm)"

Any comment? Emptiness 05:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I, the inferior European who cannot possibly understand anything you superior Americans discuss here, have something to add in too. And yes, that was sarcasm. So here, I´ll offer you a little piece of gun control info from the rest of the world: Here in Finland, we have certain, quite strict gun control laws: it is quite close to impossible for a private person to own a *handgun* without a very good reason, such as being the owner of a shooting range, sports, or being a police officer. Also, anything beyond semi-auto is a BIG no-no for civilians here. Shotguns and Rifles ARE available far easier, since hunting is a very popular pastime here in Finland, especially the northern parts where I live in. Interesting enough, most homicides and crimes in general do NOT involve guns, they involve alcohol and drugs. Far more common as a murder weapon is a kitchen knife than a firearm of some kind, and a very large proportion of ALL crimes in finland involve alcohol in a way or another. Just my two cents, y´know?

..And Come on, we have friggin RUSSIA as our neighbour. FreakyM 08:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Duplicate sentence revert.

Okay, I guess I might just have a bee in my bonnet over this, but the sentence, Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime. appears twice -- in a row. Once as the end of the first paragraph, and then as the first sentence of the second paragraph. I attempted to correct this obvious mistake, but I was reverted. Would someone please tell me how I was wrong to do this, and why it is necessary to repeat this sentence immediately after itself and why it should not be removed from the tail of the first paragraph?

As it appears in the article:

Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.

Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime. Libertarians and conservatives, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms.

Have at me.

The Rev. 22:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT)


I see the revert was removed, and the correction made. Thank you. I am avenged.
The Rev. 10:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Uhh, is it really proper for the article to claim that "Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime, but that is actually a deceit" right in the first paragraph? I mean, that's a big assertion and there's no citation to back it up. I think such a statement would be better suited to the second or third paragraphs, maybe... GrandSoviet 23:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Moved discussion from Talk:Main Page

I've moved the discussion down here for clarity.

If you give a random stranger a gun, there is a 100-to-1 chance that the gun will be used defensively, to prevent crime, rather than to perpetrate a crime. It inexorably follows from that simple observation that more guns leads to less crime.

If a random passenger or pilot had a gun on 9/11, thousands of lives would have been saved. If a teacher or random student had a gun in a public school, they would not be easy prey for people like the Virginia Tech killer. Indeed, most shocking crimes would never occur if there was widespread gun ownership.

As I've said, every credible study confirms that more guns leads to less crime. The next time you read about a serial murder, a rape, a beating, a robbery, etc., just think to yourself: more gun ownership would have reduced the likelihood of that occurring.

I'm going to add this issue to the Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness.--Aschlafly 09:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I'm still waiting for you to reference those studies. Meanwhile, I found this page which argues (with facts and figures) that Australia's tough new gun laws resulted in very little change in crime and gun deaths. In other words, it didn't help the situation, but didn't make it worse either. Unfortunately, it's data dates to only a few years after the tough gun laws were introduced, and longer-term data would be better. Philip J. Rayment 10:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)
I'll build up the John Lott entry with more citations. I've already added several. With odds of 100-to-1 that putting a gun in the hands of a stranger will be used for defensive, deterrent and crime-preventing purposes, it's statistically implausible that such gun distribution would increase crime.--Aschlafly 11:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)
I've already said this above but it's probably worth repeating.
I think it is unwise to compare gun control and homicide rates between different countries and then use that as an argument to increase or reduce gun control in a particular country.
The situation in the UK and Australia (similar gun control laws) is very different to the situation in the US. Neither of the former two has an equivalent to the Second Amendment nor do they have a history of common and easy gun ownership. Unlike the US.
While gun crime and homicide rates are much higher in the US compared to either country and almost all Western nations, that doesn't mean that introducing more gun control will reduce gun crime and homicide.
Conversely, using the (perhaps counter-intuitive to non-Americans) US experience of "more gun-control = more gun crime and homicide" to argue for less gun control elsewhere doesn't follow.
The stark reality is that gun crime and homicide are generally higher in countries with relatively relaxed gun-control (such as in the US) and generally lower in countries with relatively strict gun-control.
However, changing from more gun-control to less or vica-versa doesn't necessarily produce the result that is expected - in either direction. Ajkgordon 13:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Why are you so obsessed with guns? Knives and swords work just as well, and if carried on a plane would have avoided the risk of a loss of cabin pressure that is an issue with higher-calibre handguns. And what about Tasers and Mace? ...RingWraith 18:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, Aschlafly, you just changed the John Lott page from a serious and critical (if short) look at gun control, giving arguments for and against (although more strongly for gun control). Now, as a result of this argument, it is a totally pro-guns piece....conservative bias perhaps? Bolly 10:25, 16 December 2007

There were scurrilous and non-encyclopedic remarks in the John Lott that were properly removed. I've added additional information also.--Aschlafly 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

In reply to Philip above, I want to point out that gun control represents a materialistic style of reasoning that we reject in other contexts. Gun control depends on overemphasizing the significance of what is seen (guns) as the cause of crime, while ignoring the significance of what is unseen (deterrence) in reducing crime. Generally, though not always, advocates of gun control also advocate materialism in other contexts.--Aschlafly 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, I can't see the connection between gun control and materialism. I accept that the idea that widespread carrying of guns would deter crime makes sense, but as always, and as Ajkgordon said, this is simplistic as there are always multiple other factors at work. I haven't seen comparative figures for crime in different countries, although I have seen those for gun deaths which show America being over four times the rate of Australia. However, the Australian figures show that most gun deaths are suicides, and these might well happen by different means if there were far fewer guns around, so those figures may not mean much. Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)
I don't think I've ever heard any serious analyst saying that guns are the cause of crime. Rather I often hear that wide availability of guns can enable a high level of gun crime catalysed by other factors such as drug use, poverty, disenfranchisement, gang violence, etc. Ajkgordon 16:39, 16 December 2007 (EST)
I think many gun control supporters do think that the guns themselves are the cause of much crime, and that the crimes would not occur in the absence of guns. This is a heavily materialistic style of reasoning, but there are many materialists out there who are attracted to it.--Aschlafly 16:58, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Well, it's simplistic reasoning. Gun-control > fewer guns > less gun crime.
My view is that gun control has a negative ( i.e. lessening) effect on gun crime and violent crime if gun control is the current status quo. Changing from loose gun-control to tight gun-control, however, can often have a positive effect, particularly experienced in some states in the US.
But likewise, your reasoning of Gun-freedom → better defence → less gun crime is also over simplistic.
There are too many other variables at work to make that predictive correlation. And certainly it would be unwise to argue that more guns in places like the UK and Australia would lead to lower gun crime when their gun crime rates are so much lower than those of the US already. Ajkgordon 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Andy's point is that the widespread availability of guns deters general crime, not specifically gun crime. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but I can see the rationale. Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, if a random passenger had a gun on 9/11 that would imply anyone legally entitled to carry a firearm could take them onto airplanes. Legal entitelment would assumedly be granted anyone without a criminal record who has been vetted for gun ownership. Terrorists are often people who meet exactly that description. More terrorist with guns on airplanes, passengers with guns on airplanes, shoot outs on airplanes. Apart from the fact that shooting off guns in high altitude aircraft is not a good idea, I have a suspicion that many people would shudder at the thought and come to the conclusion flying would be a more dangerous activity as a result. A more liberal, gun control approach was the introduction of armed Air Marshals on flights, unfortunalely not so much conservative fire-power available in case of an emergency. CillaHunt 17:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

A gun fight on one of the September 11 planes would bring the plane down, but that would have prevented the far worse consequence of it crashing into the World Trade Center.
But although Andy's got a point about us not seeing what crimes are prevented by guns being widely available, an argument that he's not addressed (as I recall) is that widespread availability of guns means that people who are otherwise law-abiding then use them in a moment of passion or rage, often killing a spouse or other relative or friend, whereas if they didn't have ready access to a gun, the consequences would have been much less severe.
What this means, however, is that we then have to weigh up this apparent benefit of not having guns with the apparent benefit that having guns has in deterring crime generally. It's a difficult issue, made more difficult by the fact that if one goes from widespread gun ownership to very restricted gun ownership, although the end result may be better, in the interim it is the law-abiding people who give up their guns first.
Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Philip points out a common fear, that guns cause crimes of "passion or rage" that would not occur in the absence of the guns, but please realize that knives, sticks, baseball bats, and fists are still available. Also, the absence of guns means a lack of defense or deterrence against crimes of "passion or rage." So I doubt there is an overall positive effect of gun control on this particular type of crime, which is a probably a small percentage of overall crimes anyway.--Aschlafly 00:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
A couple of corrections and an agreement:
  • I didn't say that guns cause crimes of passion or rage. Nor did I say that in their absence the crime would not occur. I was saying that in cases of passion or rage, a gun is going to have a worse consequence than if the gun is not available. Sure, a knife or etc. could still be used, but the victim likely would have a better chance of surviving an attack with another weapon than against a gun.
  • I agree that this particular type of crime would only be a small percentage of overall crimes.
Philip J. Rayment 01:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

<--- Let's take a step back. For those of you who are anti-gun control, why are US rates of violent crime so much higher than almost all other wealthy western countries, most of which have tight gun control? Obviously you don't believe that it's due to the wide availability of guns but there does seem to be a direct correlation. What, in your view, are the reasons? Ajkgordon 07:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)

The U.S. is unique in many ways. The U.S. has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment, it has an enormous drug problem, it has anti-religious public school system, it has widespread gambling and pornography, and it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.--Aschlafly 12:11, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Hmmmm... interesting, thanks.
But it is also one of the most religious western countries, so why does it have these problems in the first place? And are you arguing for more effective rehabilitation of prisoners or fewer prisoners? Ajkgordon 12:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)
The U.S. has a strong religious component, but also a strong anti-religious component. Since crime is perpetrated by only 1% of the population, the U.S. is probably worse off than other countries when viewed with respect to religion and crime.--Aschlafly 12:30, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Well, I, for one, am arguing for a renewal of the culture, to address the problems that Mr. Schlafly just mentioned. Especially the matter of violent sport (and the excuses that team owners and many colleges make for misbehaving athletes), gambling, pornography, and anti-homeschooling regulations.--TerryHTalk 12:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks, very interesting.
I wonder what percentage of the prison population is religious compared to atheist. I read recently that 2% of Americans are in prison or on probation/parole at any one time. Let's be generous and say that 10% of Americans are atheists. Does that mean that one in five American atheists are convicted felons? Or is it a more balanced proportion reflecting the religious/atheist split in society as a whole?
Even so, with atheists making up a much bigger proportion of the population in countries such as France and Italy, their prison populations are proportionately much lower. I guess I'm simply struggling with a link between atheists and crime but I may be missing something.
As for violence in sport, football (soccer), rugby, Australian rules... all these are pretty violent in other countries. Gambling is not unique to the US nor is pornography, while homeschooling is so insignificant in most other western countries as to be irrelevant.
What I'm looking for is what makes the US have such a high level of violent crime - a unique differentiator in its culture or wealth or society or education or immigration that doesn't have anything to do with guns. I'm struggling a bit. Are there any well-regarded studies on the phenomenon? Ajkgordon 15:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)
An interesting debate. Aschlafly writes -
The U.S. is unique in many ways. The U.S. has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment.
Absolutely true, but don't forget that the second largest export of the US is entertainment, so the rest of the entire planet is also watching the same violent US-produced material on TV and in the movies. As for sports, apart from the punch-up joke that ice hockey became, I'm not sure how the US sports are any more violent than, say, soccer, or bull-fighting even. I can't see what's unique here, basically.
it has an enormous drug problem
Again, very true, but again, not unique to the US, and I'm sure plenty of studies would suggest the problem is much, much worse elsewhere.
it has anti-religious public school system
Perhaps so, but most other Western countries have far more students in far more secular schools. Again, I'm not sure there's anything unique here.
it has widespread gambling and pornography
The US obsession with pornography is odd, but it's hardly worse of a problem than many other societies, and certainly not uniquely so. However, I would have to disagree with you on the gambling front -in many, many other nations betting shops are as common as the local newsagent, and many perfectly normal people are completely accustomed to routinely place wagers on all sorts of activities, all legally and fully above board. (Though I'm certainly not suggesting this doesn't create problems). The US seems to have worsened its gambing problem in much the same way it worsened its alcohol problem during Prohibition by banning access to the activity to most, and creating these bizarre enclaves (native reservations, bizarre cities) where it's suddenly OK to go wild on wagering.
it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.
Here I'm with you 100%. The US has a staggering incarceration rate, and there's no denying that prisons are unhealthy environments. This is certainly a unique feature of the US. But I'm interested in those studies you quote, and I'm interested in debating exactly what IS unique about the US that causes the gun crime rate to be so high. Reasonableperson 17:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)
That's basically the point I made earlier: I don't see that the U.S. is all that much different to other English-speaking western countries, such as Australia, except that it has a higher proportion of Christians (which should mean that is has less crime) and it has a much more liberal (sorry!) attitude towards guns. Superficially, this would indicate that the higher rate of violent crime is due to the widespread availability of guns. As for movies, I'll endorse Reasonableperson's comment. Much of what airs on Australian television is produced in America. And much of the Australian content has a lower moral standard than the American stuff! Put it this way Andy, if you think the American movie and TV productions are bad (and much of it is bad), perhaps it indicates that you don't know enough about what's produced elsewhere! Philip J. Rayment 21:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
I agree. Of the points raised so far, only the extraordinary prison population is unique to the US - but there's an obvious logical flaw in blaming the level of crime on the number of prisoners. I'd like to throw this one out there though - does the US have a bigger gap between rich and poor than is common in other developed countries, and is this part of the explanation? Certainly, here in Australia we have a subset of the population which is significantly poorer than the rest of us. And that subset (the aboriginal population) has higher rates of violent crime, and also has a very high prison rate. So perhaps in the US the poverty gap is the cause of the crime, the guns are the cause of the severity of the crime, and the prison population is a result of it? -- Ferret Nice old chat 05:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

While this is all very interesting, I would like to know where the "100-1 chance" fact came from. From where I am sitting, it seems to me that more guns are not the answer. You do not put a fire out by adding more fuel to it, especially because more guns will find their way in to inner city streets and gang violence. Put it this way: between 1994 and 1999 there were 253 school related deaths, 60% of which involved hand guns. And in a single year, more children die from gun shots than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. Scare you yet? Oh, and if you are under 15, you are 12 times more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in the top 25 industrial countries. combined. So do we need more guns? How about we prevent psychos like the VT shooter from getting a gungun safety facts. How about we prevent another Columbine? Nothing is being done and it is sad. Do you need armor piercing, fully automatic weapons? No. More guns does not lead to less crime, we cannot all be the judge and jury, lets put more money in to policing our streets (by not making it basically suicide to be a policeman in the inner city). What credible studies are you referring to? It seems like in America today, violence is more and more becoming the answer, and it shouldn't be. I do not want to have an argument be settled by a gun shot. It ruins lives.

So what to do. Here is my proposition: Stop selling hand guns. And here is why. First off, they serve no purpose other than to kill another human being. Self-defense, gang violence, home violence, curious children, they serve no purpose. The only reason that they are used in self-defense is because it is too easy for people with ill intent to get them in the first place. Second, it does not impede your hunting or right to bear arms. Listen, a 9mm cannot kill a dear if you are hunting it right. A 9mm can kill a police man, or a cashier, or fellow students if in the wrong hands. Seems like the simplest and most effective answer is to abolish them entirely. Thanks for your time.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afee (talk)

Whilst I agree with much of that, the main problem I see is that if you stop selling guns, you will effectively be stopping honest people from getting them, whilst the criminals will still get them. That could make the situation worse. Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Certainly that seems to be the problem faced by US states that have introduced strict gun control where before there was little gun control. Ajkgordon 15:35, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, I'm just curious, if you are so dedicated to the preservation of human life, why are you so opposed to gun control. There is no secret agenda behind it, the sole purpose of gun control is to limit access to guns and as a result reduce gun violence. [ed. note: deleted inappropriate comment that follows] --LoveJesus1 19:50, 21 December 2007 (EST)

"LoveJesus1", gun control results in a loss of human life. I know materialists have trouble "seeing" that, but guns deter crime and save lives. Next time you see a police officer look at what he carries. The more citizens who can carry the same thing, the less the crime.
Don't think we're fooled by liberals pretending that "the sole purpose of gun control is to ... reduce gun violence." Liberals care more about increasing dependency on government, as in Cuba, which has the strictest gun control in the world. Less guns means more government dependency, and liberals know that but rarely admit to it.--Aschlafly 23:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Aschlafly, comparing gun control in other countries is not a good idea if you want to argue the case for no gun control. And using Cuba as a comparison is, as you know, completely irrelevant - Cuba has a completely different form of government and ideas of freedom. If you insist on comparisons with other countries, then it should be with other wealthy liberal democracies such as the UK or Australia. However, it makes your anti-gun control argument very difficult to support because both of those countries have lower rates of gun and violent crime. In the UK, the police aren't even armed!
There are too many other factors involved to draw conclusions by comparing other countries' experiences with the legal status of arms. The only valid comparisons, in my humble opinion, are those between US states. Ajkgordon 09:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Change of graph and wording

The graph that I supplied was drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 1993 to 2005. The graph that Andy substituted is, in my opinion, inferior, with three problems:

  • It covers the years 1991 to 2000, a smaller range, and particularly only covers a few years after the introduction of gun control.
  • The source of the data on which the graph is based is not specified, although I'm not suggesting that it is questionable; it's probably official data from somewhere.
  • The graph is being used in the article to make a point that is contradicted by the report the graph came from. The report says of this graph:
    It's apparent from the graph that the rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before. Also, the burglary rate was dropping a little from '93 to '96, but then started an obvious rise. The rises would look like a bad effect of the ban/buyback, except that they stopped after '98. The small downturns for all three in '99 and 2000 could be the ban/buyback stopping some upward trend that had begun, but it is just as likely that the trend reversal was caused by elimination or whatever was causing the trend to begin with. Both robbery and armed robbery appear to have stabilized (two years) at rates higher than they were before the Port Arthur incident and the ban/buyback.
    In other words, the report says that the graph is inconclusive, but the article claims that the graph shown an "unmistakable increase in robbery and armed robbery".

Also, the article says "there is no evidence supporting the promised decrease in crime from gun control", yet the graph that I supplied and which was removed does support that (even if it doesn't prove it, given that other factors may be at work). Furthermore, other ABS figures that I spotted, such as murder rates, seemed to show the same drop. I picked "robbery" because it was the largest category of violent crime, and would have swamped other figures such as murder figures.

Philip J. Rayment 10:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Also, the article now says that John Lott "demonstrates" (I had "claimed") that gun control in the countries mentioned have resulted in an increase in crime. It is true that he does quote some percentage-rise figures, but there's almost no actual hard data in the reference to really be able to say that he "demonstrates" it. It's more of a claim with the bare minimum of supporting evidence. I haven't had a close look yet, but his claimed percentage rises don't seem to match the ABS figures. Philip J. Rayment 10:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)

...protected?

Aw, man. This has been protected since June? I had just thought of a possible addition, but then I realized that I can't edit. :( Is this normal? I thought protection was just used for a short time to protect against vandalism. --JakeC 10:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for pointing it out and, no, that is not normal for such protection to continue for so long. I unprotected the page per your request. Please be factual and insightful in improving it.--Aschlafly 10:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you kindly! --JakeC 11:00, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Gun Control and Genocide

It is stated here that "the facts are provided" to justify a claim that "Gun control has led to genocide." I disagree. Example: "In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed." What does the gun control have to do with the genocide? It is not disputed that these three states enacted laws suppressing the free ownership of firearms. What I dispute is the link between ownership restrictions and genocide. Is the author suggesting that gun control led to the easy murder of unarmed civilians (for example, Jews would have been able to defend themselves against Nazi murders if they were able to posess personal firearms)? If this is the case, I feel it should be cleared up. ThomasB 13:11, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims. That is self-evident. If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of gun control, then I'd sure like to see it. Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--Aschlafly 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)
The millions of victims in the cases above were spread all over the place in small populations. Would such populations, even if they did all manage to gather together in one huge group, armed with small arms and rifles have been able to defend themselves against armies armed with airplanes, armor and artillery? Have you been inbibing too much Christmas spirit? By the way I think your contribution is great. The bloggers will love it. Merry Christmas! CillaHunt 13:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)