Do Firearms Cause Murder...

[Phil Elmore]

Law enforcement officers overwhelmingly support the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. While the union leadership often sides with the prohibitionists (that is the left-wing politics of unions, after all) the rank-and-file -- the people on the streets dealing with crime -- understand how important it is for citizens to be able to defend themselves.

 

[7starmantis]

No one has ever protected herself from attempted rape with an eggbeater, either. The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

The benefits outweight the liabilities in the question of regulation or control? How so exactly? The eggbeater example may be a farce but guns are not the only tools used effectively to stop rape. I think you would be rather surprised to see the amount of normal everyday items used to stop rape. This neither supports or detracts from the idea of regulation. Regulation doesn't inhibit the "average law abiding citizen" from carrying or using that gun to stop said rape.

How do you keep guns out of the hands of those that would use them for the wrong things? This is another question that should be answered.

Thats a very important issue. We must realize that there is no "magic bullet" (pun intended) for these types of issues and we must appraoch them from many angles. One part of the puzzle is strict regulation and control of firearms. Is it the main or only way, of course not. Growing up I purchased cigaretts at any time of the day or night in any clothes from any store (under the age of 18). When stricter regulations and punishments were enacted I began getting carded everytime (after the age of 18). We can see the benefit or regulation of controled substances or items, we just can't rely on it exclusevely.

Murder was around for thousands of years before some ape decided to see what happened when he poured gunpowder in a pipe and dropped in some marbles. It'll still be there when the marbles are long gone and the projectile is super heated plasma. Murder is caused by mental issues, be it extreme emotion, anger or hatred. It is preventable, but at the true source, humanity. Take away the gun, and those intent on doing harm will find some other tool to achieve their goal. You can't take them all away, no matter how ****ed up the government gets.

Your exactly right, and I agree 100%. But does that mean we take away regulation and control of firearms? I dont see how it supports that. I mean regulation and control can keep the firearms out of the hands of many situations where "extreme emotion, anger, hatred" or even alcohol could be present. We can't lump all murders in the same basket of premeditated, planned, actions by those who have acted the same way before our even would again. Those intent on doing harm are not the ones we really catch with regulation and control. Those intent on doing harm will do harm regardless, but does that mean we need to make it easier to own or use a handgun? Thats flawed logic.

They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim. A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.

I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that, it was definitely because he/she didn't trust you. You did not get the truth out of him/her.

This type of static, absolutistic position is exactly the problem. There is no way to prove these types of blanketed statements apart from ones own beliefs or opinions. Its the proverbial burying of the head in sand to blindly hold to the generalistic ideas instead of trying to understand what might motivate these types of people to support regulation or control. It takes more effort to repeat this flawed logic than it does to seek understanding of what might be their motivation. The fact is there are well educated, understanding people who support gun control, instead of screaming "there is no spoon", lets try and discuss or understand the differing reasons for their thinking.

Law enforcement officers overwhelmingly support the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. While the union leadership often sides with the prohibitionists (that is the left-wing politics of unions, after all) the rank-and-file -- the people on the streets dealing with crime -- understand how important it is for citizens to be able to defend themselves.

Key words here: law-abiding citizens. Regulation and control of firearms is not stoping law-abiding citizens from carry firearms. I'm reminded of that line from Tombstone..."No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one is saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town".

FWIW,
7sm

 

[Phil Elmore]

The benefits outweight the liabilities in the question of regulation or control? How so exactly?

Firearms are more often used to protect the law-abiding than they are misused by those breaking the law. A citizen with a firearm is much more able to protect himself than one who has been disarmed by a well-meaning nanny state. It's really quite simple.

All the other arguing is just textual acrobatics and illogic attempting to substitute wishful thinking for reality.

 

[modarnis]

Key words here: law-abiding citizens. Regulation and control of firearms is not stoping law-abiding citizens from carry firearms. I'm reminded of that line from Tombstone..."No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one is saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town".

FWIW,
7sm

I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Regulation and control often prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining or keeping guns. Many states, here in Connecticut included, make it so difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, many choose not to jump through the hoops to gain the privilege to exercise an enumerated right. Others, who may need a firearm for a valid self defense or home defense purpose are unable to get one in a timely fashion. Victims of domestic violence, stalking, and harrassment fall into this category.

Cars, steakknives, telephones and beer bottles create far more havoc and mayhem in my anecdotal experiences with crime, criminals and victims than guns do. Nobody seems to call for waiting periods, psychiatric exams, or proficiency standards for me to buy a heavy phone or a set of ginsus. Is that to imply that I can bash or slice with impunity?

The bigger picture is that Americans in general do not have the stomach to deal with the social ills that cause violence. Until we are willing to acknowledge the failures of many social programs we won't get anywhere

 

[Bigshadow]

The bottom line folks is that the reason Americans can have guns is simply guns are the people's liberty teeth. It isn't about stopping rape, or stopping a murderer, it is about stopping an out of control despotic government. Unfortunately, in reality the time for the people to use their 2nd ammendmant right is all but gone, but that is another thread.

To answer the original question, no, firearms do not cause murder, people cause murder. Murder is a people problem, not a firearm problem. It is quite simple, really. I could put my loaded and cocked .45ACP on my dining room table. Then I could stand there and stare it for eternity, it will never jump off that table and cause murder.

 

[Cruentus]

They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim. A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.

I think we'll have to agree to disargee on that statement.

There are people out there who understand the gun itself, but don't thoroughly understand the political issues or philisophical arguements behind gun control. But I think that those are seperate issues.

It is easy for someone to learn to shoot when he is a kid, and be pretty comfortable and unafraid of the object, but still think, "sure, we should have strict standards for licensing so that we can make sure people can safely use a firearm before they carry" or "sure, I don't see why registration would be a problem if it helps Law enforcement identify weapons used in crime." They don't have to be afraid of the gun or untrained with weapons to take these stances. They may just be uneducated on the entirety of the issue, and may not realize what they are actually supporting.

Again, I was one of those people, and I can tell you I wasn't "afraid" or "poorly trained." Now, I will admit that as I got better trained with the firearm, my stance did change. But I would say that this was as a result of looking more into the issues behind gun rights because of my interest in guns, not just as a product of training by itself.

Paul

 

[7starmantis]

Firearms are more often used to protect the law-abiding than they are misused by those breaking the law. A citizen with a firearm is much more able to protect himself than one who has been disarmed by a well-meaning nanny state. It's really quite simple.

All the other arguing is just textual acrobatics and illogic attempting to substitute wishful thinking for reality.

I would love to see your proof or support of that statement. Especially without having defined standards for it. To make generalistic statements without source or proof is pretty close to what I would consider "wishful thinking", as is that position. The way I see it, the most often use of firearms is really not the issue, but I could be mistaken. To get back on the original topic though, guns are used in murder, but do not actually cause murder.

I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Regulation and control often prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining or keeping guns. Many states, here in Connecticut included, make it so difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, many choose not to jump through the hoops to gain the privilege to exercise an enumerated right. Others, who may need a firearm for a valid self defense or home defense purpose are unable to get one in a timely fashion. Victims of domestic violence, stalking, and harrassment fall into this category.

You have a good point about the hoops one must jump through. However, you said it yourself, many choose not to jump through them. Also, in the case of self defense, I would say that once the domestic violence, stalking, and harrassment start, the time for getting the firearm has passed. To be prepared is to jump through the hoops now, not only when a situation arises where you may need the weapon. Its like carrying the gun but not loaded, only trying to load the gun when the situation presents itself.

Cars, steakknives, telephones and beer bottles create far more havoc and mayhem in my anecdotal experiences with crime, criminals and victims than guns do. Nobody seems to call for waiting periods, psychiatric exams, or proficiency standards for me to buy a heavy phone or a set of ginsus. Is that to imply that I can bash or slice with impunity?

You have to look at the intent of the object in question. Handguns are made for one reason only. Two if you include sport shooting now. Heavy phones aren't made for killing people. Therefore there would be no reason to regulate the selling of them for that reason. Its flawed logic to associate impunity with a lack of government regulation. Also, the potential of a frearm is much more than that of a pair of kitchen knifes.

The bigger picture is that Americans in general do not have the stomach to deal with the social ills that cause violence. Until we are willing to acknowledge the failures of many social programs we won't get anywhere

Your right to a degree, but that doesn't negate the need or effectiveness of gun control.

7sm

 

[Phil Elmore]

I would love to see your proof or support of that statement. Especially without having defined standards for it.

It's not some great mystery. In Florida and Texas, when "shall issue" carry laws were enacted, violent crime went down. Nationwide, the overwhelming majority of guns (and gun owners) are not responsible for crimes with guns; the crimes occur with a small percentage of guns that are obtained, overwhelmingy, through illegal means. Legal gun owners commit crimes at a rate far less than the rate at which the general population commits crime, too. Violent crime in the United States is almost entirely the exclusive domain of a minority of repeat offenders, whom our "justice" system keeps releasing back into society. These are public knowledge -- statistics of crime from the FBI, from the statistical work of Kleck and Lott, and from other reputable sources as compiled by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.

All the emotional rhetoric in the world won't change the facts. A disarmed citizenry is less capable of defending itself.

 

[Mr.Rooster]

Amen to that Mr. Elmore.
Viriginia is also one of the states.

 

[Korppi76]

I think it is good thing that guns are registered and you should have permit to get them. But I am from Finland and we have quite strict gun laws so this might be learned way to think. But then again those laws dont stop us owning 3th most guns per capita in world. (mostly hunting weapons)

 

[FearlessFreep]

Some day we will have small, discrete, quiet, accurate handheld lasers and guns will seem an archaic relic of the past. I suppose we'll still be having the same conversation, but not about fireams, which due to the noise, size, and mechanical complexity, are seen as quant relics of days gone by.

No real point, just sorta thinking about how the ultimate personal weapon of one era becomes a museum wall display for the next

 

[modarnis]

You have to look at the intent of the object in question.
7sm

Objects don't have intent. They may have a purpose. The pupose of a firearm is to discharge a projectile (shotload in shotgun world) out of the barrel. This purpose is affected by the type of gun and load and targeting mechanism. The counter argument is guns are designed for killing. Maybe, some have specific designs to facilitate their use in a variety of applications. That doesn't change the fact that the object can't kill.

The intent comes from the manner in which something is used. In the sense of a gun, it is how, when, where and why the projectile is discharged. I still argue that murder is a people issue, not an object issue.

 

[Phil Elmore]

A gun may indeed be "designed for killing."

The fallacy in making that statement as an argument for banning or "controlling" (as a prelude to banning) guns is that there are people in need of killing from time to time. A violent would-be murderer or rapist is someone who, under the right circumstances, needs killing. Give me a tool "designed for killing" in that context, please.

There are very few human actions that have inherent, intrinsic morality. (Sex with a child is one act that comes to mind as having an intrinsic moral value -- it is a moral crime -- regardless of context; there is no way to justify it by circumstance). Most human actions can only be judged morally in context.

The taking of human life is an action without moral value until we examine its context. If performed in self-defense, it is morally just. If performed without provocation, it is morally unjust and it is murder. The act cannot be judged morally until we know why and how it occurred.

 

[7starmantis]

It's not some great mystery. In Florida and Texas, when "shall issue" carry laws were enacted, violent crime went down. Nationwide, the overwhelming majority of guns (and gun owners) are not responsible for crimes with guns; the crimes occur with a small percentage of guns that are obtained, overwhelmingy, through illegal means. Legal gun owners commit crimes at a rate far less than the rate at which the general population commits crime, too. Violent crime in the United States is almost entirely the exclusive domain of a minority of repeat offenders, whom our "justice" system keeps releasing back into society. These are public knowledge -- statistics of crime from the FBI, from the statistical work of Kleck and Lott, and from other reputable sources as compiled by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.

Thats great and all, but completely different from your original statement. Speaking of no great mystery, let’s see your original statement...

Firearms are more often used to protect the law-abiding than they are misused by those breaking the law.

I offered that this is incorrect and asked for a source or proof of your statement. What I got was some explanation of how allowed carries have helped to lower violent crimes in two states. There is no connection between your two statements. The fact that violent crimes have decreased in two states that allow carrying of handguns, doesn't in any way shape or form support the idea that firearms are more often used to protect law-abiding citizens than misused by those breaking the law. Your correct in that most CCL's are not involved in violent crimes, a great tool for supporting CCL (which I do) but simply not a support for your original statement.

This whole post is nice, but completely off topic to my question. I am not arguing for the right to bear arms, I support that right and exercise it regularly (and will more often in a few months when I receive my concealed carry permit). It seems you have skirted my question.

All the emotional rhetoric in the world won't change the facts. A disarmed citizenry is less capable of defending itself.

Thats another great point, but one outside the scope of this discussion. I didn't use any emotional rhetoric and I certainly didn't post anything about disarming citizens. Maybe a re-read of my post is in order, no?

Ok, I tell you what, let’s actually jump back to the topic at hand. I do agree (and have this entire thread) that guns do not cause murder. It is people, however that fact is not enough to support the deregulation or lack of control for firearms. The whole "handguns were made for killing" is 100% correct, and while it is necessary to kill and I support that right, it still remains fact that these weapons were designed for that purpose. Therefore, it would only make sense in the year 2006 to regulate and control these killing weapons. Those who are law-abiding can carry and use these weapons if need be, I don’t see any support that makes sense to do away with regulation and or control of firearms. I also don’t support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns. Is alcohol regulation the precursor to another prohibition? Is the regulation of paint thinner a step towards doing away with paint?

7sm

 

[Phil Elmore]

offered that this is incorrect and asked for a source or proof of your statement. What I got was some explanation of how allowed carries have helped to lower violent crimes in two states. There is no connection between your two statements.

Yes, there is. Think about it a bit. If you need more statistics, start with Kleck and Lott (whom I've cited repeatedly). Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime contains a comprehensive body of supporting material.

I also don’t support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns.

History has proven you wrong time and time again. It happened in the UK, it is happening in Canada, and it is being attempted in portions of the United States. Regulation leads to registration leads to confiscation.

 

[elder999]

Yes, there is. Think about it a bit. If you need more statistics, start with Kleck and Lott (whom I've cited repeatedly). Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime contains a comprehensive body of supporting material.



History has proven you wrong time and time again. It happened in the UK, it is happening in Canada, and it is being attempted in portions of the United States. Regulation leads to registration leads to confiscation.

You can read this excellent article,by David Kopel, titled "Hitler's Conrtol,"
here.

Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

The Nazi disarmament campaign began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business.

Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps.

No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian army's new "gun control" policy changed who had the guns there: "And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn't matter whether you're Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don't have a gun, you have nothing."

 

[Cruentus]

It happened in the UK, it is happening in Canada, and it is being attempted in portions of the United States. Regulation leads to registration leads to confiscation.

This is very true, and was what ultimatily made me against gun control all together, even when it seems reasonable.

Paul

 

[Phil Elmore]

Amen.

I think I've had about all of the "gun control" debate I can stand. It's been a while and my tolerance still hasn't come back up to what it once was.

 

[modarnis]

Those who are law-abiding can carry and use these weapons if need be, I don’t see any support that makes sense to do away with regulation and or control of firearms. I also don’t support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns. Is alcohol regulation the precursor to another prohibition? Is the regulation of paint thinner a step towards doing away with paint?

7sm

In my mind the issue of regulation comes down to this: what rational and demonstrable affect do additional regulations have on law abiding gun owners? In my experiences as a prosecutor, criminals disregard laws anyway. Here in Connecticut there are 17 criminal statutes involving regulatory gun issues. Most of these issues are covered by federal law already and are redundant. They have no effect on anything.

We also have about 5 laws that relate to criminals (convicted felons, persons subject to protective orders, and misdemeanor drug disqualifiers)that have a real effect on the people who possess firearms illegally or with some malicious purpose.

Obviously murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary and larceny statutes all have aggravating sections or subsections that deal with dangerous instruiments, deadly weapons, or firearms specifically used to perpetrate those crimes. In these instances the mere existence of the firearm during the context of the crime enhances the penalty.

Finally there are sporting purpose specific regulations that have an effect on persons who mishandle firearms while hunting. They relate to hunting regulations about the time place and manner of firearms usage in the field.

Even if we removed many of the regulations that impede lawful procurement of firearms, there are a multitude of laws that will always exist which punish bad conduct with the firearm. Regulating the object does nothing but create convenient soudbytes

 

[Mr.Rooster]

Mr. Elmore:

Some folks here are gonna find fault with you no matter what you say for whatever reason. Don't waste your time on them or trying to prove your point repeatedly, it's not sinking in with some. There loss, as far as I'm concerned.
Peace be with you my friend.