Michael Moore and Gun Control Debate

[Capt. Jethro]

Michael Moore is the type that would do a documentary on the homeless while spending his nights in a 5 star hotel. He's a complete and totally useless member of the human race.

[Aaron]

I usually buy my ammo at the range. They sell their target shooting stuff for cheap, you just have to use it all there. Not so hard with a .38 or .45 but it takes some dedication with a .22

Wal-Mart's ammo is in a locked case.

I wish our range had a license for ammo, that'd be awesome. I may be resorting to making my own, at prices like 18.95 for 20.

Michael Moore is the type that would do a documentary on the homeless while spending his nights in a 5 star hotel. He's a complete and totally useless member of the human race.

I disagree, he may be a hypocrite and a blowhard but his over-the-top ridiculous style gets the message across to the segment with blinders on.

[Sionnach Glic]

Moore's good when he just has ordinary people in front of the camera talking about their experiences.
When he's talking, however, the problems start.

[Captain Seafort]

Law enforcement can't be everywhere no matter where you live.

And? The solution to that is not "give civvies the job".

I guess you guys don't have a lot of home invasions over there. What do you do when they start busting the door in? Yell, "occupied!" and hope they leave you alone?

What sort of idiotic crook is going to waste time trying to break into the loo when he can easily strip the house of anything valuable instead?

Smuggled into the country, for the most part.

Point, given the openness of the Mexican boarder. Nonetheless, I'd like to see some numbers.

I think you've let the per capita fool you; the majority of people over here don't own guns. The people who do usually own more than one, which skews those figures.

Which begs the question, who the hell needs more than one gun?

No, my friend, that would be changing the Constitution. See? I doubt we'll be doing that any time soon.

And? The Constitution is a collection of laws. Laws can be changed.

Yes, the number of firearm related murders would certainly go down, soon to be replaced by a massive increase in stabbing deaths.

Prove it.

Or, like the attack here a few months ago, people will just set other people on fire. Hey, let's ban gasoline! And, if you think a person couldn't light another on fire with gas from a distance, you haven't observed how quickly a gas fire will follow a trail of gas.

Nonetheless, it would be a lot more difficult than with a firearm. Plus jerrycans are rather less portable than handguns.

Quick side note: your estimates of effective pistol ranges are way off. The average schmoe with a pistol wouldn't hit a bison at 20 yards. The people who train in safety and practice a lot generally aren't criminals. Or our cops; they can't hit sh*t either.

15-20 feet would be a better estimate of the accurate range of a handgun for the average shooter.

Fair enough - I've never fired a pistol, so based on experience I tend to automatically think of 25 yards as being an easy shot.

Okay, so only half of ours are suicides. Whatever.

It shows that murders are a bigger problem even as a proportion of all firearms deaths in the US than other countries.

The standing points are that the statistics likely include those figures (skewing it)

Wrong - the tables you provided earlier were firearms murder rates, not all firearms deaths.

those people would just find another way to commit suicide. A friend of mine euthanized himself with the same chemicals he'd used to put animals to sleep.

My condolences. While those determined to kill themselves will succeed regardless of method, lacking firearms will make it more difficult. This will remove the option for those who are suffering from depression and having a particularly bad day simply shooting themselves.

Okay, here's what I'm getting at: how many of those deaths were criminals being shot by honest citizens defending themselves? That's not one of the percentages I've seen in any studies.

And how many of those "law abiding citizens defending themselves" could have taken another route to save themselves from death or serious injury, such as cooperating with the crook, or running?

It would be ass-backwards to remove people's ability to defend themselves before we straighten out ineptness and corruption in our police, and reduce the number of criminals on the street with guns. You won't change that figure by taking guns from law-abiding citizens.

No, you won't change it either way. It will, however, reduce the total number of weapons in circulation, and hopefully start to remedy the US malaise by which everyone and his dog seems to think that the first response to being mugged should be to fight back.

Yes, those magic police that apparently can show up within seconds in England. I'd love to see some footage of those supersonic cops someday. You do have supersonic cops, right? Because 5 minutes with three or four thugs stabbing you with knives, or even just kicking you, and you probably won't be getting up.

Our response times vary between fifteen minutes and over 24 hours, as I've seen first-hand. Either one is far too long.

You didn't respond to the point, which wasn't about magic plods turning up in seconds, but the fundamental point that it is not the role of the public to gun down every crook they gun into. The prevention and investigation of crime is the role of the police, and as soon as that state monotony on the legitimate use of force is broken you are on very dangerous ground.

Ah! I've got it! Our criminals must not be as civilized as yours! See, over here, they're just as likely to just kick your door in and shoot you to death, or beat you to death, and then loot your stuff. You're assuming that the criminal will let you go if you co-operate. That is not how it works over here.

I'm basing this on the assumption that the criminals in question are most interested in making money. Granted most crooks aren't exactly Einstein, but attacking someone and then stealing their stuff strikes me as rather more hazardous and tiring than simply stealing stuff and running.

Like I said above, you're leaving it up to them whether you live or die. I don't feel like leaving it up to anybody but myself.

I'd rather give someone my wallet and walk away than pull a gun out and hope a) that I hit him and b) he (or one of his mates) doesn't hit me. If you think you know better than every self-defence expert I've ever heard be my guest and take your chances. I'll offer my condolences when your luck runs out.

[Aaron]

Which begs the question, who the hell needs more than one gun?

Well, you don't. That said, hobbyists (like me) enjoy having different types and calibres to shoot. Mind you I may be an exception, living in Canada and shooting blackpowder.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm basing this on the assumption that the criminals in question are most interested in making money. Granted most crooks aren't exactly Einstein, but attacking someone and then stealing their stuff strikes me as rather more hazardous and tiring than simply stealing stuff and running.

Here's the first part that I'm going to address, because it gets to the root of the problem here. It doesn't make any sense to me either, but it's a fact: criminals here in America have become increasingly violent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19957752/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21547500/

http://www.ahwatukee.com/news/woodard-7 ... urder.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=6577563&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=6577563&page=1

It took me five seconds to find five cases of home invasions where the robbers simply decided to kill the people for kicks, I guess. Including one from my own city. I'm sure I could find just as many murders from muggings in an equally short period. Hoping for the best isn't exactly the best strategy, IMO.

Which begs the question, who the hell needs more than one gun?

Like Kendall said, collectors, for one thing. My friend that was in the Marine Corps owns a handgun and a rifle; my friend that works at the gun range owns 30+ guns, in part because his girlfriend wins them at international shooting tournaments. Another friend of mine owns dozens, partially because he likes them, and partially because he lives out in the country, on a farm, and there are wild animals to worry about. I only have my pistol for self-defense.

And? The Constitution is a collection of laws. Laws can be changed.

You can't just change the Constitution with a hand wave. Besides, the original point was going house by house, and searching them. That will never fly in America, and any lawmakers who tried it would be out on their asses in no time. Alternatively, it could lead to civil war; not the kind of thing any administration would risk.

And how many of those "law abiding citizens defending themselves" could have taken another route to save themselves from death or serious injury, such as cooperating with the crook, or running?

Some of them, I'm sure. Thankfully, we are given the choice of whether or not to defend ourselves over here. If I'm likely to be shot, stabbed, beaten, or tied up and my house set on fire with me in it, I'd rather have the option of trying to defend myself.

You didn't respond to the point, which wasn't about magic plods turning up in seconds, but the fundamental point that it is not the role of the public to gun down every crook they gun into. The prevention and investigation of crime is the role of the police, and as soon as that state monotony on the legitimate use of force is broken you are on very dangerous ground.

I did respond to that exact point. Regardless of whose role it is, the cops simply aren't effective.

Here you go. It's likely to get worse. I'd like you to explain how the police are supposed to be more effective with less officers, less training, less patrols and less equipment? You can't force people to become cops, either. They are already not effective enough, and that situation is getting worse, not better. You say the solution isn't to allow people to defend their own lives? What's the immediate solution, then? It's going to be years, possibly decades before the police will be effective enough to protect the citizenry adequately.

In the meantime, it's supposed to be "tough luck, little Susie. You're being raped and strangled because it's the police's job to protect you, not your parents." right?

I'd rather give someone my wallet and walk away than pull a gun out and hope a) that I hit him and b) he (or one of his mates) doesn't hit me. If you think you know better than every self-defence expert I've ever heard be my guest and take your chances. I'll offer my condolences when your luck runs out.

I'd rather be shot fighting back, than be shot in the back. And, self defense experts I've heard all suggest you should immediately fight back, and try to get away, rather than be abducted. See, they don't want your $20 in your wallet. They want you to access your ATM. Happens a lot over here.

[Tyyr]

I wish our range had a license for ammo, that'd be awesome. I may be resorting to making my own, at prices like 18.95 for 20.

It is, since I can get 50 rounds of .38 for $20. Makes the range a lot less painful. They also carry the good ammo that a lot of other places don't.

I disagree, he may be a hypocrite and a blowhard but his over-the-top ridiculous style gets the message across to the segment with blinders on.

Not really. He's an over the top idiot. People tend to recognize him as such and tune out what he says. The only people I've talked to who liked what he did tended to already agree with him.

[sunnyside]

If anyone is inclined to read them, I can dig the numbers out again. But the upshot is that within countries, increasing gun laws doesn't improve the situation in regards to gun deaths, while easing them not only doesn't increase gun deaths it tends to reduce other crimes.

If you want to compare countries to countries without considering the other factors than clearly we swtich to Islamic absolute monarchies to resolve the current financial crisis so we can have the wealth of the Saudis.

Though I remember one number that consistantly sticks out is that women are vastly less likely to be raped if armed. I don't know the corresponding numbers for resulting deaths, but I'd imagine a lot of rapes end with a dead woman.

And regardless, I don't see why making guns illegal would get them out of the hands of criminals any better than the war on drugs, considering handguns could be smuggled in much the same way. Also once someone gets one they still have it, unlike drugs where a constant supply is needed.

[Aaron]

If anyone is inclined to read them, I can dig the numbers out again. But the upshot is that within countries, increasing gun laws doesn't improve the situation in regards to gun deaths, while easing them not only doesn't increase gun deaths it tends to reduce other crimes.

Please do, I'm pretty tired of the GC debate where it goes round and round with no evidence.

I'd be curious to see if there's any connection between quality of education and gun crime as well.[/quote]

[Tsukiyumi]

Please do, I'm pretty tired of the GC debate where it goes round and round with no evidence.

I provided evidence of what I claimed. Except for the percentage of guns used in crimes that were smuggled in, rather than somehow being stolen from lawful owners. I don't think there is a statistic for that, on the internet anyways.

But, yeah, Sunny, if you can find those numbers again, I'd appreciate it.

Also:

If you want to compare countries to countries without considering the other factors than clearly we swtich to Islamic absolute monarchies to resolve the current financial crisis so we can have the wealth of the Saudis.

Exactly.

[sunnyside]

Alright. In that case I'll unleash a blast from the past. Obviously some of this stuff could be dated. Some links might be bad. And some sources are certainly biased. However they usually do a good job of citing studies, and you're quite welcome to try and find different stats on the same things.

I'd be curious to see if there's any connection between quality of education and gun crime as well.

I'd be willing to bet there's a strong connection between EVERY type of crime and education levels.
Some info by country. Personally I think it shows a fairly strong correlation with education/socioeconomics
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

there is a city that passed laws requiring all heads of households to own a gun. Instead of descending into anarchy the only thing that descended was their crime rate
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55288

Specifically a 89% in the residential burglary rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
in addition being rated in the "10 Best Towns for Families" by Family Circle magazine. http://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/index.asp?NID=351

In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.

Florida pass a bunch of "castle" and "shoot first" type laws a while back.
*google*
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/ ... me_r_1.php

Looks like that worked out pretty well.


Britain added a bunch of laws a while back.
*googles crime rate Britain"
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html is what comes up first and doesn't pain a good picture for the before and after. If some Brits want to find something else go ahead.

Found some stuff. The site is obviously biased but unlike some others it does a solid job of referencing actual studies and external statistics so people can't just hand wave the stuff away.
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Some snippets

Quote:
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.40

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.41
I really wish I could find more info like to bolded bit in regards to other types of crime and such.

Quote:
* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.37

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.38

* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%

Quote:
* At least 17 million women own firearms in the United States.141 And according to the National Research Opinion Center, 44 percent of adult women either own or have access to firearms.142

* As many as 561 times a day, women use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault.143

* In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm.144 Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers.
Quote:
Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"-a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
In case that's confusing since we don't lose hundreds of thousands of criminals a year, the site later states that in the vast majority of the cases the gun is merely revealed or a warning shot fired. I've known some people where that has been the case.

Just in case it isn't redundant.
http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html

Quote:
Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.
Quote:
Pop. - 13,277,000 Floridians Who Own Guns (Percent) All -- 62.7% Male -- 68.8% Female -- 57.3% Floridians Who Own Guns (Number): 8,325,000 Permits issued: 204,108 Permits Revoked Due To Crime: 17 (0.008%)

The latest report from the Florida Department of State, covering a 6-year, 4-month period from 10/01/87 (start-up date) through 02/28/94, shows that 204,108 CCW permits have been issued -- 69% new permits; 31% permit renewals. Only one-quarter of 1% of permit applications have been rejected due to an applicant's criminal history; two-tenths of 1% have been rejected due to an "incomplete application." One hundred eighty-seven (0.1%) permits have been revoked because the permittee committed some kind of crime, though not necessarily a gun-related or violent crime, after permit issuance. After receiving permits, only 17 (0.008%) individuals committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which firearms were present, though not necessarily used. By contrast, in 1992 there were about 46,000 gun-related violent crimes (assaults, robberies, homicides and rapes) in Florida, based upon FBI Uniform Crime Reports supplementary reports and reported crime totals.

A pile of info is in
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts ... Screen.pdf
If you wanna dig around in it.

[Tsukiyumi]

Thanks, Sunny. That pretty much sums it up for me. Criminals target people they see as cowardly or weak. If there's a possibility their mark is armed, most won't risk their lives to commit a crime in the first place.

Take that possibility away, and it's like wolves in a herd of sheep. They can strike with impunity, because they know the only threat is from the unconcerned (and absent) police.

[Aaron]

Please do, I'm pretty tired of the GC debate where it goes round and round with no evidence.

I provided evidence of what I claimed. Except for the percentage of guns used in crimes that were smuggled in, rather than somehow being stolen from lawful owners. I don't think there is a statistic for that, on the internet anyways.

But, yeah, Sunny, if you can find those numbers again, I'd appreciate it.

Also:

I know you did dude.

I'd be willing to bet there's a strong connection between EVERY type of crime and education levels.
Some info by country. Personally I think it shows a fairly strong correlation with education/socioeconomics

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Indeed, South Africa is WAY up there. Wow.

[Tsukiyumi]

Just thought I'd add these:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty's teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." --George Washington

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." -- James Madison.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759"

And, that, ladies and gentlemen, is why this debate is moot; America won't be disarming anytime soon.

[Captain Seafort]

Is the average American that thick? Two centuries ago the average bloke off the street would have been able to match a soldier's weapons. These days, how long do you think a civvie's going to last against an Abrams, regardless of how good his nine-mil is?