Gun Control

Dar

Mjollnir wrote: »

Given the spread of a shotgun, inaccuracy is not an issue compared to an AR.

How wide do you think the spread of a shotgun is at close range?

Mjollnir

Dar wrote: »

How wide do you think the spread of a shotgun is at close range?

Depends on the choke and the shot size.

In any case, wider than a .233

Manic Moran

Mjollnir wrote: »

In a confined area like a room or a hallway in a home invasion?

Given the spread of a shotgun, inaccuracy is not an issue compared to an AR.

If anything, a shotgun is preferable to an AR in such circumstances, and won't present problems of where a high-velocity bullet might end up.

You have it the wrong way around. The spread of a shotgun at typical indoor ranges is such that you generally have to be about as accurate with the shotgun as you would a rifle. There's no 'close enough', really, and if you do have a lot of spread, then you have to worry about some projectiles going past the target even if you hit it. Most shotguns are not as easy to aim precisely as a rifle.

If anything, a shotgun is preferable to an AR in such circumstances, and won't present problems of where a high-velocity bullet might end up.

And where might such a high velocity bullet end up? I've already pointed out that carbine ammunition is excellent for US indoor use because of its lack of penetration.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
"If the round fired is a miss and hits only wood or drywall, the projectile will break apart into smaller pieces—while these are still dangerous, their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet"

For further details of how many walls buckshot will go through, see the Box O' Truth. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

The problem is that people keep equating 5.56mm rifles with military spec ammunition. The military is limited by law to the type of ammunition they are permitted to use. Civilians, including police, are not. As a result, I can use ammunition specifically designed for use inside homes out of my personal rifle, and modern technology has gotten very good at making the stuff.

Overheal

Considering a scenario where say the family dog is also attacking the home invader and you need to shoot at him, I could see why you'd also rather the rifle over the shotgun. The odds are much more likely you're going to hit something you don't intend to with the shotgun.

Mjollnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have it the wrong way around. The spread of a shotgun at typical indoor ranges is such that you generally have to be about as accurate with the shotgun as you would a rifle. There's no 'close enough', really, and if you do have a lot of spread, then you have to worry about some projectiles going past the target even if you hit it. Most shotguns are not as easy to aim precisely as a rifle.

No, not really. I'll take the spread of a 12 gauge and, say, 6-7 shot on improved cylinder over a AR any day (or night, was it were).

And precision isn't the name of the game here. Just hit the target period. A wounded target is far easier to deal with than one that you missed.

And where might such a high velocity bullet end up? I've already pointed out that carbine ammunition is excellent for US indoor use because of its lack of penetration.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
"If the round fired is a miss and hits only wood or drywall, the projectile will break apart into smaller pieces—while these are still dangerous, their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet"

For further details of how many walls buckshot will go through, see the Box O' Truth. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

The problem is that people keep equating 5.56mm rifles with military spec ammunition. The military is limited by law to the type of ammunition they are permitted to use. Civilians, including police, are not. As a result, I can use ammunition specifically designed for use inside homes out of my personal rifle, and modern technology has gotten very good at making the stuff.

The problem if it hits a window or some other such thin and fragile surface.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, just one to three guys with, if anything, knives or pistols.

Stop thinking melodramatically (Seal team 6? Really?) and actually look at it logically. If the objective is to end the threat to you as quickly as possible, with the minimum of danger to yourself or others, a modern carbine is the best choice out there. Barring special circumstances, such as my storage requirement, or if you only have one hand, there is no advantage to use a pistol, and shotguns have their own problems, not least inaccuracy.

Well if I looked at it logically then I would probably look at the statistics on the frequencies and consequences of home intrusion, and whether having an AR to end a threat justifies the consequences that may come from these actions.

Manic Moran

Mjollnir wrote: »

No, not really. I'll take the spread of a 12 gauge and, say, 6-7 shot on improved cylinder over a AR any day (or night, was it were).

And precision isn't the name of the game here. Just hit the target period. A wounded target is far easier to deal with than one that you missed.

The spread of the typical 12 gauge riot gun is about 1" per yard. The typical room is, what, 4 meters? 6? You're not getting much more chance to hit, and if you do need that extra inch or two of spread to wing the target, that means that there's a fair bit of buckshot which missed and has to go somewhere anyway. Besides, if you have a low-recoil semi-auto, you're going to get the follow-on shot off much more quickly.

I would argue that the name of the game is stopping the target immediately. Winging him with buckshot may not necessarily have that effect (though, yes, it will probably cause him to take a serious rethink in most cases)

The problem if it hits a window or some other such thin and fragile surface.

Interestingly, I have not found any testing of modern (i.e made the last two or three years) home defense ammo against windows after a brief search. But if the round shatters upon hitting plasterboard/drywall, I can't imagine it does too much worse against glass.

Manic Moran

Carcharodon wrote: »

Well if I looked at it logically then I would probably look at the statistics on the frequencies and consequences of home intrusion, and whether having an AR to end a threat justifies the consequences that may come from these actions.

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

Mjollnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

The spread of the typical 12 gauge riot gun is about 1" per yard. The typical room is, what, 4 meters? 6? You're not getting much more chance to hit, and if you do need that extra inch or two of spread to wing the target, that means that there's a fair bit of buckshot which missed and has to go somewhere anyway. Besides, if you have a low-recoil semi-auto, you're going to get the follow-on shot off much more quickly.

I would argue that the name of the game is stopping the target immediately. Winging him with buckshot may not necessarily have that effect (though, yes, it will probably cause him to take a serious rethink in most cases)

Perhaps we're using different terms.

Again, I wouldn't use buckshot (00) for home defense because of the potential problems already mentioned. Something closer to 6-7 shot would be far more appropriate, and it depends on the choke of the barrel, as well.

Improved cylinder or cylinder bore will get the job done quite nicely up close.

To my experience, getting shot at, not even actually getting shot, is enough to have any perp reconsider his/her actions.

Overheal

The spread of the typical 12 gauge riot gun is about 1" per yard. The typical room is, what, 4 meters? 6?

You... used yards and meters interchangeably...

Manic Moran

Mjollnir wrote: »

Perhaps we're using different terms.

Again, I wouldn't use buckshot (00) for home defense because of the potential problems already mentioned. Something closer to 6-7 shot would be far more appropriate, and it depends on the choke of the barrel, as well.

Improved cylinder or cylinder bore will get the job done quite nicely up close.

To my experience, getting shot at, not even actually getting shot, is enough to have any perp reconsider his/her actions.

Birdshot? Fair enough, it's one of those debated issues in the US. "Birdshot is for the birds" is not an uncommon response: It's designed to take down birds, not stop grown men, but, yes, it will almost certainly have an effect.

But that just negates the overpenetration problem compared to an AR, it doesn't affect so much things like recoil force or base accuracy.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

Yes, I believe we are having different arguments.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

It's not actually a Boolean decision because all other factors are not constant.

You'll never convince me, or a lot of people I'd wager, that a rifle is the best weapon for defence in a home invasion.

It worries me thought that you're not actually thinking of defence, you're unhappy with the idea of merely injuring or scaring off the invader. Is this correct?

Grudaire

Manic Moran wrote: »

Statistics are the wrong way to look at it. They merely tell you what the chances are that an event will happen. Be it once in 30 years, or every other week, once the event has occurred, then statistics have no further play in the matter, they all become discrete events. If an AR (or shotgun, if you're Mjollnir) is the best thing to handle any one home invasion, then it's always the best thing, to handle it, no matter how often such a thing occurs.

It's a Boolean decision, not a probability. "If home invasion occurs, I do (or do not) want a rifle to deal with it".

Do you have any stats on how effective having a gun is if this fabled home invasion occurs?

My understanding is that having a gun at home doesn't end up resolving home invasions, but more regularly ends up in home shootings (accidental and otherwise).

Manic Moran

The goal is to stop the invasion. If this is done by scaring off the guy, fine, but such a reliance on what the other guy chooses to do takes the control out of the hands of the homeowner. Similarly, if injured, that does not necessarily stop someone, especially if they're not entirely in control of their faculties, or just pumped up with adrenaline. The only thing which will actually stop someone immediately is either a shot to the nervous system, or major trauma. There is no burden of responsibility on the homeowner towards the invader.

I realize that I am unlikely to convince you, because it goes against what you know, understand, and believe, and I doubt you are sufficiently interested to go do the research on your own on firearms boards, subject matter media, or other such sources to correct yourself.

Grudaire, look up "defensive gun uses", take whichever figure you like, to include those provided by the anti-gun groups or the government. (I'm on an iPad in Moscow right now, not convenient for me to find such data). However, see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/18/se-cupp/crossfires-se-cupp-cites-cdc-armed-citizen-safety-/ which talks about the recent report that those who are armed are less likely to be injured in case of attack than those who are not. If I shoot myself or someone else accidentally, then that's my own bloody fault and I should have taken greater care. I am liable for the reprecussions. I submit that the value of proper, expected use outweighs the detriment of unexpected misuse, much like every other part of our society, from drink to cars.

We also have a much lower "homeowner present at the time" rate of burglary than most countries, probably because there is a not insignificant chance of getting shot by a homeowner. This reduces the chances of any confrontation in which anyone is likely to be injured on either side in the first place.

Grudaire

Manic Moran wrote: »

I realize that I am unlikely to convince you, because it goes against what you know, understand, and believe, and I doubt you are sufficiently interested to go do the research on your own on firearms boards, subject matter media, or other such sources to correct yourself.

:rolleyes:

I'm actually pretty open minded, and would probably get a gun if I could. That said I don't think I need one, and I think the American peope would benefit from less guns too.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Grudaire, look up "defensive gun uses", take whichever figure you like, to include those provided by the anti-gun groups or the government. (I'm on an iPad in Moscow right now, not convenient for me to find such data). However, see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/18/se-cupp/crossfires-se-cupp-cites-cdc-armed-citizen-safety-/ which talks about the recent report that those who are armed are less likely to be injured in case of attack than those who are not. If I shoot myself or someone else accidentally, then that's my own bloody fault and I should have taken greater care. I am liable for the reprecussions. I submit that the value of proper, expected use outweighs the detriment of unexpected misuse, much like every other part of our society, from drink to cars.

Did you read the link you posted?

• Guns do help when used to 'attacking or threatening an offender', does that exclude the cases where the gun isn't to hand, or the intruder gets the gun?
• The research does not cover the accidents that may happen:

"For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use."

Manic Moran wrote: »

We also have a much lower "homeowner present at the time" rate of burglary than most countries, probably because there is a not insignificant chance of getting shot by a homeowner. This reduces the chances of any confrontation in which anyone is likely to be injured on either side in the first place.

I'd like to see stats on that too. Absolute rates of burgalry, because I can only find relative rates of burgalry quoted when I google and get sent to gun lobby websites! :pac: (Proportional rates don't count if there are just far more unoccupied robberies)

Manic Moran

Grudaire wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I'm actually pretty open minded, and would probably get a gun if I could. That said I don't think I need one, and I think the American peope would benefit from less guns too.

Apologies, I was referring to Brian's statement that "You'll never convince me"
I should have made that distinction clear.

Did you read the link you posted?

Of course. I've even read the entire 113 page report it's about.

• Guns do help when used to 'attacking or threatening an offender', does that exclude the cases where the gun isn't to hand, or the intruder gets the gun?
• The research does not cover the accidents that may happen:

a) Yes, it does, and no, it doesn't. If it's not to hand, you didn't use it to attack or threaten anyone, and if the intruder gets the gun and injures or kills you with it, then it definitely counts as someone who attempted to defend themselves and was injured.
b) Why should it? If I go and shoot myself, then that's not some generic bad thing which society needs to avoid, it's a specific case of me being bloody stupid and deserving what I got. If I go and shoot someone else by accident, then that's me being bloody stupid, and deserving what I get by way of criminal or civil prosecution. My being stupid should not affect the legitimate use by other people who aren't so careless. There are about 600 accidental deaths per year by firearm in the US. Some 3,500 accidental drownings. Firearms have a legitimate beneficial lifesaving use, what's the argument in favour of swimming pools beyond less specific exercise and physiotherapy requirements? The statement about accidents has no relevance in the discussion of whether or not you're better off with a firearm in the cause of defending yourself. All other criteria, such as 'what chance I will accidentally shoot my daughter' or 'what chance that I will be dispossessed and shot by my own weapon' (By the way, weapon retention is easier with a long gun than pistol) are factors to be taken in the initial decision to defend home and health by force of arms in the first place, that doesn't mean that others should remove that decision for me.

"For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use."

All of which are factors within the control of the gun owner, who should be responsible for his actions with that firearm. Fundamentally, this comes down to an argument over 'is it better to have a society which judges itself by overall statistics, blind to individual circumstance, or is it better to have a society which values the importance to its denizens of their own individual circumstances as opposed to having them subservient to what is deemed 'the common good on the basis of whatever set of statistics is being used'?

I'd like to see stats on that too. Absolute rates of burgalry, because I can only find relative rates of burgalry quoted when I google and get sent to gun lobby websites! :pac: (Proportional rates don't count if there are just far more unoccupied robberies)

I'm still on the road, so don't have time for much research, but a chap over here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50597508 is quoting ONS and FBI figures as 1 per 41 households in the UK and 1 per 51 in the US. (which is kindof scary, really)
As to hot burlgaries, this chap writing in the Telegraph is quoting some 50% for England and Wales, and 10% for the US. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

Gleck/Kopel (Statisticians known for their pro-gun outlook) quote about 45% for UK and Netherlands ant 13% for the US. This University of Chicago paper http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Brookings-Burglary-Policing-Ch3-2003.pdf proposes that their methodology is a bit flawed, and that the true rate is about 35-45% of UK burglaries are hot. The paper notes that only the US officially released hot burglary statistics, hence the estimations.

FISMA

Brian? wrote: »

Guns that are held unconstitutionally should be confiscated anyway IMO. I.e. guns held by anyone not a member of a well organised militia.

Who do you believe is the militia? Examples please.

Grudaire

Sorry Manic, I thought I'd have time to rely sooner. I think you argue a strong case for the pro gun side, but not one I'd agree with. It's a pity I don't have time to make a proper contribution to the thread

Manic Moran wrote: »

All of which are factors within the control of the gun owner, who should be responsible for his actions with that firearm. Fundamentally, this comes down to an argument over 'is it better to have a society which judges itself by overall statistics, blind to individual circumstance, or is it better to have a society which values the importance to its denizens of their own individual circumstances as opposed to having them subservient to what is deemed 'the common good on the basis of whatever set of statistics is being used'?

I realise that America has a different set of values both socially and economically. But I personally opt for the common good within reason. The pro-gun argument comes down to home invasion and other fear based arguments (which seems to be less of an issue in America by your stats) and ignores the fact that America tends to use guns to kill other Americans.

Manic Moran

Grudaire wrote: »

I realise that America has a different set of values both socially and economically. But I personally opt for the common good within reason. The pro-gun argument comes down to home invasion and other fear based arguments (which seems to be less of an issue in America by your stats)

Chicken or egg? Burglars like to avoid confrontation to begin with, but if they do encounter a homeowner in the UK, what's likely to be the worst that happens? They get beat about with a cricket bat? In the US, there is a reasonable likelihood of getting shot and killed, the stakes get a bit more rich. Since it is reasonable to presume that most burglars are out for easy money, not high risk money, it would be logical that American ones would take more care than their UK counterparts in their target selection, probably aborting more of their raids.

Bottom line, I only have one life. As does my daughter. I do not appreciate being told I must forfeit my ability to control its safety, possibly forfeiting that life, because some politician somewhere wants to reduce me to a statistic

and ignores the fact that America tends to use guns to kill other Americans.

Doesn't ignore it. Of the 12,000 firearm murders we get a year here (or whatever the number is), what percentage is done by legally armed persons? Member of gang A in South Central LA shooting at member of gang B, for dissing his car or whatever, likely is not using a legally held firearm, may well not be legally entitled to hold the firearm, and probably isn't shooting at a fine, upstanding, law abiding member of the community. If no practicable law can keep that from happening, then what is the justification for prohibition for generally law abiding folk such as myself?

"Fear based argument" is a bit of a misnomer. I have smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and a fire extinguisher in my house. Is it a fear based argument to have the tools to text to an unlikely house fire? Or just a sensible precaution just in case?

Grudaire

Talking about protecting your daughter but ignoring the increased risk to her from having a gun in your house doesn't make sense (yeah if you shoot yourself you deserve it etc, but that argument ignores the fact that accidents are a major problem with guns)

Illegal guns are easier to get in America because there are more legally held guns. (And fewer requirements re storage etc)

Equating smoke alarms and guns makes me feel that you are probably the one with the entrenched opinion on this thread.
Smoke alarms alert you to smoke hopefully saving your life, guns kill hopefully killing other animals or people and not someone you like.

Lapua Magnum

Brian? wrote: »

Guns that are held unconstitutionally should be confiscated anyway IMO. I.e. guns held by anyone not a member of a well organised militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment (Bill of Rights)


The 2nd amendment is just a confirmation of the inalienable right that the people have a right to self-defence. They have a right to rise up against a Tyranical Government, as the Founding Fathers did against the British. That is the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights, to confirm the inalienable rights of the people (as set out in the 1689 Bill of Rights). The founding fathers fought for these rights and they are mentioned in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independance. It has nothing to do with arming the militia. The militia and military get their framing (& access to arms) elsewhere in the constitution (Section 8).

"THE PEOPLE" had particular meaning to the founding fathers and is mentioned in the very first line of the US in the US Constitution ("We the People") and several times in the Declaration of Independence.

Manic Moran

Grudaire wrote: »

Talking about protecting your daughter but ignoring the increased risk to her from having a gun in your house doesn't make sense (yeah if you shoot yourself you deserve it etc, but that argument ignores the fact that accidents are a major problem with guns)

No, accidents are a major problem with people. We find ways to hurt ourselves all the time, sometimes by things which have practical purposes (cars, drills) and sometimes by things which have no practical utility at all (rock climbing, skydiving).

My 'ready' pistol is stored in a fingerprint safe. As long as I keep it there, the closest that is liable to result in an accident caused by the gun is that she trips over the safe in the dark.

Accidents, such as they are, fall under three general criteria.
1) "I was playing with/cleaning/etc the gun and shot myself or someone." Yeah, i.e. stupidity, under the control of the owner. Some very basic rules need to be broken in order for that to happen. And yes, it does happen. With consequences for the person who broke them, who should be well motivated to not do so in the first place. I've been working with firearms professionally for 15 years now, those rules are fairly ingrained into me, anc most other people who, by and large, don't go about shooting people either.
2) "I left the gun unattended, and someone else found it". i.e. stupidity. Who leaves an unsecured firearm outside of their positive control in a situation where there are kids around?
3) "I heard a noise in the dark, and accidentally shot my daughter". That wasn't an accident. That was a deliberate shot against a target you were unsure of, which probably also means that you had no reasonable presumption of fear to use lethal force to begin with.

So in effect, the accident argument is an attempt to legislate against stupidity and / or incompetence, and to, by default, presume that all people are stupid and incompetent with firearms.

Illegal guns are easier to get in America because there are more legally held guns. (And fewer requirements re storage etc)

There are so many firearms already in circulation that even if it were possible to reduce the numbers of legally held firearms, it wouldn't make a huge difference in the arms already in the control of criminals. Mexico has very strict anti-gun laws, look at the fun they're having. (And contrary to the oft-quoted claim, most of the cartels' firearms do not get sneaked across the US border, they tend to come in from South and Central America, even the ones of US manufacture)

The 'storage' requirement is a dead letter now that the supreme court has ruled on the issue. If you have a right to a firearm to defend yourself, the government cannot mandate that you keep it locked at all times. "Knock-on" laws, however, remain untouched. eg "a gun owner is held responsible if he leaves the gun where a kid can get it and the kid then does something illegal."

Equating smoke alarms and guns makes me feel that you are probably the one with the entrenched opinion on this thread.
Smoke alarms alert you to smoke hopefully saving your life, guns kill hopefully killing other animals or people and not someone you like.

I do have a fairly entrenched position, which I entrenched after going to the US with a fairly "Irish" attitude to firearms, then I changed over time. I merely seek to ensure that you understand why.
In the event of a threat to your safety posed by another human, a gun can save your life, much as a smoke detector will to a threat posed by fire.

Assuming that the '1 burglary per 51 households' figure is correct, and that the 13% figure of hot burglary rate is correct, that means that there is about a 1:390 chance of a home invasion (on the US national statistic basis) when you're at home. Given the National Fire Protection Association figures of 366,600 home structure fires in a year, that's a 1:320 chance of your house catching fire. That's not a huge difference in likelihood, and either can result in serious harm to you. Having the tools for either likelihood is simply sensible.

NTM

Madd Finn

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, but it's not as simple as "more guns = more gun murders" as Switzerland has shown.

Yes, guns load themselves, aim themselves, and pull their own triggers. All without human intervention. That's why Switzerland is a blood soaked mess. :pac:

Actually, Switzerland has one of the highest gun homicide rates in Europe. Still nothing like the US though.

Madd Finn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of the 12,000 firearm murders we get a year here (or whatever the number is), what percentage is done by legally armed persons?

Member of gang A in South Central LA shooting at member of gang B, for dissing his car or whatever, likely is not using a legally held firearm, may well not be legally entitled to hold the firearm, and probably isn't shooting at a fine, upstanding, law abiding member of the community. If no practicable law can keep that from happening, then what is the justification for prohibition for generally law abiding folk such as myself?

Much as I dislike the implication that somebody from South Central LA is "probably..(not)..a fine upstanding law abiding member of the community" and therefore deserving of the cheaper life that seems to pertain there, the argument about "Scumbags killing scumbags" cuts both ways.

I will accept that many (I have no idea how many) US gun homicides are of and committed by rival criminals. But then, so are most of ours. I am not sure what percentage of the "12,000 or so firearm murders" in the US fall into this category but I am guessing, just guessing mind, that it's similar to the percentage of our 20 or so gun murders which occur every year.

Let's say it's an identical X % in each country's case.

Even allowing for population differences, the (100 - X)% of 12,000 gun-homicide victims in the US who ARE "fine upstanding law abiding members of the community" is very much greater than the (100 - X)% of 20 odd victims here.

Which is a bit stark, even allowing for population differences. In fact in round figures it's ten times the number!!!*

So ten times as many "Fine upstanding law abiding members of the community" per head of population are killed in the US, compared with Ireland, every year.



*(Irish population 5m, US population 300m ie 60 times greater.

20 gun murders in Ireland equates to 1200 in US. Your figure is 12,000!!!)

Manic Moran

Madd Finn wrote: »

Much as I dislike the implication that somebody from South Central LA is "probably..(not)..a fine upstanding law abiding member of the community" and therefore deserving of the cheaper life that seems to pertain there, the argument about "Scumbags killing scumbags" cuts both ways.

I did not mean to imply that everyone from South Central LA was not a fine upstanding member of the community, but that the chances are that the member of Gang B who was being shot at by the member of Gang A probably wasn't.

I will accept that many (I have no idea how many) US gun homicides are of and committed by rival criminals. But then, so are most of ours. I am not sure what percentage of the "12,000 or so firearm murders" in the US fall into this category but I am guessing, just guessing mind, that it's similar to the percentage of our 20 or so gun murders which occur every year.

You are making an assumption on the figures there. We already accept that the US has a vastly different culture of violence than Ireland does, so attempting to extrapolate similarities in victims is hazardous.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2013/07/05/police-report-most-homicide-victims-have-crime-records/

(Note, that's just those who were killed who had previously been arrested, and doesn't count those who may have been criminals but hadn't been arrested for anything yet)

I don't know, and can't find from a quick search, what the Irish figures are.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

4th times a charm eh?

Healthy gun control for me would be a system that includes:

A register for all owners.
A tracking system for purchasing ammunition.
No concealed carry allowed.
No assault rifles.
Nothing over a .44 caliber unless you are hunting bison/Grizzley bears and have a permit to do so.
All owners must possess a relevant permit. Full FBI background checks for permits at owners cost.


That pretty much sums up the most important changes. Some of which are laws in some states already. My frame of reference is Arizona. Where none of the above are laws.

Some good points there. I would add in that you would need to carry insurance on any gun you own.

Be like Nutella

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

AbusesToilets

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

They are allowed in places where you can purchase and consume alcohol, like restaurants and bars. Why should someone be less able to defend them selves if they are in a place like that? It is already illegal (to my knowledge) to conceal carry and be imbibing.

Makes more sense than it being a serious crime for a CC permit holder being in a restaurant, whereas it would be a misdemeanor for someone without a permit to do the same thing.

Overheal

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

Well, look what happening in Connecticut. Designate a Gun Free Zone, and most people will view it as a Gun Free Zone while the very few but very dangerous will see it as an invitation to massacre.