|
That Australian study of armed robbery is really telling. The general rate of armed robbery with a firearm is 15%, but that's actually exaggerated if we're talking about it from the perspective of "personal self-defense." It's 20-45% of the total in robberies of businesses, banks, etc, but 5% in streets and footpaths. Here's another interesting bit: firearms are used in 34.6 and 34.8 percent of robberies in the gun-grabby Northeast and West, vs. 50.4 and 43.7 percent of the time in the pro-gun South and Midwest. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/robberytable_03.html Oh, as for the scourge of home invasions, in Australia, approximately 12% of robbery victims are victimized in their own home: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/181-200/cfi188.html In America that figure is 15.2% http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:Do you have any idea about why people might have several different guns? I've run into people who are honestly confused about the topic. Because they're even more paranoid and delusional than people who stop at one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Because they're even more paranoid and delusional than people who stop at one? You think this topic is a meaningful use of your time and *they* are delusional?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Do you have any idea about why people might have several different guns? I've run into people who are honestly confused about the topic. I understand why a rancher would own a shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
If you hate and fear guns and gun owners themselves, as distinct from the harm they do, someone owning more than one gun is linearly, perhaps even exponentially, more offensive. They're not linearly or exponentially more dangerous, mind, and if you claimed that outright even most anti-gun people will laugh at you. So the trick is to imply that out of control gun hoarding is a problem needing solved, and generate the unspoken assumption that the guy with a safe full of rifles is the real danger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I understand why a rancher would own a shotgun. I hope you'll read this post in good faith, but you seem really ignorant about firearms and their usage. For example, a shotgun is generally sub-optimal for a rancher in much of America due to concerns about accuracy, spread, and capacity which are severely lacking in dealing with the primary ranch pest of feral hogs. Here is some more information for you. Another poster posted:This is something that always stuck with me about gun ownership in the USA. Why do people feel the need to own more than one gun? I totally get owning a single gun, even something really loving dangerous like a handgun. Security blanket stuff, cargo cult stuff, tiny penis stuff, all that. I'm going to try answering your question, but its difficult because I'm not sure you are asking in good faith with a statement like the above. Another poster posted:But here's the question. Why, if you already have your firearm, would you feel the need to go get another one? Isn't mastery more effective than flexibility? A good way to build mastery is actually with multiple guns in different calibers (size/power of cartridge). Just like you'd learn to drive stick on a 4-cylinder in the neighborhood before taking a Porsche down the autobahn  using a low-powered (usually cheaper) firearm builds good technique and allows for more practice. So right off the bat, two guns is a smarter choice - generally a .22lr pistol/rifle builds skills for the eventual 9mm/.45/.556/whatever you get after that. This applies to hunting (though you can hunt small game with .22lr) as well as sport shooting or self defense.In the vein of self-defense, just like anything else, more tools tailored to different situations gives you more options. A pistol is light, concealable, and perfect for in the car or on your person. They are also usable with one hand, allowing you to phone police for example while you cover the door, or to be used if you have already been injured or are in an awkward position for a long gun. When at home, as an aside, you don't have the need to conceal your weapon and a long gun (rifle or shotgun) is generally considered a superior self-defense weapon. Again, we're back up to two (more, actually, counting the .22lr training guns used to build safe handling skills and markmanship) guns for self-defense as a common minimum. This number can go up even further because one might have different seasonal guns as winter clothes are bulky and can conceal a larger more powerful pistol, summer clothes the inverse. Then of course do we count self/property/livestock-defense against animals in this category? In which case snake, hog, alligator, etc. guns come into play. For hunting you seem to be a little more informed; Another poster posted:Not talking about hunters and the different guns for different targets here, that's another one I can understand. However, let me give you a little more detail. Not only do different targets require different guns, for example ducks are hunted with shotguns and elk with rifles, but different terrain requires different firearms. If you're in deep brush on the ground hunting whitetail deer, you need a very different rifle compared to hunting from an elevated blind on clear terrain. Its not just the animal, its the conditions of the land and of the hunter that determine what rifle is used. Then we get into shooting sports. There are many different shooting categories, many of which require their own different types of firearms. Skeet and trap shooting requires shotguns of varying configurations, long-range shooting requires rifles, 3-gun matches require 3 guns, Cowboy Action Shooting (which is a bit goofy but fun) requires certain styles of pistols, rifles, and shotguns, and so on. Of course, building competency with your guns requires practice and training, which is often served by having a similar firearm chambered in a low-powered cartridge like .22lr so again we add to the number there. Finally, another reason someone might have multiple guns is because of inheritance. A well-maintained firearm can last centuries (some firearms are still functional decades after being buried in dirt) and so its typical to see many firearms pass through multiple generations. My grandfather, for example, left me a beautiful .22lr revolver when he passed away. Its a great example of early 20th century craftsmanship with custom engraving, hand carved grips - its gorgeous inside and out, the mechanics inside are like a Swiss watch. I rarely ever shoot it, and only in controlled conditions before cleaning it thoroughly and putting it in a place of honor in my safe. Its too valuable for me, monetarily and sentimentally to drag out into muddy fields to hunt squirrels. So I have other, more practical .22lr handguns that I feel comfortable using to practice, teach, and hunt with. Ironically, if you're concerned about the number of guns one person has, AR-15 pattern rifles can reduce that number because they are so modular - a few minutes with tools and swap-out barrels/bolts can transition the rifle from brush hunting (deer) to elevated hunting (elk) to small game hunting (squirrel/rabbit) to sporting to self-defense. They're pretty neat and one of them with a suite of accessories can stand in for several less flexible rifles. I hope that I've been able to help you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Oh, another neat statistics from those two studies: the Australian rate of armed robbery with a firearm is 15%. In America it is 71%. The American armed robbery rate is 88.7. The Australian armed robbery rate is 34.7. So! In America, where we all have Guns To Protect Ourselves, the rate of armed robbery with a firearm is 63 per 100,000. In Australia, where they hate freedom, it is 5.2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Because they're even more paranoid and delusional than people who stop at one? LeJackal posted:If I want to bunker down and isolate myself nicely using both hands I'd prefer something like a shotgun to aim at the door. Checks out
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Those are valid arguments, but don't really address the self-defense issue, or general need for weapon hoarding on a universal basis. It's natural that where ownership of a wide array of guns is practical and serving public good, it should be allowed. Even European countries follow this principle, and grant special ownership rights to registered huntsmen / forestry officers / whatever they may be called (since environmental control is delegated on public agencies), as well as to professional security etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Oh, another neat statistics from those two studies: the Australian rate of armed robbery with a firearm is 15%. In America it is 71%. The American armed robbery rate is 88.7. The Australian armed robbery rate is 34.7. But it doesn't matter, because the dream of Literally Being The Punisher is still alive here, which is far more important than your pansy rear end "statistical data".
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Oh, another neat statistics from those two studies: the Australian rate of armed robbery with a firearm is 15%. In America it is 71%. The American armed robbery rate is 88.7. The Australian armed robbery rate is 34.7. So after their massive crackdown on firearms you still have 15% of armed robberies involving a firearm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:So after their massive crackdown on firearms you still have 15% of armed robberies involving a firearm? Yes! For a grand total of 8% the American rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Those are valid arguments, but don't really address the self-defense issue, or general need for weapon hoarding on a universal basis. I'm not sure what you mean. I had an entire section in there about self-defense. What do you consider 'hoarding' by the way? 2 guns? 3 guns? 4 guns? X guns? X guns, each a different kind? steinrokkan posted:It's natural that where ownership of a wide array of guns is practical What do you mean by practical? You can fit 20+ long guns in the safe I have in my closet, and its a smallish safe. steinrokkan posted:and serving public good, it should be allowed. Kind of like if someone's religion serves the public good, its a-ok?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yes! For a grand total of 8% the American rate. Why would I assume an incompetent government with more guns to work with and more crime to manage in the first place would meet or exceed that number?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:What do you mean by practical? You can fit 20+ long guns in the safe I have in my closet, and its a smallish safe. [qoute] Kind of like if someone's religion serves the public good, its a-ok? [/quote] Public good has a specific meaning contained in the legal system of every contemporary democratic nation As for self-defense, I believe that the range of weaponry permissible in such scenarios should be limited not by the comfort of the defender, but by the principle of minimization of force, and of minimization of potential liability in case of its misuse. If such principles are applied, an increasing arsenal is detrimental to the interests of a civil society. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Practical as in serving a clear and mundane / professional / routine purpose, however you want to word it - not owned to serve a point. So hunting, collecting, sport, and self-defense are alright then? I don't think I know many guns owned out of sheer spite. steinrokkan posted:As for self-defense, I believe that the range of weaponry permissible in such scenarios should be limited not by the comfort of the defender, but by the principle of minimization of force, and of minimization of potential liability in case of its misuse. I see, you're erring on the side of the aggressor, then. Well at least you're being consistent in your insistence that the individual's personal need for safety is outweighed by a potential gain in safety for the attacker and any insurance agency involved. Illogical in parts, though, as a person can only use two guns at a maximum (akimbo pistols) and so misuse of an 'arsenal' (which you still haven't defined) is limited by the human factor. I also believe that taking a one-size-fits all approach isn't helpful, the shotgun that a large able-bodied male can use to defend himself would not work as well for a slightly-built pregnant woman or someone with a maimed arm. steinrokkan posted:If such principles are applied, an increasing arsenal is detrimental to the interests of a civil society. If safety is the key goal, then summary imprisonment of all citizens with a tightly controlled diet of nutrient gruel and forced exercise would provide longer, healthier and safer lives. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Why would I assume an incompetent government with more guns to work with and more crime to manage in the first place would meet or exceed that number? I dunno. Are you prepared to admit the premise, that widespread gun ownership is a causative factor in crime? We can go from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:So hunting, collecting, sport, and self-defense are alright then? I don't think I know many guns owned out of sheer spite. Sport? Purpose-made sport weapons, yes. Collecting? That is hardly serving a practical purpose. "Making a point" wasn't a well-chosen wording.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Practical as in serving a clear and mundane / professional / routine purpose, however you want to word it - not owned to serve a point. Why though? I mean, say I had four guns, of four different types. And that I had some clear reason for each of those guns, and that getting rid of any one of them would impair my usage of them. Let's further assume we're under a legal structure where that's judged legitimate and proper. Now say I want to buy another model in each of those four categories. Just because they're cool and I like options or want to collect, I don't have a life-saving reason. Does owning more guns make me more dangerous? Does it increase my risk to the public or myself? If so, how? If not, what is the state's positive interest in preventing me from owning more of the same guns I'm already cleared for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Public good has a specific meaning contained in the legal system of every contemporary democratic nation Public good is a different term from common good. Public good refers to good in the sense of goods and services, not morality. A public good is basically anything that you can't stop people from having and that having doesn't take away from someone else. Air is a public good because you can't stop people breathing and them doing so doesn't meaningfully reduce air for anyone else. A common good is something else entirely, and no. It's not entirely clear in law. So what exactly, and I do mean *exactly*, do you mean here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Sport? Purpose-made sport weapons, yes. Collecting? That is hardly serving a practical purpose. "Making a point" wasn't a well-chosen wording.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I dunno. Are you prepared to admit the premise, that widespread gun ownership is a causative factor in crime? We can go from there. No, doesn't seem to hold up perfectly in our country, let alone the rest of the world. Math doesn't tell me a thing like that is true, why would I take your word on the subject?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Why though? I mean, say I had four guns, of four different types. And that I had some clear reason for each of those guns, and that getting rid of any one of them would impair my usage of them. Let's further assume we're under a legal structure where that's judged legitimate and proper. I wouldn't object as long as you went through a reasonable licensing process. But 90% of people arguably wouldn't have grounds for that, and owning an arsenal for self-defense makes you more dangerous on account of proliferation of illicit weapons - gun owners' record keeping their possessions secure is less than stellar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Public good is a different term from common good. Public good refers to good in the sense of goods and services, not morality. A public good is basically anything that you can't stop people from having and that having doesn't take away from someone else. Air is a public good because you can't stop people breathing and them doing so doesn't meaningfully reduce air for anyone else. A common good is something else entirely, and no. It's not entirely clear in law. You are only partially correct. Delineation of public goods is matter of legal acts of the state, and security is one of the basic areas where public goods are provided.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Sport? Purpose-made sport weapons, yes. Good! I can keep my IPSC rifles like these then:    Or handguns:   steinrokkan posted:Collecting? That is hardly serving a practical purpose. Good point, we might as well shut down all museums and art galleries. Totally impractical. steinrokkan posted:"Making a point" wasn't a well-chosen wording. I actually thought of a good example! A Holocaust survivor that collects WW2-issued trophy guns brought back by GIs. steinrokkan posted:Owning an arsenal for self-defense How many guns constitute an arsenal? steinrokkan posted:proliferation of illicit weapons - gun owners' record keeping their possessions secure is less than stellar. Good point, I notice that some men commit rape, we'd better make every man get chemically castrated, as men have a less than stellar record in resisting the urge to rape. The Seattle cops don't do too well with firearm security wither, but why should they, its not like they paid for the things! 
LeJackal fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Good! I can keep my IPSC rifles like these then: You are abusing the fact that there's no legal standard for using any specific terminology that would satisfy both sides. So you can twist th spirit of anything I say to mean whatever is considered an acceptable interpretation according to your world view. There's no a priori fact that would lead to classification of any of the examples you provided within the categories I outlined. Also asking for a concrete definition of an arbitrary term which hasn't had a chance to be developed as a legal instrument yet is a folksy rhetorical tactic with odious implications. It makes no more sense than decrying the conceptual debate on copyright on accont of the fact that there isn't a pre-existing concept of copyright.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Also asking for a concrete definition of an arbitrary term which hasn't had a chance to be developed as a legal instrument yet is a folksy rhetorical tactic with odious implications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Why do international comparisons? We have Heller. We can just look at the locals where guns were exogenously un-banned. Then all the confounding variables go away and you can compare a place-with-guns to the same place without guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Good point, I notice that some men commit rape, we'd better make every man get chemically castrated, as men have a less than stellar record in resisting the urge to rape. Sorry about trying to take away your penis extension.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
I mean, it wouldn't be too difficult to define sport marksmanship as using .22lr rounds, and define mechanical limitations to the guns eligible for registration, as there already are for some athletic events, (in the end I think athleticism should come ahead of gun worship) but ultimately there would need to be a broad multi-party negotiation, as there is with any piece of legislation. Asking your counterpart in a casual debate about legislative hypotheticals to provide operational definitions simply isn't legitimate since any operational clarity seemingly possessed by either side of the argument is at best illusory and transient.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:gun owners' record keeping their possessions secure is less than stellar. Could you provide some statistics on this? Something more than "well here's a sensational news article about a guy who got his guns stolen" preferably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Delineation of public goods is matter of legal acts of the state, and security is one of the basic areas where public goods are provided. The idea of even referencing security near 'public goods' in America is amusing to me. Christ, it's a current news story that pretty much every single SWAT team in my state is claiming they are in fact private corporations immune to public records law. Security is by far the least open and accessible thing in America today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There's no a priori fact that would lead to classification of any of the examples you provided within the categories I outlined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:The idea of even referencing security near 'public goods' in America is amusing to me. Christ, it's a current news story that pretty much every single SWAT team in my state is claiming they are in fact private corporations immune to public records law. Security is by far the least open and accessible thing in America today. In which case you are hosed and need to mobilize lawyers willing to pick up civil causes (what you don't need is to buy more guns).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm going to ruin the ending for you: there isn't any meaningful way to distinguish between "sporting" and "non-sporting" guns. The idea that guns can be neatly divided into sporting and military is a fallacy. It's also pointless: a person killed with a "sporting" gun is equally dead. It would be fallacy if lethality remained uniform across all firearms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:It sounds more like you need to teach adults to secure their loving firearms Absolutely, which goes right to my point. Why on earth would we wait until they become adults? Can you please name for me a form of education that is more effective if you wait until people become adults to begin teaching them? Sex education perhaps, or financial education?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It would be fallacy if lethality remained uniform across all firearms. If we allow only firearms which have statistically low rates of use in crime then that would fall to fully-automatic weapons which despite being 100% legal in America are never used in crimes. edit: in 2012 fully automatic weapons accounted for 672 ATF traces of 250,000 total. https://www.atf.gov/statistics/trace-data/2012-trace-data.html https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/statistics/tracedata-2012/types-by-state.xlsx Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
National defense is a public good. Personal defense is obviously not one given that it's exclusive and has never been provided by the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:National defense is a public good. Personal defense is obviously not one given that it's exclusive and has never been provided by the government. Police, fire fighting, welfare services... Provided regardless of payment ability of the benefactor (at least formally).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Police, fire fighting, welfare services... Provided regardless of payment ability of the benefactor (at least formally). None of those provide personal defense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:15
|
|