4 ms·

Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and savin

Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.

dmix 14y ago
Not only incidents where they were successful in self-defence but the perception of the potential victim being armed is also highly relevant. How much crime is deterred from happening in the first place, for example in states where its well-known that gun ownership is popular, is often difficult to track accurately. But there's a ton of statistics that show correlation in crime reduction.
- clarky07 14y ago
  Exactly. Compare gun crime in DC, which has tons of gun control, to lots of other places without gun control.
  - dmix 14y ago
    Indeed, new numbers come out all the time. This ones from 2011, from two states with some of the worst gun crime: > Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down/ http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in...
tsycho 14y ago
That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice? Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?
- clarky07 14y ago
  Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver. There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?) Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler: ”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler
  - bambax 14y ago
    > This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties. Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload. Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp
    - 14y ago

dmix 14y ago

Not only incidents where they were successful in self-defence but the perception of the potential victim being armed is also highly relevant. How much crime is deterred from happening in the first place, for example in states where its well-known that gun ownership is popular, is often difficult to track accurately. But there's a ton of statistics that show correlation in crime reduction.

clarky07 14y ago
Exactly. Compare gun crime in DC, which has tons of gun control, to lots of other places without gun control.
- dmix 14y ago
  Indeed, new numbers come out all the time. This ones from 2011, from two states with some of the worst gun crime: > Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down/ http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in...

tsycho 14y ago

That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice? Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?

clarky07 14y ago
Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver. There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?) Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler: ”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler
- bambax 14y ago
  > This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties. Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload. Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp
  - 14y ago