×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

An Unbiased Analysis of Gun Crime vs. Gun Control?

Cliff posted about 12 years ago | from the personal-responsibility-vs.-public-safety dept.

United States 3042

lyapunov asks: "I have been trying to become more learned on the issues surrounding gun control and crime. I have had quite a time searching the internet for references about these issues. Practically everything that I have found has been written for, or is a study funded by, one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NRA or the Brady Foundation. The same holds true for references that I have found in our library. I was wondering if any of the members of the slashdot community have come across articles that are objective in dealing with these subjects, and I would also ask what ideas the members of this community have about this issue and what FACTS they can offer to support their ideas."

"Just so everyone knows where I stand, and why I am asking this, I offer the following. I enjoy guns and regularly compete in shooting matches and hunt occasionally. I am a member of the NRA, not for political reasons, but due to the fact that most competitions are closed to non-members (which I do think is screwed up). Having said this I am undecided on what a logical path for the future is. I do believe that an unarmed nation is a bad idea, but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has. All of the statistics that I have seen about countries that have altogether outlawed guns have been manipulated by those extreme groups. As such I find it hard to believe anything that either side presents.

Thanks, I look forward to reading all of your comments and the references that you provide."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Guns (-1, Insightful)

blackmonday (607916) | about 12 years ago | (#4846617)

Fact: Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.

Re:Guns (0, Troll)

nempo (325296) | about 12 years ago | (#4846624)

Should be, Guns don't kill people, People kill people.

Re:Guns (1, Funny)

DalTech (575476) | about 12 years ago | (#4846634)

Correction: Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

Re:Guns (2, Insightful)

shemnon (77367) | about 12 years ago | (#4846661)

> Correction: Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

Another Correction: Guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, it's the blood loss and internal organ damage from catching a bullet (or failing to proplerly catch a bullet) that kill people.

Re:Guns (5, Funny)

Hallow (2706) | about 12 years ago | (#4846682)

Correction: Guns don't kill people, f=ma kills people. :)

Re:Guns (1)

TheDanish (576008) | about 12 years ago | (#4846763)

Correction: f=ma doesn't kill people, f applied over a small area in a critical part of the body kills people

Re:Guns (-1)

cut-N-paste Troll (584533) | about 12 years ago | (#4846650)

Sorry, that is not insightful or funny. That is plain stupid.

Who the fuck is modding this up? I should kick your limey ass.

Re:Guns (1)

MrDog (307202) | about 12 years ago | (#4846677)

Guns don't kill people, it's those darn bullets. We need bullet control.

Re:Guns (1, Redundant)

sp3c1alK (604261) | about 12 years ago | (#4846690)

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.....with guns. Always liked that one:)

Re:Guns (5, Funny)

jmv (93421) | about 12 years ago | (#4846718)

Fact: Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.

For a shooting to take place (in the US), you need 1) an American and 2) a gun. Now a way of preventing shootings is to remove one of the ingredients. Either get rid of guns or get rid of Americains ;-)

Amen (0)

genrader (563784) | about 12 years ago | (#4846732)

I mean, come on, guns are for our benefit. You take away guns and then the government could become communist and boom, we would have no way to defend ourselves.

FACT: GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846770)

Chickenhawks kill people [slashdot.org]

Hello! I am your masta! (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about 12 years ago | (#4846618)

1. STFU
2. FOAD
3. ??
4. Eat a bag of hell.

Guns and geeks... (1)

Space_Nerd (255762) | about 12 years ago | (#4846621)

... don't mix, or do they?

Re:Guns and geeks... (2)

dzym (544085) | about 12 years ago | (#4846697)

ESR.

Ask ESR (5, Insightful)

Genady (27988) | about 12 years ago | (#4846705)

Yes they do [tuxedo.org] . Especially when you considder the strong Liberterian Undercurrent that runs through most of geekdom.

Re:Guns and geeks... (2, Offtopic)

User 956 (568564) | about 12 years ago | (#4846735)

Guns and geeks don't mix, or do they?

Seriously. How the fuck is this "news for nerds"?

Re:Guns and geeks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846761)

don't mix?

get thee hence to www.geekswithguns.com [geekswithguns.com] and find out how wrong you are.

Re:Guns and geeks... (2, Informative)

thinkliberty (593776) | about 12 years ago | (#4846767)

They seem to mix just fine http://www.geekswithguns.com

Gun control (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846623)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

Join the Navy! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846631)

Your mother and I have had it up to here with your lying around the house. You must take responsibility for your life. Son, you need to get up off your backside and join the freakin' Navy!

The word "monkey" is of uncertain origin; its first known usage was in 1498 when it was used in the literary work Reynard the Fox as the name of the son of Martin the Ape. "Monkey" has numerous nautical meanings, such as a small coastal trading vessel, single masted with a square sail of the 16th and 17th centuries; a small wooden cask in which grog was carried after issue from a grog-tub to the seamen's messes in the Royal Navy; a type of marine steam reciprocating engine where two engines were used together in tandem on the same propeller shaft; and a sailor whose job involved climbing and moving swiftly (usage dating to 1858). A "monkey boat" was a narrow vessel used on canals (usage dating to 1858); a "monkey gaff" is a small gaff on large merchant vessels; a "monkey jacket" is a close fitting jacket worn by sailors; "monkey spars" are small masts and yards on vessels used for the "instruction and exercise of boys;" and a "monkey pump" is a straw used to suck the liquid from a small hole in a cask; a "monkey block" was used in the rigging of sailing ships; "monkey island" is a ship's upper bridge; "monkey drill" was calisthenics by naval personnel (usage dating to 1895); and "monkey march" is close order march by US Marine Corps personnel (usage dating to 1952). [Sources: Cassidy, Frederick G. and Joan Houston Hall eds. Dictionary of American Regional English. vol.3 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1996): 642; Wilfred Granville. A Dictionary of Sailors' Slang (London: Andre Deutch, 1962): 77; Peter Kemp ed. Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea. (New York: Oxford University; Press, 1976): 556; The Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933; J.E. Lighter ed. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. (New York: Random House, 1994): 580.; and Eric Partridge A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. 8th ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company): 917.] "Monkey" has also been used within an ordnance context. A "monkey" was a kind of gun or cannon (usage dating to 1650). "Monkey tail" was a short hand spike, a lever for aiming a carronade [short-sight iron cannon]. A "powder monkey" was a boy who carried gun powder from the magazine to cannons and performed other ordnance duties on a warship (usage dating to 1682). [Source: The Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933.] The first recorded use of the term "brass monkey" appears to dates to 1857 when it was used in an apparently vulgar context by C.A. Abbey in his book Before the Mast, where on page 108 it says "It would freeze the tail off a brass monkey." [Source: Lighter, J.E. ed. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. (New York: Random House, 1994): 262.]

It has often been claimed that the "brass monkey" was a holder or storage rack in which cannon balls (or shot) were stacked on a ship. Supposedly when the "monkey" with its stack of cannon ball became cold, the contraction of iron cannon balls led to the balls falling through or off of the "monkey." This explanation appears to be a legend of the sea without historical justification. In actuality, ready service shot was kept on the gun or spar decks in shot racks (also known as shot garlands in the Royal Navy) which consisted of longitudinal wooden planks with holes bored into them, into which round shot (cannon balls) were inserted for ready use by the gun crew. These shot racks or garlands are discussed in: Longridge, C. Nepean. The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships. (Annapolis MD: Naval Institute Press, 1981): 64. A top view of shot garlands on the upper deck of a ship-of-the-line is depicted in The Visual Dictionary of Ships and Sailing. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 1991): 17.

"Brass monkey" is also the nickname for the Cunard Line's house flag which depicts a gold lion rampant on a red field. [Source: Rogers, John. Origins of Sea Terms. (Mystic CT: Mystic Seaport Museum, 1984): 23.

You forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846687)

The british navy! [royal-navy.mod.uk]

Delusional (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846632)

Ask Slashdot: An Unbiased Analysis

what

Sorry for the Troll (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846635)

But what the hell is this doing on Slashdot!?!?!

Re:Sorry for the Troll (2, Offtopic)

Phoenix (2762) | about 12 years ago | (#4846665)

What is this doing on /.?

Simple, you'd be amazed how many geeks out there *have* guns and enjoys shooting them.

Re:Sorry for the Troll (3, Interesting)

Darth Maul (19860) | about 12 years ago | (#4846786)

A lot of us like guns, thank you. I was just at the range yesterday, in fact. It's a great hobby.

And contrary to how the media would have you believe, holding a gun DOES NOT actually turn you into a crazy murderer. There's something about making a decision to kill people, and taking responsibility for your actions, but those concepts just go over the heads of most Americans.

We'd rather blame an inaminate object because that means we don't have to deal with motivations and changing behaviors. So much easier.

Re:Sorry for the Troll (1)

Lazarus_Bitmap (593726) | about 12 years ago | (#4846714)

Haven't you heard? Guns are the ultimate mod. Pheer my l33t overclocked glock!

Guns (0, Redundant)

joelwest (38708) | about 12 years ago | (#4846640)

Actually guns don't kill. People with guns do.

News for Geeks? Stuff that Matters? (2, Redundant)

Mr. Droopy Drawers (215436) | about 12 years ago | (#4846643)

Come on! How's this fit the mission of this site?

What more could you get besides, "How about a beowoulf cluster of those?".

Re:News for Geeks? Stuff that Matters? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846751)

It's not like he asked for our opinion on the matter of gun control. He only asked for sources of information to do his research with. Research is nerdy enough for me...

Bradys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846646)

The Bradys? I think the house keeper kept a gun in that football.

Wow. (0, Offtopic)

Wakko Warner (324) | about 12 years ago | (#4846651)

This is going to have about 1500 comments by the end of the day.

- A.P.

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846669)

And all of them are going to be just as meaningless as yours.

Sorry.. (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 12 years ago | (#4846652)


.. but "unbiased" and "slashdot" would be an oxymoron if used together.

We need to change the constitution (-1, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | about 12 years ago | (#4846657)

It's time to repeal the third ammendment. In this day and age, with the high crime rate, this law serves no benefit, and just helps the criminals!

Re:We need to change the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846695)

What the hell does the third ammendment have to do with anything?:

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Re:We need to change the constitution (1)

thinkliberty (593776) | about 12 years ago | (#4846722)

3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Why do you want to repeal this amendment?? Do you mean the 2nd amendment?? Have you even read the constitution?

Re:We need to change the constitution (5, Funny)

signal ll (150330) | about 12 years ago | (#4846736)

I agree. There would be far less crime if the Army could quarter troops in our houses.

Re:We need to change the constitution (1)

efflux (587195) | about 12 years ago | (#4846739)

Of course by thrid you mean second.

Re:We need to change the constitution (1)

mutzinator (156030) | about 12 years ago | (#4846754)

why? you want your own live-in soldier?

Re:We need to change the constitution (1)

MarkRebuck (590314) | about 12 years ago | (#4846778)

>It's time to repeal the third amendment

The third amendment is "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Perhaps you meant the second amendment?

Facts vs. Conclusions (4, Insightful)

abh (22332) | about 12 years ago | (#4846662)

It should be fairly easy to find facts on gun ownership, number of shooting deaths, etc

The problem is in drawing a conclusion from those facts. There is not a single "correct" conclusion that can be drawn, or we wouldn't have the various viewpoints that we have.

Aaron

Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (2, Insightful)

taliver (174409) | about 12 years ago | (#4846773)

Well, not really that simple.

1) What's a minor.
Some groups consider a child-shooting as long as the person in question is under 19.

2) What's a "shooting death"?
Should a shooting death be counted if the person was protecting themselves? How about someone else? How about a threat they felt was immenent?

And the big unknown in pretty much every study: How many crimes were prevented? This is often the focus of such studies, and is often extrapolated from very iffy figures.

What it comes down to is the 2nd amendment, which, despite with a not-to-be-named-9th-circuit-court might say, actually does protect the right to bear arms. Until the amendment is changed, gun control people have a very large uphill battle.

Good Book (4, Insightful)

Rudy Rodarte (597418) | about 12 years ago | (#4846664)

The book "More Guns, Less Crime" does a pretty good job of just looking at the numbers. When you look at the numbers, the spin the other groups put on a particular incident is lessened.

Bowling for Columbine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846666)

What about the movie Bowling for Columbine?
If you haven't seen it yet you might want to.

Xii

Re:Bowling for Columbine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846713)

Hey nitwit, why not try reading the story before posting? He's seen the movie!

Re:Bowling for Columbine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846741)

sorry, i'm out of it today....

Re:Bowling for Columbine (2)

JonTurner (178845) | about 12 years ago | (#4846738)

What about the post's second paragraph?
If you haven't read it yet you might want to.

Re:Bowling for Columbine (1)

zvogt (465599) | about 12 years ago | (#4846766)

RTFA

In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846667)

Gun Crime and Gun Control analyze YOU!

next on Ask Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

Kohath (38547) | about 12 years ago | (#4846671)

Religion: which is the one true faith?

Has sweeps week come to the Internet?

An Unbiased Analysis of Abortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846726)

No, we'll be looking for an unbiased analysis of abortion. We want facts from which to reach our own conclusions, not statistics manipulated by the extremists on either side.

Bowling for columbine... (0)

SavingPrivateNawak (563767) | about 12 years ago | (#4846672)

...was a nice documentary, not too extreme and well done IMHO.

The movie director is a member of the NRA and has quite a good approach of always asking "Why the US is different from the other countries?"...

Re:Bowling for columbine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846784)

Bowling for Columbine good? Maybe, but hardly accurate. Hell, the incident that forms the title of the film is itself a myth.

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846673)

... Crime Controls The Guns ...

Fact. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846674)

I'll kill before giving up my right to wield firearms. ;)

Seriously, though. Places like Switzerland ensure that every able-bodied adult as a fully-fledged assault rifle in their closet. Places like Israel have public armories, and won't let schoolchildren on a field trip unless the chaperones are packing.

Both of those places have ridiculously low amounts of gun violence. (Google it.) Obviously, Israel likely has more that Switzerland, but then, they've been shooting at the Palestinians for years.

In another example, England apparently has a decent chunk of gun violence, yet strict gun control laws.

I can't offer you statistics off the top of my head. I won't tell you that people need assault rifles to hunt today's super animals like the flying squirrel, and I won't tell you that hand guns should be restricted.

The only thing I'll tell you is that guns don't cause violence - societies cause violence. If not guns, then swords and knives and sticks and bare hands.

Decide for yourself (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846676)

I submit for your consideration, John Lott's book: "More Guns, Less Crime." It's obvious from the title what his take on the issue is, but the part that I find valuable is that he includes citations for ALL of his data and sources (mostly us DOJ crime statistics). You can then look up this information for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with his conclusions based on the data and his analysis of it.

My Penis is Large. (-1)

Salad Shooter (600065) | about 12 years ago | (#4846683)

And here is my story to prove it:

Today is the sixth anniversary of the day I got shot. December 9, it was even a monday.

Finals week of the fall semester had just finished up the previous Friday and, after a weekend of hard drinking, I stopped by the apartment of a girl I was seeing in Indy. She left for work and I passed out on her couch. At some point there was a knock on the door, I answered, and found her 'babydaddy' standing there. He pulled out a small pistol (I think it was a Beretta Tomcat) and shot me.

It was a hell of a thing, getting shot. It just punched a little hole in the outside edge of my thigh but it hurt pretty much like a son of a bitch.

As bad as that was it wasn't anything compared to my friend Doug. The 31st of December will be the tenth anniversary of the night we were all out on New Year's Eve and his (ex-)wife stabbed him. The stabbing required the amputation of one of his testicles, due to the fact that she stabbed him in the nuts. What would you buy a person to commemorate such an occasion? I'm thinking a single of the Alice In Chains song I'm Half the Man I Used to Be, or whatever the name of it is. Maybe that was Stone Temple Pilots. Who the hell ever, it seems appropriate.

His wife got hers in the end. The next guy she shacked up with shot her dead, which compeletes some kind of circular reference in this diary entry somehow.

Somewhere in the middle.... (2, Interesting)

Dimes (10216) | about 12 years ago | (#4846685)

As Eddie Izzard has said: "Guns dont kill people, people kill people.....but, guns sure do help. I mean, if you just stand there and go 'BANG!' your not gonna kill too many people..."

Or something like that.

Personaly, we could use more common sense than less guns....but since I dont see that happening.....well, maybe a little more control would be good....but who the hell is the government to tell me what I can or can't do....and round and round goes the hamster wheel.

Wow, a whole posting, yet really no info the poster requested.....time to submit now.

Center for Disease Control (5, Interesting)

zhar (533174) | about 12 years ago | (#4846691)

The Center for Disease Control [cdc.gov] keeps very detailed records of how many children die each year in the United States from firearms violence. Suffice to say, I have yet to see any organization, Brady or NRA, that gets these figures right.

"news for nerds" (1, Redundant)

kipple (244681) | about 12 years ago | (#4846692)

The topic is surely very interesting, but I'm asking myself what does it has to do with slashdot - besides the fact that many docs are available online.

I'm not saying that this topic is good, bad or ugly - I'm just saying that maybe it's been asked in the wrong place.

Oh boy... (3, Informative)

Darth Maul (19860) | about 12 years ago | (#4846694)

The problem with finding "unbiased" data is rarely does anyone with an opinion either way just decide to do a study. Think of trying to find "unbiased" studies on Linux vs. Microsoft stuff. Everyone has an agenda.

I, for one, and a huge fan of the U.S. Constitution. And that means I think the government shouldn't be able to stop me from speaking, stop me from gathering in a peaceful manner, stop me from going to church, or stop me from owning a gun for my own self-protection. I carry a gun every day, in fact. It's MY responsibility for my and my family's safety, not the police deparment who will show up 20 minutes late to clean up the mess. I take that responsibility seriously, and in this "land of the free", nobody should be able to take that right of self-protection away. The founding fathers saw those as "God-given" (sorry athiests, but our Founding Fathers were actually believers. Deal).

If you want some good stuff to research, try these links:

http://www.guncite.com/

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/

http://stealthboy.dyndns.org/~msherman/cowards.h tm l

When did the format change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846698)

Wow, I go away for one week of business travel and slashdot turns into Guns n Ammo. Who knew?

Chris Rock had the right idea. (1)

Shalda (560388) | about 12 years ago | (#4846701)

but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has.

If you saw Bowling for Columbine then you should know that Chris Rock had a guaranteed solution: Make the bullets cost $5000 each. "I'd shoot your ass, if I could afford it."

Really, this appeals to the Libertarian in me, make bullets reflect the full cost of damages done and the free market will sort things out. It might kill marksmanship competitions and limit hunting, but it will dry up gun violence while preserving the second amendmant.

Re:Chris Rock had the right idea. (1)

nicedream (4923) | about 12 years ago | (#4846785)

Let me get this straight...

Artificially inflated prices appeal to the Libertarian in you?

Bah (0, Flamebait)

fredrikj (629833) | about 12 years ago | (#4846702)

This world would be a better place if there were no guns. Works in Europe (tm). Too bad that it won't work in the US. I hate to say it, but it looks like you're stuck in a downwards spiral where gun related violence increases and any eventual attempts to control the guns result in things getting worse.

Not Possible (4, Interesting)

macdaddy357 (582412) | about 12 years ago | (#4846704)

The unbiased analysis you seek is just not humanly possible. Everyone has an opinion on the right to bear arms vs. gun control debate, and anyone willo become emotional defending his or her position. Here are some of my thoughts. Outlawing guns won't disarm criminals. They are criminals, and won't respect new laws any more than the ones we have now. Outlawing guns will only raise their price on the black market. Anything demanded will be supplied. That is basic economics. Even if we could create a state where only the army is armed, do we really want to?

For (probably not) the last time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846708)

...fix that stupid flag.

how does it relate to /. ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846709)

Well if we dont speak up now the BFG 9000 might not make it in to the new Doom

Guns cause violence. (2, Funny)

kaosrain (543532) | about 12 years ago | (#4846710)

I used to be a very peaceful person. I never got in fights, and I was very polite. Then, in third grade I got a knife. I didn't really kill anyone with said knife. However, when I got my first pistol, I started killing everyone: Secret Service, dogs, and even bosses! Soon, even the pistol's power wasn't enough, and I needed to move up to machine guns, chainguns, rocket launchers...everything. I even started looting treasures to feed my addiction!

I hope this helped.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846715)

Guns control you!!

Wait, is that funny?

My thoughts... (5, Interesting)

craenor (623901) | about 12 years ago | (#4846716)

Gun crime is a crime of opportunity. Guns are available, so crime with guns will occur. The number of guns already present in the United States will make gun control much less affective. Studies clearly show that most crimes are not performed with "new" guns.

Therefore, gun control is a reactionary measure proposed by people who fail to understand the motivations behind gun crimes. They are trying to oversimplify. Guns bad...ban guns, doesn't work though.

The biggest problem is this though...you cannot take rights away from Americans. Prohibition taught us that. You can give more rights to Americans...if it's not something we've become accustomed too, you might can take it away. But something we've lived with as a standard for years. You can't take that away.

Craenor

Look at how it's affected crime in the UK (5, Informative)

mesozoic (134277) | about 12 years ago | (#4846719)

Rates of violent crimes in the United Kingdom have been steadily rising for years, while rates in the United States have been steadily falling. There is a considerable argument to be made that gun control is to blame for an increase in violence in Britain.

The logic is simple: criminals will always find ways to get guns, whether legally or not. If the average civilian cannot own a gun for self-defense, the chances that a criminal will use a gun against a civilian become much higher.

Reason did a very good article on this a little while ago: Gun Control's Twisted Outcome [reason.com] .

More information required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846721)

Are you looking for an unbiased analysis that's pro-gun-control or an unbiased survey that's anti-gun-control?

Enforce Responsibility (4, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | about 12 years ago | (#4846724)


Gun ownership should demand a great deal of responsibility on the part of those owning firearms.

Practically, though, you don't see people being held accountable when their gun is stolen, used for a crime, found by a kid, etc.

I believe the pro-gun ownership lobby has become too extreme defending the right to own assault weapons and neglected the need to insure that gun owners are more responsible.

They need to listen and understand their own rhetoric about "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Well, how the hell did those irresponsible idiots get a gun in the first place? Qualifications for owning firearms are as woefully inadequate as they are for procreation with consequences that are just as dire.

I'm in favor of an empowered citizenry, with the right to own deadly weapons. But I'm insistent that the greater the risk of the weapon (including the highest levels where government officials control nukes, etc.), the greater the responsibility and accountability needs to be.

Uh Oh.. (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 12 years ago | (#4846725)

1. Open can of worms.

2. Put foot in it.

3. Go where angels fear to tread.

4. Rinse, repeat every few years.

Seriously, I was intrigued during the sniper incident in the DC/Northern Virginia area, that for all the arms that people have constitutionally secured (according to the NRA), they didn't do any good. Fortunately, neither did they appear to cause any harm, by well meaning citizens putting holes in other well meaning cititzens. On this account, good old fashioned police work saved the day.

The best way not to need arms to defend oneself against one's government is to pay some damn attention to who's running and get out and vote. Besides, it saves money on bullets and janitorial services for the wall after the revolution comes.

Fact. (1)

BigChigger (551094) | about 12 years ago | (#4846727)

If I have a gun, you will not rob me.

BC

What are you looking to accomplish? (2)

pVoid (607584) | about 12 years ago | (#4846729)

Pardon me if I didn't really understand your request...

But what answer are you looking for? There are no 'facts' per-se. If I were to say the brittish police are only armed with clubs, would you consider that a useful fact?

I saw Bowling for Columbine too, and I loved it. Almost all the points in it are valid.

Really, guns are only as dangerous as the people using them. And I think that is the bottom line of this topic.

guns? (1)

matty dee (632689) | about 12 years ago | (#4846730)

finding information that is not from extreamists is quite hard, as you well know. mind you, check out www.bowlingforcolumbine.com . its a movie by micheal moore who is a lifetime member of the NRA, yet he preaches gun safety, not fanaticism that the NRA does now. do check out the film if you can, its excellent

UCR (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | about 12 years ago | (#4846734)

You might want to try looking at the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which is published annually. It contains the numbers for what crimes have been occuring, and (IIRC) whether or not a gun was involved. GRain of salt required - not all police depts report to the UCR (like they're supposed to), and some selectively munge and distort their reports. Then there are those crimes that never get reported to police at all.

In general, gun crime has been going down in recent years, as has the general crime rate. Now whether this has anything to do with gun control (like the Brady Law), who knows? Maybe try and get some numbers on how many gun sales were blocked because of gun control measures, and comparing them up with the UCR's numbers or something.

You need guns because you can only trust yourself (2)

darnellmc (524699) | about 12 years ago | (#4846740)

You can't trust your government.

And why have some guy breaking into YOUR HOUSE so that you can call the cops so they can come with THEIR GUNS. HOW INSANE. Better than have your own gun right there for you to use.

Here in the USA in times of Homeland Security a ready militia is needed now more than ever before. I consider defense of your own home by YOU good militia work too.

If someone broke into your home and did not have a gun and you had no gun, I'm sure you would pick up whatever you had in your house (bat, knife, etc.) to defend yourself. And if you had to hit him with whatever you picked up you probably would not worry much about if you killed them, so long as you protected yourself. And some would lead you to think it's better to call the cops with their guns, because they are so responsible that they BEAT CHILDREN IN THE STREETS ON CAMERA, rather than keep a gun yourself.

Don't be fooled!!!

Hmmm... (2)

Kamel Jockey (409856) | about 12 years ago | (#4846742)

Did this guy watch The Simpsons last night? That episode would have clearly explained the impact of gun control :)

Cold Hard Statistics (2, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | about 12 years ago | (#4846743)

Your best bet is trying to find the cold hard facts about the number of violent crimes committed, the rate of gun ownership, and the laws about gun control, and then analyzing this on your own. If you read into someone else's report, you are most likely going to see something that has a bias one way or the other. If you have the data to look at yourself, you can draw conclusions on your own without much bias as long as you have an open mind. Just remember that there are many factors to take into account. Gun control laws aren't the only thing that affects violent crime. A good way might be to find places that have institued major changes in their gun control laws and see how this affected the crime rates.

And just because I love this joke, here it is:

How does the ACLU count to 10?

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

NRA is an extreme point-of-view? (3, Insightful)

NixterAg (198468) | about 12 years ago | (#4846745)

one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NRA

I am not a member of the NRA and have no immediate intentions of becoming one, but I cannot see how their position can be labeled "extreme". As far as I can tell, they simply want to maintain the status quo and uphold the second amendment. Their position is painted by their opponents as extreme because our culture deems a "moderate" position as being intellectually superior to an "extreme" position. Their opponents have tried all sorts of word gymnastics to diminish the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment, yet the NRA's position has remained consistent and firm.

I remember reading that the majority of crimes were committed with guns obtained illegally (i.e. stolen or bought off of the black market) so I'm unsure what anti-gun advocates intend to accomplish (other than eventually disarming those that abide by the law).

More Guns, More Crime (2, Informative)

jamie (78724) | about 12 years ago | (#4846747)

More Guns, More Crime [ssrn.com]

MARK DUGGAN
University of Chicago - Department of Economics

October 2000

Abstract:
This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.

You are not likely to find... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846748)

...such a thing as an "unbiased" (by your definiton, and probaly not not most if not all others) opinion on a subject that is as touchy as this.

The closest approximation is probably the writings of those who started out on one side of the issue and after their own research/experience have concluded that the other side was more correct. The kicker is, of course, are they real or a shill so one side or the other looks like it has converts?

Try seeing 'Bowling for Columbine.' (1, Redundant)

arkham6 (24514) | about 12 years ago | (#4846749)

Its a interesting and at times funny, and at other times very sad and scary film. He makes a good point in saying that Canada, which has almost as many guns per capita as the US has almost no gun violence. It still may be in some theaters, so if you can find it, do so.

You're never going to get an honest answer (3, Interesting)

gpinzone (531794) | about 12 years ago | (#4846753)

Topics such as gun control, abortion, capital punishment, etc. are too emotionally entangled with people's perception of the issues. Most people don't own guns, nor have they ever fired one in their lives, but they sure do have an opinion on gun safety. I'm not discounting their opinions. For example, I've never owned a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean my concerns over them aren't valid. However, just about anyone can learn how to operate a firearm safely. Therefore, I do believe gun owners have an edge over most other individuals as far as having an opinion that counts.

I was actually going to post a similar question (2)

carlcmc (322350) | about 12 years ago | (#4846757)

Carlcmc asks: "I have been trying to become more learned on the issues surrounding knife control and crime. I have had quite a time searching the internet for references about these issues. Practically everything that I have found has been written for, or is a study funded by, one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NKA or the Brady Foundation. The same holds true for references that I have found in our library. I was wondering if any of the members of the slashdot community have come across articles that are objective in dealing with these subjects, and I would also ask what ideas the members of this community have about this issue and what FACTS they can offer to support their ideas." "Just so everyone knows where I stand, and why I am asking this, I offer the following. I enjoy knifes and regularly compete in knifing matches and hunt occasionally. I am a member of the NKA, not for political reasons, but due to the fact that most competitions are closed to non-members (which I do think is screwed up). Having said this I am undecided on what a logical path for the future is. I do believe that an unarmed nation is a bad idea, but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita knife ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has. All of the statistics that I have seen about countries that have altogether outlawed knifes have been manipulated by those extreme groups. As such I find it hard to believe anything that either side presents. Thanks, I look forward to reading all of your comments and the references that you provide."

Freedom (4, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 12 years ago | (#4846758)

A lot of people will/have ask what business this has on /.

Personally I'm wondering too- though for what it is worth every time I read arguments about freedom in regards to softare/tech stuff I am stunned by the parallels in the gun control arena.

Should hardware or software that COULD be used to circumvent the law be illegal? Even if there are other uses that are not illegal?

What about personal responsibility?

And for my opinion on the question itself. I will add what I believe to be a fact that would add a lot of reason to the debate.

Gun control cannot work in America without the citizenry of the U.S. giving up a lot more of their personal freedoms. It is too easy for Americans to come and go as they please- to keep things private in their homes and buy/sell things in private- unregulated transactions.

As long as this is true gun control will be unworkable. If you doubt this look at how incredibly innefective gun control has been to this point in time.

The parallels to the war on drugs are also interesting but I've gone on enough already.

.

GuN or GNU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4846759)

I suppose your going to advocate building your own wepons too, you poor biased reportor.

Correlation Analysis (3, Interesting)

Llywelyn (531070) | about 12 years ago | (#4846760)

Awhile back I did an analysis of gun control by correlating one self-described "gun watchdog" group's grades (ranging from F to A, with +'s and -'s) on the different state's gun control laws.

Then I took the number of violent crimes, homicides, &c per capita (FBI statistics for the same year as the survey) and put them in separate columns. Looking at the correlation matrix I found that there was no correlation (R^2 < .25) between the level of gun-control.

A principle component analysis revealed a further lack of dependancy of one variable on the other.

This study was by no means complete--I didn't correlate it against the years or anything along those lines, but a search on the net for other research while I was performing the research for this project indicated that other studies--using various methodologies and some of them much more formal and complete than I had been--had come to the same conclusion that I had.

If you don't believe me, download a copy of R (http://www.r-project.org/) and check it yourself with those criteria you think would be accurate. I would be interested in the results.

Well.. (2)

dj28 (212815) | about 12 years ago | (#4846764)

Given that Britain has higher [interpol.int] violent crime rates [independent.co.uk] than the USA, I don't think gun laws are going to matter. Controlling arms sales to law abiding citizens isn't going to stop criminals from getting weapons. I think crime has more to do with cultural elements within a society rather than gun control. I base that on the fact that gun control does not always mean less violent crime.

Objective, my Aunt Fannie! (2)

zaren (204877) | about 12 years ago | (#4846774)

These guys [citizensofamerica.org] are a bit over the top in their "we gotta keep our guns" work, but they're still interesting.

Hang him by his scrotum. (1, Offtopic)

crovira (10242) | about 12 years ago | (#4846777)

All the copyright violators and hackers should bow down to the xxAAs and M$ and pay until they're destitute.

Who needs original material anyway?

Hey, this ain't Kuro5hin. Take that question there (1)

Real World Stuff (561780) | about 12 years ago | (#4846779)

Gun control and crime? Are you looking for statistics? If you want an unbiased report look here [ncpa.org] .

Here in the UK (1)

davew666 (555119) | about 12 years ago | (#4846780)

A few years back (1997 I think) we had a tragedy where a school load of kids was shot by a crazy gun obsessed old man. It's now known as Dunblane, since this is where it took place. Psot Dunbalne, there were many changes made to gun laws, the most notable being to completely outlaw hand guns. Other changes included making it more difficult and expensive (only rich nutters in the future?) to gt a gun license of any sort. So now you need a license to get any sort of gun at all - supposedly. The problem is that the type of people who commint gun crimes are not the type of people who apply for permits. Hence the gun crime Post Dunblane has doubled, and is stil on the increase. Conclusion? Have some form of licensing (i.e. a lot more than in the US), but the law of diminishing returns work equally well here as with mosst other topics.

tell a Canadian (1)

westcourt_monk (516239) | about 12 years ago | (#4846782)

... that we have more guns per capita! Canadians without guns don't beleive it. They even accept the recent 1 billion dollar (CDN - 645 million USD) price tag on a registration system that is redundant (we all ready registered our guns!).

Fact is poverty kills people, plain and simple. That is at the root of most violence. Check the stats on social welfare states and their crime rates.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?