Looking for good arguments for a pro-gun society... difficult

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Ordinary_guy

Hi there!
Not a troll... and not a flame bait.
So now when we settled that, let me ask you if you can find some GOOD sources of research with the indications that a pro-gun society brings about a safer and just society. I am thinking in terms of long term, both in the mindset of giving the citizen the leverage against the state, and also generally as self-defence against the "bad guys".
Why am I looking for this? Well, since I don't live in the US, and have an interest in these matters, I have noticed that it's VERY easy to find solid arguments AGAINST easy access to guns, but not so much against gun control. When I google stuff, the anti gun attitudes seems to be all over the place.

To be specific I would love to see some info regarding an international outlook, not just US-specific and your famous second amendment, because that is not relevant for most citizens around the world.

Bring it on, and thanks in advance. Please add sources in your answers so I can research it myself afterwards. And if you have any questions to me as well I will do my best to answer.

/Just an ordinary guy

I think you are operating from the wrong direction. You shouldn't try and prove why guns are good. You should let those who claim guns are bad actually prove how they are bad. At the starting point, you should insist on precise definitions and how gun control "x" policy will create "y" result.

[K_Mac]

Thanks for the link Pax. I will have to spend a little time examining his data, but it does support my position that it is not guns that are the problem here or abroad.

[K_Mac]

As for a armed society is a polite society i don't buy that, i am sure there are plenty of polite unarmed Americans.

Manta we can agree on this!

Zukiphile's big Greek friend's statement does show that in an armed society impolite behavior that crosses the line may have serious consequences. The old adage that Colt made all men equal comes to mind.

[Ordinary_guy]

"You shouldn't try and prove why guns are good"

Tools aren't bad or good, just tools.
But since I feel that there is a very big movement against guns in general, and at least I have had much difficulty in finding pro arguments I wanted some help.
It can be beneficial when discussing with other people sometimes.
I can always say "I think so" and argue well, but if there actually existed some objective (little naive me... chuckles...) studies that shows some heavy arguments pro guns, it could help.
But since most of you don't live in Europe, I guess you don't meet people that look at you (a person that likes to shoot with guns competitively) like a gun freak. And the attitude would be totally horrendous if the discussion went towards letting people have guns like allowed from your 2nd amendment. ;-) It's actually on the level that many people would like to contact the authorities to get your children from you (not kidding). Let it sink in...

[zukiphile]

Zukiphile's big Greek friend's statement does show that in an armed society impolite behavior that crosses the line may have serious consequences.

He was genuinely shocked that any american might possess a firearm, because he assumed that getting drunk, breaking noses, splitting lips, etc. was something like good clean fun. Realizing that he now lived in a place where he didn't have the ability to physically dominate nearly anyone he would meet was jarring.

But then the wheels began turning. "So if I bump into someone accidentally he will just shoot me?" It doesn't really work that way because no one wants to go to prison for that, and your rethinking your aggressiveness translates to others who also don't want to solve a trivial problem with a gun.

He was a smart lad then, and he is still a good friend, but at 19 he had the worldview of a soccer hooligan.

That there are plenty of polite but unarmed americans misses the point of the aphorism that an armed society is a polite society. The ethic that one should measure his actions so as to not deserve harm depends on harm to a perpetrator being a real possibility. That ethic is missing in a soccer riot.

[manta49]

But since most of you don't live in Europe, I guess you don't meet people that look at you (a person that likes to shoot with guns competitively) like a gun freak. And the attitude would be totally horrendous if the discussion went towards letting people have guns like allowed from your 2nd amendment. ;-) It's actually on the level that many people would like to contact the authorities to get your children from you (not kidding). Let it sink in...

I live in the European union, hopefully not for much longer. I am not sure what part you live in but i do not recognise some of what you describe above, a lot depends on what country or region you live in some are more gun friendly than others. Like some states in America are more gun friendly than others, its a mistake to talk about Europe or America as if attitudes or laws are all the same.

[K_Mac]

The ethic that one should measure his actions so as to not deserve harm depends on harm to a perpetrator being a real possibility. That ethic is missing in a soccer riot.

Amen!

[manta49]

That there are plenty of polite but unarmed americans misses the point of the aphorism that an armed society is a polite society. The ethic that one should measure his actions so as to not deserve harm depends on harm to a perpetrator being a real possibility. That ethic is missing in a soccer riot.

My and most people i know have a ethic to be polite. The above harm etc doesn't come into it, maybe its the way i was brought up. PS There are plenty of heavily armed societies that are anything but polite.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by manta

My and most people i know have a ethic to be polite. The above harm etc doesn't come into it, maybe its the way i was brought up. PS There are plenty of heavily armed societies that are anything but polite.

Your personal experience is probative if you know everyone in both countries. I could draw conclusions about the irish from a cousin who was visiting Ireland and was killed along with some of his family, but that would be careless.

You assert that the possibility of harm to a perpetrator "doesn't come into it", yet if people act rationally, they will assess the risk of an act. Why would people who rape, rob or assault be different?

Rape, robbery and assault rates appear to be about double in the UK as compared to the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...obbery-victims These are both relatively prosperous places with a common legal tradition. One notable difference is in the rates of arms ownership.

That doesn't make the US problem free. We have some terribly dangerous cities. Chicago murder rates are a matter of frequent news comment. Chicago also has demonstrated somethng less than good faith in allowing people to carry arms legally.


I wonder whether you think citation to the sorts of crime that happen face to face and involve use of force is a a slight to the English, Irish and Scottish. It isn't. The same point was made in the Champpenal report about canadian populations. Many citizens of the US can pass for canadians and vice versa. The point is to isolate the variable of possession and legally protected use inso far as that is possible.

[Buzzcook]

I have yet to see any evidence that guns in the hands of private citizens has a positive effect on violent crime over all.

The arguments for general gun ownership tend to be about individual action rather than social benefits.

[44 AMP]

I have yet to see any evidence that guns in the hands of private citizens has a positive effect on violent crime over all.

Kennesaw GA comes to mind. Not applicable to everywhere, of course, but look at what happened after they did what they did. They did have some crime, before, afterwards, it dropped to nearly zero across the board and completely zero in some categories. Not sure what has happened in the years since, but for a few years after they passed the "shall have a gun" law, crime there dropped dramatically.

The more I think on it, the more I realized that I don't really care much anymore about crime "overall", I care about crime on the personal level, in other words, what could happen to me, and mine. And on that level I ABSOLUTELY believe in the positive effect on crime of a gun in the hands of a private citizen (me!),

[rwilson452]

I seem to recall some time ago a gulf state LA I think was having a big problem with car jacking. They passed a law that basically said to was OK to shoot carjackers. Carjackings dropped to almost 0. In FL when they decided to recognize out of state CCW the problem of tourist getting carjacked or robbed dropped. You could tell the tourist by the rental car sticker on the car or the out of state plates. Both of these things happened so long ago I don't recall the numbers.

ADD:

As old Sam Clemens said, " There are three kinds of lies. lies, damn lies and statistics."

I don't put much faith in statistics especially when all you can get it the executive summary and they will not publish how they got there.

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...And, #2) they ought to go spend some time in a prison, (where there are no guns other than in the hands of the guards), and see how safe they feel there.

I work lock down, and wear a raid style stab vest plus face shield all day. The inventiveness of the human mind is full evident in how inmates make weapons. Plastic buckets can make a number of dandy shanks, and I saw a Mylanta bottle turned into a home made bomb. No guns inside the wire unless the wheels have come ALL the way off. This is why my tag line for years has been;
"If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?"

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

I have yet to see any evidence that guns in the hands of private citizens has a positive effect on violent crime over all.

The arguments for general gun ownership tend to be about individual action rather than social benefits.

Which doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't carry a gun to improve crime rates. I carry one to protect my family.

This thread isn't focused on the US, but our Bill of Rights is all about protecting the individual. My daughter was horrified the first time I told her that it was the most undemocratic document ever drafted.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Spats

Which doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't carry a gun to improve crime rates. I carry one to protect my family.

Emphasis added.

It seems reasonable to exercise foresight about an act without regard to the motive for undertaking the act. The bolded part is your act.

How might your act change the behavior of others?

If you carry an arm concealed, and the other 19 people in a society of 20 don't, the benefit to you is direct, but some benefit may also accrue to the other 19. Someone seeking to use force against me may factor in the risk, a 5% chance of confronting someone armed, and amend his behavior. I'm a free rider in this scenario.

If the three of us are all part of a group of 20 who are prohibited from having arms, someone seeking to use force against me can factor in his own relative safety. There is no reason to believe this person so thoroughly irrational that he would disregard his own safety.

[Spats McGee]

^^^ Fair enough.

[spacemanspiff]

There is a lot of factors that get pulled into this type of a discussion. My opinion is that one factor rarely discussed holds more answers than everyone realizes. Apologies if its already been mentioned. I scanned thru the thread and did not see any similar ideas, but I also didnt read word for word.

Here goes: Todays violent criminals are either more prevalent, or more prone to commit the violence. 25, 30 years ago, the experts advice to anyone victimized by these violent criminals was "Comply, give them what they want, do not resist or fight back."
And that advice likely was best, and victims probably did have a higher survival rate if they complied. But, WHY was compliance back then able to avert violence? My hypothesis is that those criminals feared the repercussions of getting caught, and sent to jail.
It has only taken a few decades of relaxing crime laws, fumbled investigations and lazy prosecutors, etc, etc for the criminal mentality to adapt. Realizing that the risk of getting caught and locked up for their crimes is low enough in this day and age to justify using violence even when their victims are complying.

I couldn't say what todays experts advice is, but I do not believe in absolute compliance with an armed criminal. If one can fight or resist, I think one should.
Resistance would be much more complicated and difficult if our society was entirely anti-gun.

[K_Mac]

It has only taken a few decades of relaxing crime laws, fumbled investigations and lazy prosecutors, etc, etc for the criminal mentality to adapt. Realizing that the risk of getting caught and locked up for their crimes is low enough in this day and age to justify using violence even when their victims are complying.

Yet we have more people in prison now than ever before, and more per capita than any other developed nation in the world. We imprison non-violent offenders who need treatment and mental health care and turn them into dangerous violent criminals. They and others are often as much victims of the violent culture they live in as the victims of violent crime. Our prisons are cesspools; overcrowded and dangerous where the administration and staff can do little other than try to maintain some sort of control without getting killed in the process.

We continue to see a general outcry for something to be done to stop the senseless violence. That something is almost always a cry for more gun control laws. What we need is for politicians and government to have the guts and will to enforce the laws already in place, and to honestly address the underlying issues.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by pax

Just came across an article from 2016 that speaks rather clearly to the issues in this thread. It’s at https://ijr.com/2016/01/510415-10-ch...n-perspective/

Strong recommendation for taking a look, as it gives some very interesting global perspectives.

K Mac and Manta especially might find it useful.

pax

Thank you for the link, that was a very interesting read. If you don't mind, I plan on stealing it for future use.

[ReadyOnTheRight]

Murder isn't a new problem. It has been around a lot longer than firearms and governments have always been the greatest offenders.

johnwilliamson062 - great quote.

[ReadyOnTheRight]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Which doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't carry a gun to improve crime rates. I carry one to protect my family.

This thread isn't focused on the US, but our Bill of Rights is all about protecting the individual. My daughter was horrified the first time I told her that it was the most undemocratic document ever drafted.

I have been away from this site way too long.

"...the most undemocratic document ever drafted...".

What a great description of individual rights codified.

[Buzzcook]

44 AMP, The Kennesaw experiment isn't quite the clear cut victory its proponents claim.
https://www.snopes.com/kennesaw-gun-law/

Mandatory gun ownership in Kennesaw was a knee jerk reaction to anti-gun laws in Morton Grove Ill. The laws were not enforce so that not one person was required in fact to own a firearm.
Crime was already very low in Kennesaw, it had zero murders the year before the law was enacted and four armed robberies.

Burglaries did decrease from 55 in in 1981 to 27 in 1982 and then 11 by 1985.
But crime across the state of Georgia was dropping at a similar rate. So correlation is not causation, but there is a stronger correlation between criminal trends in Kennesaw and those state wide than there is with Kennesaw's gun law.

Another place that mirrored Kennesaw's drop in crime rates was Morton Grove, Ill.
Morton Grove's gun law stayed in place till 2008 till it was repealed due to the cost of litigation. Here's crime data from before the law was repealed and after. There is no statistically meaningful change.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime...-Illinois.html

[Buzzcook]

zukiphile: Herd immunity perhaps? The closer the carry rate gets to 100% the less likely that anyone gets robbed.

It sounds good but lets say instead of a gun you are carrying a lump of metal that has several hundred dollars in value and is easily converted into cash.
What is the risk reward for the scenario? If criminals are rational actors when it comes to avoiding armed confrontations, would they not also be equally rational when it comes to getting a greater reward? would they be more likely to avoid or develop tactics to lessen the risk of getting that valuable lump of metal?

[armoredman]

K_Mac, which ones of these qualify as non-violent to you?

https://corrections.az.gov/sites/def...8/cagjan18.pdf


Really not trying to be snarky, but I'm in the mix here, and honestly a number of SMI inmates are quite violent. The state currently classifies about 1/4 of the population as non-violent. I would hazard a guess that the citizens of my state might not be amused if we decided to let them all out the front door. Interestingly enough, we list more than 1/4 as requiring on going mental health treatment, and we do provide it 24/7, in some places.
You ask us to enforce the laws - we do, and this requires prisons. I would love to see a return to quality state mental institutions, with GOOD oversight this time to avoid the issues of the 60s and 70s that caused them to turn loose patients on the streets, sometimes turning to crime to live, but that would require some work on federal and state level. This would help - removing the criminal alien population would cut almost 10% of our population right off the top. Build the wall.
BTW, have you been in a prison? If not, I would ask you look into taking a tour of a facility near you.
Note, I am not disagreeing with you completely, but saying the solution to overcrowding is not as easy as it sounds. Interestingly enough, we aren't overcrowded, under capacity, and we released more inmates than we took in last month. Just sayin'.

[K_Mac]

Armoredman I have never been an inmate, but I have been in both state and federal facilities a number of times and have a couple of friends who have been correctional officers and medical staff for many years.

I am not suggesting turning loose all nonviolent prisoners. I am suggesting that we are locking up the wrong ones many times. We lock up drug offenders and abused and troubled youths and release violent cons.

If your facility is not overcrowded you are very lucky compared to anything in my part of the world.

As I said this will require government to address the underlying problems. I'm not attacking you and the men and women who put their lives on the line daily to serve in prisons. That does not mean that what we are doing is working though. The care given and conditions in the state and federal institutions all over our country should be an embarrassment to all thinking people. They are not correctional facilities, but holding pens. There are many who think that is good enough, but it creates a police state that is dangerous for all of us, especially the poor and marginalized. Taking our guns and locking up ever larger numbers of citizens is not going to stop the prevailing violence.