if only non lethal (i.e. "rubber") bullets were available for sale? If you could reliably incapacitate someone without killing them, would that fulfill the requirement of allowing people to bear arms?

12/30/2007 4:37:55 PM

There is no such thing as non lethal bullets.

12/30/2007 5:00:08 PM

non lethal doesnt exist

you mean less than lethal

and the threat of death is the point of the whole amendment

12/30/2007 5:05:44 PM

Because then rubber bullets would be available to citizens and metal bullets still in the hands of the government. No thanks.

12/30/2007 5:15:18 PM

Rubber bullets will kill at close range. Regular ammunition is easy to make anyway.

12/30/2007 5:19:12 PM

Actually, being able to raise an army was the whole point of the amendment.

Quote :

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The founders obviously intended the right to bear arms under the context of being able to raise an army. I don't see how how individual gun ownership could be construed under the pretext of "a well regulated milita". Joe Public with a handgun is hardly well regulated.

12/30/2007 5:32:58 PM

you can't kill a deer with rubber bullets.

12/30/2007 5:41:13 PM

Rubber bullets can still lead to serious injury and/or be lethal if you shoot the person in the right spot. For instance, shooting somebody in the eye will almost certainly maim them for life, if they don't die outright from the shock or the bullet depositing itself into the victim's brain.

And as someone else said, rubber bullets for civilians only while the government gets all the real ammunition represents an undesirable situation, the government already possessing all of the biggest and most destructive weapons notwithstanding.

I can certainly see how the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted as granting the right to bare arms to a person only if said person was a member of a militia. However, I don't know that it was the intention of the founders to keep guns completely away from civilians. If I recall correctly, the 2nd Amendment was put into place to allow the populace a means of keeping the government in check should it grow too powerful and attempt to establish tyranny. That would necessitate that regular citizens be allowed to at least have access to guns. You don't necessarily have to be in a militia to shoot a government lacky that's attempting to unlawfully enter your home.

[Edited on December 30, 2007 at 6:06 PM. Reason : blah]

12/30/2007 6:03:34 PM

Quote :

"The founders obviously intended the right to bear arms under the context of being able to raise an army."

That is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever, dumbass. If they wanted people to have guns ONLY so that they could keep up a militia, then don't you think they would have said "People can have guns for the purpose of a militia?" I mean, honestly. Use your fucking brain here. The first part of the 2nd amendment is NOT a limiting phrase. Stop being a god-damned revisionist pussy.

No, it makes much more sense that they would say one thing and mean another It could say "Because the sky is green, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and it would still mean that weapons are a UNIVERSAL INALIENABLE RIGHT. The first clause is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a limit on the right, because the second part says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," AKA, there is NO circumstance where the right shall be curtailed. NONE WHATSOEVER. it's really that fucking simple.

[Edited on December 30, 2007 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2007 6:12:35 PM

^ You just can't say "that's the biggest bunch of bullshit, dumbass" and declare victory. The point that the second amendment does not enumerate the right to unrestricted arms has been made by many notable academics and lawyers. The second amendment establishes a collective right to arms, but not an individual right.

The individual right to arms has been established by precedent and is not explicitly enumerated (much as the right to privacy has been established by precedent and is not enumerated). If Americans want to codify the individual right to bear arms (or privacy) into the constitution, then they need their own amendment. Otherwise they are open to interpretation, challenge and redefinition.

Quote :

"weapons are a UNIVERSAL INALIENABLE RIGHT"

The fact that many countries have safe, civil societies with very restrictive gun laws shows that this "right" is neither universal or inalienable. In fact, the so called "right" didn't even exist prior to the invention of the gun. To argue that a piece of technology is a natural right is ridiculous. It's no different than saying I have an unalienable right to a car or a taser gun.

As for the "shall not be infringed", it seems our society is willing to put some infringements on the so called "right", particularly on the type or capacities of weapons. This basically unravels the whole fabric of the "shall not be infringed" argument, as we seem to be quite content with a moderate amount of infringement.

[Edited on December 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/30/2007 6:40:01 PM

personal protection means personal....not police. if some crackhead is breaking into your house you have the right to protect your family and therefore deserve the right to have a tool that makes it easier to do so. the police will not be there quick enough to save you. countries with restricted gun rights still have criminals with guns as well as serious knife stabbing problems.

12/30/2007 8:39:15 PM

I knew a republican would chime in using some sort of anecdote that would avoid the legal or theoretical constructs that my argument was based upon. Its a characteristic of their type of argument.

Crackheads break into houses, welfare should be eliminated because people can sit and drink on their porches all day, the lady at the Food Lion was using food stamps and used cash to buy lobster and cigarettes, I can go on for days...

12/30/2007 8:48:10 PM

Quote :

"The second amendment establishes a collective right to arms, but not an individual right."

Um, no. Up until the 1930's, the opposite was the case in Supreme Court case decisions, as well as in recent precedent. Just because you believe it to be true does not in fact change legal history.

12/30/2007 8:49:38 PM

Quote :

"Scuba Steve I knew a republican would chime in using some sort of anecdote that would avoid the legal or theoretical constructs that my argument was based upon. Its a characteristic of their type of argument. Crackheads break into houses, welfare should be eliminated because people can sit and drink on their porches all day, the lady at the Food Lion was using food stamps and used cash to buy lobster and cigarettes, I can go on for days..."

if anecdotes bother you so much perhaps you should address

Quote :

"Republican18countries with restricted gun rights still have criminals with guns as well as serious knife stabbing problems."

this is not an anecdotal statement.

Additionally, your whole premise is preposterous.
We already have enough problems killing homicidal maniacs wearing body armor.
Wouldn't it be lovely if 3/4" plywood became body armor, because in your world it would be.
You defend your family with rubber bullets, I want something with some stopping power.
We have the right to "life", this is why we are allowed to bear arms.

If we are going to pretend that the constitution's actual original meaning has a place in pragmatical
discussion (and it doesn't for quite some time now) then we might as well look to the intent of the founders. It was centuries of mistreatment of the common man by the feudal governments that inspired a healthy distrust for a centralized powerful government. An armed populace is one that cannot easily be subdued.

12/30/2007 10:08:45 PM

Haha, fuck rubber bullets. If they outlawed regular bullets in favor of less lethal rounds I would just find a way to make myself a little crossbow with exploding dart tips in my home shop.

Allow me to rant a bit about why the idea of less lethal bullets is absolutely ridiculous.

The whole problem with less lethal rounds is that it makes people think they can use them more (most people are idiots and most people will think this). So now we have robbers just plinking people with rubber bullets to start with and, while their victim is coiled up on the ground, they raid their wallet and run off (plus they'll still have the regular lethal bullets anyway, you're only taking the regular rounds away from honest people and a teeny tiny percentage of wanna-g's). Maybe now we have neighbors who occasionally settle feuds with these things since they don't think they're going to kill their neighbor, just scare the shit out of him. You would see a bad statistical change in gun crime and gun use (and honest gun ownership) if a foolish law were put into place that restricted civilians from purchasing standard lethal rounds.

Some other things to think about with a rubber bullet: Murders executed with rubber bullets (close range will still be mighty deadly!) would be nearly untraceable as the elastic bullet round probably won't carry enough defining characteristics from each gun for it to be traced to a murder weapon. If the person doing the killing is smarter than a box of rocks he could just pick up his casings and walk away, making the murder almost impossible to solve unless there are witnesses or unless big brother is watching.

See, we want traceable, high-power, deadly, "oh-shit-I'm-only-going-to-use-this-for-last-means-of-defense-killing" sort of bullets. This makes more sense for police and for citizens as these rounds are much easier to define in the courts as far as lethal/nonlethal and for where their use is justified or not justified. You see at 30 yards I might be able to justify plinking a drunk neighbor in the leg with one of these rubber bullets if he was assaulting his girlfriend or something (I SAVED HER LIFE and brought him to his senses! All he got was a big bruise!). At shorter distances it might seems entirely unnecessary to go shoot somebody with the same bullet because it might become embedded in their leg or torso.

Let's also not forget, if somebody breaks into your house and you hit them with a less lethal round, and they don't fall the fuck down and die immediately there is an unfortunate chance that they will come after you. Worse, they might have a pistol with lethal rounds in it! So now you've pissed a guy off by embedding some rubber pellets into his flesh and he's got a 0.45 with lethal lead rounds that he just shot you in the chest with. You are now dead and your family is in danger from a ROYALLY pissed off man with a lethal weapon. So now, since this situation has arisen, do we see more people choosing not to own guns since they now they're more of a liability and a retarded high-power "toy" instead of a lethal tool designed for seriously wounding or killing things? Do we see gun ownership decline since now all you can hunt a deer with is a round that will just slap the shit out of him? Would this really accomplish anything at all besides a shift in the weaponry used in personal defense (I'd use a crossbow or something)?

There's one thing that never really gets properly accounted for in the anti-gun argument and that's the fact that criminals cannot buy handguns. They wouldn't anyway! They can get their hands on stolen firearms with serial numbers removed that will suit them just fine. Who are the people who are affected by gun laws? People like me who just want to collect firearms for shooting and personal defense (and for history!). The people who are affected by the gun laws are the good people that follow the law. The only thing that needs to be done in regards to the second amendment and gun laws is the proper enforcement of existing gun laws. Make sure people with criminals records showing violent crimes cannot get their hands on handguns and heavier weaponry. Take down smuggling rings and immediately destroy any and all firearms that are confiscated in a raid/arrest (after making sure to collect spent slugs and shells, store information that could be used by CSI officers to solve a crime).

What's interesting is that we're seeing some evidence that this has been happening lately, at least based off of this website (which has numerous sources to back its claims):

http://www.shootingusa.com/LATEST_UPDATES/LATEST_UPDATES_NSSF_GUNSALES/latest_updates_nssf_gunsales.html

So gun sales are up (assumedly from people like me) and ammunition sales are up. Gun crime has gone down (presumably due to increased enforcement and arrests) and suicide rates have gone down (though I can't explain that one away).

I will say this is sort of an interesting "what if" thread but it's absolute nonsense to consider less lethal rounds as an acceptable compromise in your political agenda. All citizens who are not convicted violent offenders or mentally unstable should be able to get their hands on any personal weapon they want (with the laws that are already in place regarding crew-served and high-powered automatic weapons simply being enforced within reason). The citizens that buy these guns should also be able to use them with the ammunition they were designed for: High-powered lethal bullets that will probably kill whatever they pass through.

The criminals out there will always get their hands on weapons through other means. Until it becomes proven that, as a whole, everybody in society is batshit crazy and wants to kill everybody else (and they are doing so) there should be no further action taken against civilians that own guns of all kinds. They want them for sport, for recreation, for defense, for freedom (yes, guns ensure freedom), and for collection/historical reasons. None of these reasons infringe upon the rights of others in legal terms, so there really is no basis for taking these rights away. This is slightly out-of-scope for the original thread topic but I believe it's well-known by know that any gun topic brought up on TWW turns into a full-fledged debate on firearms and the second amendment.

[Edited on December 30, 2007 at 11:18 PM. Reason : Finished.]

12/30/2007 10:57:14 PM

Quote :

"Some other things to think about with a rubber bullet: Murders executed with rubber bullets (close range will still be mighty deadly!) would be nearly untraceable as the elastic bullet round probably won't carry enough defining characteristics from each gun for it to be traced to a murder weapon. If the person doing the killing is smarter than a box of rocks he could just pick up his casings and walk away, making the murder almost impossible to solve unless there are witnesses or unless big brother is watching."

Ok, I'm sorry, but there's a gaping hole in your logic big enough to drive a Mack truck through. A rubber bullet in this case is effectively the same as a blunt object - granted, it's ranged, but the effect is essentially the same. Amazingly enough, we can still manage to use other sources of forensic evidence to solve murders committed by blunt objects - like footprints, hair/fiber samples, etc. Will you be able to match the exact gun? Probably not. But you don't need to find the bloodstained baseball bat either to prove that a baseball-bat-shaped object caved someone's skull in, either.

It's not like rubber bullets are the key to The Perfect Murder.

12/30/2007 11:01:46 PM

Politicians love to pass laws that prevent YOU from defending yourself. But they don't disarm themselves. They use your tax-money for the well-armed protection that the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Capital Police provide for them.

Laws should be about the consequences of your actions and not about what you own.

12/30/2007 11:04:01 PM

Quote :

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

with

Quote :

"The founders obviously intended the right to bear arms under the context of being able to raise an army. I don't see how how individual gun ownership could be construed under the pretext of "a well regulated milita". Joe Public with a handgun is hardly well regulated."

doesnt work

12/30/2007 11:09:00 PM

Quote :

"Ok, I'm sorry, but there's a gaping hole in your logic big enough to drive a Mack truck through. A rubber bullet in this case is effectively the same as a blunt object - granted, it's ranged, but the effect is essentially the same. Amazingly enough, we can still manage to use other sources of forensic evidence to solve murders committed by blunt objects - like footprints, hair/fiber samples, etc. Will you be able to match the exact gun? Probably not. But you don't need to find the bloodstained baseball bat either to prove that a baseball-bat-shaped object caved someone's skull in, either."

No need to say "I'm sorry, but". There's no reason to act like I'm completely wrong on something when I'm just using my example as one reason why the rubber bullet doesn't belong in civilian hands. A rubber bullet can be used at range, and that's what makes it special for this argument. When you run up to a person with a bat, there will be a confrontation. You will probably not be able to get one clean hit off on this person with your blunt object, kill them, and walk away while leaving little evidence. The person will usually probably fight back and leave some marks on the assailant, and this will allow for all that needed evidence that you mentioned that is used to convict somebody in a murder trial. Now, take a rubber bullet in a firearm. I do not have to walk up to you and be almost able to kiss you in order for this to kill you. I can stand at range and aim for the softer parts of your head around your brain and cause trauma that will kill you without getting evidence everywhere. I can do this from my car in the street as you walk by, and the only thing I will leave are little elastic, rubber bullets that the cops can't really trace (it's not a perfectly traceable thing now with regular lead bullets, but it IS something that can be used to match a murder weapon). My point is that when you use a firearm you are using a weapon that will allow you to kill more efficiently, with less mess, and with less traceable elements than a blunt object. When you have bullets that are hard to trace or that disappear (and they can't be found using metal detectors either!) you make it that much harder to solve the crime (which is why we civilians tend not to be able to get our hands on these rounds these days, they have interesting qualities that make them useful for criminals).

Here's why I was using this example in my argument (in case you missed it): It wouldn't make sense to mandate rubber bullets. I'm arguing that they are harder to trace for law enforcement, that their title as "less lethal" encourages their use, and that this is one possible example where that can be applied. I'm not saying that rubber bullets completely eliminate all possible investigation of a homicide where a shooting is involved, I'm simply saying it could seriously hamper the investigation of the crime in an instance where somebody put the least bit of thought and preparation into a murder (and as a result make it possible for more murders to go unsolved, which law enforcement generally doesn't like). Having shit like that for sale on the shelves would never make sense as a result and should invalidate the original idea presented in the thread. It might allow people to still have guns, but it would completely twist their use and applicability in situations where a gun is needed.

Quote :

"t's not like rubber bullets are the key to The Perfect Murder."

If I'd said "rubber bullets are dumb because they make shooting crimes impossible to solve" then your reply would be justified, but my point was explained fairly well in my argument and it's explained further here. They make them harder to solve and that's part of the reason they're not in our hands in the first place. In instances where there is no other evidence (which is what the "making the murder almost impossible to solve unless there are witnesses or unless big brother is watching" line was all about) it is bad news if somebody used a rubber bullet instead of a conventional one. It helps to get rid of an important method of tracing and matching the murder weapon used in a crime (and having the murder weapon matched to a perpetrator is usually pretty helpful if you don't have any witnesses in a crime).

[Edited on December 30, 2007 at 11:51 PM. Reason : A final extension on that part of my argument.]

12/30/2007 11:43:22 PM

I would make it so we could own tanks and cruise missiles. Can't check the power of the government with this weak ass shit that we have right now.

12/31/2007 12:24:58 AM

^^ There's a reason I pick on your issue of hampering forensic investigation over other aspects of your argument: because it's a weak argument. Mandating rubber bullets may not make sense from a policy perspective for a multitude of reasons, but trying to assert that they are forensically "clean" is just not one of them. You're on much more logically sound ground by simply asserting that their use can be as lethal as "lethal rounds," when used appropriately.

Which is why I prelude my argument by saying, "I'm sorry, but." By and large, I agree that mandating rubber bullets is a dumb idea - by and large they're not going to stop those who are hellbent on committing actual violence (an argument which you already adequately make), nor are they a panacea to the problems of the violent (mis)use of firearms. My issue was in predicating an argument based on forensics - it really just doesn't work.

The cases you lay out for when a rubber bullet can cause lethal damage (while the assailant remains forensically untraceable) are fairly implausible - they would require fairly precise aim (and some degree of luck) to actually cause fatal damage at the ranges and situations you suggest. More than likely, such fatal situations would occur after a victim has been incapacitated - say, by a hail of more rubber bullets. Again, though - we don't have to trace a fatal bludgeoning by a baseball bat to know a baseball bat was the shape of the murder weapon - nor would we have to trace the bullets to the specific gun to know that a person was killed by an impact consistent with rubber bullets.

It's just not a very strong argument to predicate your case upon, especially when you have other, better arguments at your disposal, like the fact that they don't solve the inherent problem they are proposed to solve.

[Edited on December 31, 2007 at 12:36 AM. Reason : ^^]

12/31/2007 12:26:00 AM

if you're caught with a unlicened gun in new york the minimum sentence is 3 years.

also I hate this country does this so it must work here but...

NYC is the safest large city in the US and has a similar population as London (around 8 million). London's homicide rate is tiny compared to new yorks. Every thug in new york has a damn gun and end up missing and shooting people. Some lady got shot leaving her apartment building by a stray bullet a few blocks from where I live. Fucked up. Some 11 year old was shot by someone who knocked on his door in queens yesterday. The shooter was most likely a gang member.

guns used outside of hunting purposes are useless.

12/31/2007 10:32:18 AM

BUT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RISE UP AGAINST THE MAN


ITS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS SO IT HAS TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO RUN THE COUNTRY


Seriously though, prohibition, among other things, proves that the Bill of Rights isn't always benevolent. Much as slavery showed the founding fathers weren't as enlightened as everyone would have you believe.


Personally I think you should just have huge rifles legalized and all small, concealable weapons made illegal. If you wanna fight the government you're not going to do it with a handgun in this day and age anyhow. Man up and use a rifle or machine gun.

[Edited on December 31, 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

12/31/2007 10:50:39 AM

Quote :

"I think you should just have huge rifles legalized and all small, concealable weapons made illegal. "

OK...you've just dis-armed all of the law-abiding citizens. Now what about the criminals who don't care if guns are illegal? They'll have guns no matter what law you pass.

The police are not legally obligated to protect any individual...so where does that leave those of us with families to protect?

12/31/2007 11:25:28 AM

the citizens are the ones shooting each other.

12/31/2007 11:45:55 AM

You ignored my large weapon clause.

I do believe shotguns are effective at stopping home intrusions.


After a period of time has elapsed and the old weapons are gradually phased out through buy-outs and arrests and other means I doubt you'd have much of a problem. Small weapons muggings/robbery aren't significant problems in any countries that I know of that have weapons bans in effect. (Please don't post a story that shows a single person getting robbed either, that's not significant, it's a singular incident.)

The average person does not even need a gun, regardless of their right to have it. The criminal element isn't an argument either. Guns are accidents waiting to happen and only well-qualified and intelligent people should have them.

12/31/2007 11:46:26 AM

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: Seriously though, prohibition, among other things, proves that the Bill of Rights isn't always benevolent. Much as slavery showed the founding fathers weren't as enlightened as everyone would have you believe."

Uh.... you realize neither slavery nor Prohibition were part of the Bill of Rights, right - which in themselves are just the first ten amendments to the Constitution? Slavery was an expressly permitted error in the Constitution (later excised through the amendment process), and Prohibition was an error introduced into the Constitution - by the very vociferous demand of a determined minority (the Temperance Movement). And Prohibition came over 100 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: After a period of time has elapsed and the old weapons are gradually phased out through buy-outs and arrests and other means I doubt you'd have much of a problem. Small weapons muggings/robbery aren't significant problems in any countries that I know of that have weapons bans in effect. (Please don't post a story that shows a single person getting robbed either, that's not significant, it's a singular incident.)"

Except that the rates for these types of crimes - with or without small arms - are comparable, if not higher than the United States. It's not like a gun is a necessary component of a mugging, beating, or a rape. (These crimes did occur - oddly enough - before widespread ownership of small arms.)

[Edited on December 31, 2007 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2007 1:02:19 PM

Excuse me, I was referring to the general amendments to the constitution as the bill of rights, I know the difference but was being extremely lazy. I should have said:

Quote :

"Seriously though, prohibition, among other things, proves that the way the constitution is designed (aka all amendments) isn't always benevolent."

So yes, you can nitpick, but you knew what I was referring to, which is why you didn't address it either.

Quote :

" Except that the rates for these types of crimes - with or without small arms - are comparable, if not higher than the United States. It's not like a gun is a necessary component of a mugging, beating, or a rape. (These crimes did occur - oddly enough - before widespread ownership of small arms.)"

http://www.nysun.com/comments/4542


Murder rate (per 100,000 people)

United States 8.40
Canada 5.45

That's murder rate.

I can't find an overall 'violent crime' comparison, basically because those studies are too general and unreliable to source.

The only source I could find that appears to be unbiased as far as gun violence goes is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders

We're up there with some great countries, yep.

12/31/2007 1:39:35 PM

maybe i'm out of the loop or something. but doesn't canada have similar gun laws to ours?

12/31/2007 1:51:26 PM

Quote :

"So yes, you can nitpick, but you knew what I was referring to, which is why you didn't address it either."

Except that you're blaming the designers of the Constitution for being idiotic for allowing retarded amendments to be introduced 100+ years later. I didn't think I needed to further explain why that was a dumb argument.

Quote :

"Murder rate (per 100,000 people) United States 8.40 Canada 5.45 That's murder rate. I can't find an overall 'violent crime' comparison, basically because those studies are too general and unreliable to source. The only source I could find that appears to be unbiased as far as gun violence goes is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders We're up there with some great countries, yep."

Notice which crimes I picked out, though - muggings, rapes, and beatings. Which, incidentally, are not murder, which is the crime you picked out.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21674/Crime-Statistics-Assaults

Quote :

"Assaults (per 1,000 people) United States: 7.56923 UK: 7.45959 Canada: 7.11834 Australia: 7.02459"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21672/Crime-Statistics-Rapes

Quote :

"Rapes (per 1,000 people) Australia: 0.777999 Canada: 0.733089 United States: 0.301318 UK: 0.142172"

I stand by my original point.

12/31/2007 1:53:02 PM

i was just posting the #1 and #2 links, they go down even lower after that, look at the website.


Here's info about canada's laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Laws_and_regulation


They appear to be more significantly more restrictive than the US, though they may allow more than other nations that fully restrict weapons.

12/31/2007 1:55:36 PM

Dude, did you even, say, look at the classes of crimes I pointed out to you? I wasn't contesting murder - I was contesting other types of crime. Which, on average, are on par or greater than that of the U.S. for several countries with more restrictive gun ownership regimes.

12/31/2007 1:57:24 PM

But you *have* to look at armed assaults and other crimes that are gun-related. You cannot ignore murder when you have a high rate of death in armed confrontations. It's like putting everything in greyscale and ignoring everything that isn't pure white or black.

12/31/2007 1:58:15 PM

i'd rather be mugged than murdered. i don't know about the rest of you.

12/31/2007 1:58:50 PM

My point is that these types of crimes are occurring even without guns, at equivalent or higher rates. Therefore, guns are not an essential factor to all of these crimes.

Murder, yes. I'm pretty much giving you murder. Take it and run. Other types of crimes, however, in which a gun is frequently used to commit in the U.S., occur with nearly equal or greater frequency in other countries even without the guns.

12/31/2007 1:59:57 PM

Yea, and my point is that if you're mugged with a gun you're more likely to die than if you're mugged by someone without a gun.

12/31/2007 2:00:22 PM

Ok, great. Not really contesting that particular point. My point was more that you are just as likely, if not more so, to get mugged in these other countries. Or raped. Or beaten.

I'm granting your point that guns can have an effect to escalate the fatality level of a crime. But they don't drop the mean level of crime - if anything, this mean level is higher in other places with less guns than it is here. Therefore, it's not as simple as pointing to guns as a source of crime. They may be a source of escalation, but not of crime itself: it doesn't bear out so simply/

12/31/2007 2:03:30 PM

I'm really not arguing that point either. I'm just arguing that there is no real reason for normal people to carry handguns or have concealed weapons permits. Outlaw these smaller guns that are typically used in crimes and allow the weapons that are for hunting/militias and I'm happy.

12/31/2007 2:07:57 PM

I just don't necessarily see the end you hope to accomplish by such a policy.

Let's assume for one moment that we actually managed to get rid of all handguns, except for those who are licensed. Say, police and security forces. Done. We now live in a world where ordinary folks only have access to the long guns you specify.

What will happen? It seems reasonable to speculate that criminals' first tactic, aside from trying to illegally acquire handguns, as they already are wont to do, would be to modify legal guns in such a fashion as to make them more concealable. For instance, sawing off the barrel of a shotgun.

Which, in the end, would mean that the law would likely have a negligible effect after awhile - there are other avenues to the same end. It's just taking out a matter of convenience, but the problem is still largely with your criminal element, who will always seek to have an advantage on law-abiding people.

12/31/2007 2:12:50 PM

If this is the case then why haven't we seen such widespread abuse in countries where guns are restricted?

I mean, if I were to follow your argument then it would mean that people would be walking down the streets of Tokyo with katana's slicing people's arms off because they *needed* to have a weapon to take advantage of people with.

Instead the case is that the criminal element has the weapons and has formed something akin to the mob and they work very hard to stay out of the public eye.


You'll never completely solve a problem like this, it seems to be human nature, but there are ways to reduce the problem, and arming the populace isn't one of them.

12/31/2007 2:18:14 PM

Because of other factors which keep crime lower in general? We have seen this to be the case in the U.S., in places like D.C., which have the strictest gun laws in the nation yet also have some of the highest violent crime rates.

Which leads me to believe that something else is at work for violent crime which exists independent of gun laws.

Again, though - the very fact that certain crimes in other nations with stricter gun laws are at parity with the U.S. amply demonstrates this point. The issue isn't guns per se - it's whatever is the driving factor of crime. Get to the root of that, and the gun debate becomes academic.

12/31/2007 2:31:47 PM

going back to the idea in the op. If you could actually have a weapon that would totally incapacitate a target with absolutely 0 ill effects it would become a compliance tool of the police and abused more than tazers.

12/31/2007 2:38:39 PM

They're way ahead of you, Shaggy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

12/31/2007 2:43:30 PM

I think that gun laws would have to be enacted on a national level for anything to actually change. Local laws like that would have to be very strictly enforced to actually work. I imagine it's very easy to buy guns outside of DC (I mean hey, VA isn't exactly anti-gun) and bring them back into DC.


Simply having a law on books won't change anything other than the law.

12/31/2007 2:47:47 PM

sawed off shotguns are illegal

12/31/2007 3:04:46 PM

that ones a little different because the idea of microwaving people can be pretty easily overblown in the media. Not like they'd help us out like that, but its effects are still questionable. Like if someone were to get stuck in the way of the beam.

While i doubt we'll ever see a true 0 lethality weapon, having one would only increase the necessity of the 2nd ammendment as a guard against government abuse. But I dont think thats the part you guys are debating.

I'd agree with dr steve here that the issue isn't handguns its crime. Banning handguns is the same reactionary approach behind government insurance. Its a short term "solution" that works well as a political sound bite. But you need to solve the actual problem instead of trying to cover it over with a cheap bandaid.

Problem: Healthcare costs too much. Solution: government will pay for it.
This doesn't solve the problem of why it costs too much.

Problem: People kill each other with guns. Solution: ban guns
This doesn't solve the problem of why people are killing each other.

We as a people need to focus more on long term solutions to these problems. If this means government funded long term studies, then so be it. Have public and private sector entities do the research. The more data the better. Then we'll have enough information to decide. If we dony we're going to get fucked by politicians who only think about their short terms in office.

12/31/2007 3:04:50 PM

If microwaves are too sensational, there's always these, which we have already put to use in both military and civilian contexts - actually, to the exact ends you state, in some cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_range_acoustic_device

12/31/2007 3:06:57 PM

Quote :

" Countermeasures may include the use of passive hearing protection (earplugs, headsets), which may bring the sound down to ineffective levels. In addition, sound could be reflected from a solid surface, and redirected back to the originator. "

lol

12/31/2007 3:28:21 PM

also i would assume it causes hearing damage

12/31/2007 3:29:19 PM

Depends.

Quote :

"According to the manufacturer's specifications, the equipment weighs 45 pounds (20 kg) and can emit sound in a 30° beam (only at high frequency, 2.5kHz) from a device 33 inches (83 cm) in diameter. At maximum volume, it can emit a warning tone that is 146 dBSPL (1000 W/m²) at 1 metre, a level that is capable of permanently damaging hearing, and higher than the normal human threshold of pain (120 – 140 dB). The design range extends to 300 metres maximum usable range. At 300 metres, the warning tone (measured) is less than 90 dB. The warning tone is a high-pitched shrill tone similar to that of a smoke detector."

Basically, it could cause hearing damage under the right conditions, but otherwise it's just really, really irritating.

Can it be adapted to with low-tech means? Sure. My point was more that they're already attempting to develop types of area denial systems using non-lethal means, and that these devices are already being put to the suspected uses. (For instance, the LRAD was used during the 2004 GOP convention in NY to control protesters.)

[Edited on December 31, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2007 3:34:50 PM