I lived in a fully armed society once, by which I mean all males over 12 carried 3 inch wide 12inch curved dagger on their belt and most who could afford it carried a pistol and an AK47 in the country. (The police would give you a ticket for the AK47 when you entered a city and return it to you when you left - the pistol and dagger you would keep even when walking into the branch of your local bank.). Blood feuding was semi legal.
The result was extremely high rates of murder and honour killing, sometimes entire families wiped out in blood feuds, but little petty street crime. (Didn’t change the rates of corruption and human rights violations on the part of the government - because they always had more and bigger weapons).
If you, for example, accidentally hit a pedestrian in your car; you would be expected to pay blood money (regardless of fault), if you didn’t or couldn’t you might then become the subject to a blood feud*. So your survival could depend on wealth and family support.
TL:DR a fully armed society does not necessarily result in a low crime rate.
*Jews, foreigners and some other groups were considered exempt from blood feuds - and there were some locations where it was not considered proper to pursue a feud, including the capital I think. Most of the most serious feuds were over access to water.
I think that once you carry a gun, at some level you perceived everyone else as a threat - or why do you need to be armed?
The stories that affect me most are not so much the massacres by by some disturbed or criminal individual, horrific as those are, but things like the woman putting her handbag, with gun, in her supermarket trolley (with toddler, who finds it and shoots her). I have never thought of grocery shopping as something were I had to go armed . Because I know to the point of certainty that no one else has a gun. The more widespread the possession, the more general the paranoia, the more likely even a trivial incident ends in fatal violence.
The murder of Reeva Steenkamp is a good example of what can happen. I have the impression the only thing Pistorius thinks he did wrong, was to kill the wrong person.
The accidents and potential accidents are nightmare scenarios. But most gun deaths in the US are intentional, either suicide or murder.
US gun deaths in 2021:
Suicide - 26,328
Murder - 20,958
Accidental - 549
Involved law enforcement - 537
Undetermined - 458 Source: Pew Research
And sure, some of those suicides and murders would have taken place if guns weren't so readily available, but some wouldn't. Access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide (Harvard School of Public Health). Handgun ownership is associated with suicide risk (Stanford Medical School): "Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t." Restricting gun ownership, back when we did more of this, saved lives (Epidemiology 34(6):p 786-792, November 2023).
So no, we don't all need to own guns. In fact, the fewer guns the better.
Of the estimated 4,970 female victims of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in 2021, data reported by law enforcement agencies indicate that 34% were killed by an intimate partner (figure 1). By comparison, about 6% of the 17,970 males murdered that year were victims of intimate partner homicide.
The UK has a population around 20% of the size of the US population.
If gun homicides were happening at the same rate in the UK, there would have been around 4200 in 2021. There were 35.
If gun deaths involving the police happened at the same rate in the UK, there would have been around 107 in 2021. There were 2.
This isn’t a pond-war post (the UK has dire statistics in many other comparisons, I am sure), I am just supporting the point @Ruth was making: the fewer guns the better. Guns are much more restricted in the UK - and police officers do not routinely carry guns.
I don’t hunt either. I’ve been a vegan for over 15 years now. The thing is, ifnyou own a gun, and you properly store it, and learn how to use it, there is almost no chance of a kid getting hold of it. I rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Almost all the evil things done by guns, is done by a very small percentage of people. The overwhelming majority of decent gun owners never kill themselves with it, never use it in a crime and their kids never accidentally fire it off.
About 13 years ago I was dating a chick who was a black Hispanic woman. Some dudes one night, while walking back to her house, few blocks away, started yelling racist stuff at me and her since she was dating someone white. Two of them suddenly jumped me, and one stabbed me three times in my left arm. I still have scars and always will from it. The other guy punched the girl I was with. I pulled my gun and shot the one guy in the stomach. He survived. As soon as I pulled it and shot the other two fled. We went to her house and called the cops. Told them where the guy was. He was still there and they handcuffed him and the ambulances came. I don’t know if they were going to kill me or not but he was definitely going to do even more life threatening harm to me.
The house where I live now use to be in bad part of town. One street over from me, on the other side of the woods was a series of trailer parks all owned by the same guy. Lot of shootings, drug overdoses and other forms of violence happened all the time. Lots of drug dealing. At the end of my street was someone who owned land that connected to that park and turned out they were also drug dealers. The guy ended up going away for a while. Three times I’ve had someone break into my house. Twice I was at home. Once I just happened to be outside in my backyard letting a moth go and the guy saw me through the window and fled. Once I was not there and the guy broke in, shot and killed my dog and stole random stuff. Nothing serious. I think it was just some junkie who ate a bunch of food, stole some clothes, and did steal a dewalt bag of battery powered tools which was around $1500 brand new but I’ve had most of them for like 8 years at that point.
But one of those times, I was home, guy broke in, I woke up and got my gun and pointed it at him. He had a machete and dropped it. Apologized, backed out the door and fled.
Me and my fiancee have both been well trained in using guns. Both were in the military for several years. Both have well above average gun skills and know how to properly secure one. Takes me about 10 seconds from the time I wake up the time the case is opened and the gun is loaded.
Several times it has been a tool for safety. At one point , got rid of them. During that time, nothing happened, as far as break ins. I just kept a knife for safety. Realized it’s stupid to not have one. A bad person with a gun will most likely be stopped by a good person with a gun.
Lots of people are scared of guns. They have next to no training with a gun. Even seeing one triggers them. When something dangerous happens and they feel threatened, they call the police, who show up with guns.
So I know I won’t ever use the gun for a crime. I’ll never just pull it out just because. I definitely won’t rob someone. I don’t get drunk, so I’ll never be high and waving it around. My gun is a tool for protection.
If you knew how to properly use a gun and how to store it. It would be perfectly safe in your house. If you never needed it, it would always just be there and locked up. If you ever did it and you don’t have it, then you just have to hope someone else with one shows up and helps you.
But if humans care you and you don’t know how to properly store it. Then yes, it’s better that you don’t have one. Could always learn. But if it’s to scary for you to learn how to have one, then yeah don’t get it. That’s the type of person that ends up having their guns stolen by criminals or they get their kids killed because they think it’s ok to leave loaded guns out where kids can access them. But that’s also just a small portion of the population. Most people could easily learn how to prevent small kids from getting their guns. But if they lack the ability to outsmart a kid, then don’t have one. Hopefully you’ll never need it.
If you didn’t feel confident with guns, is it possible you would have chosen to live somewhere less dangerous ? Or changed your behaviour in other ways ?
If you didn’t feel confident with guns, is it possible you would have chosen to live somewhere less dangerous ? Or changed your behaviour in other ways ?
Probably not. Since this was the place most affordable. Bought a few acres that was very cheap along a river. It was not a bad spot when I first got it. But a farmer died and his son got the property. Stopped farming. Turned it into a serious of trailer parks. So it became bad after I got it. But it’s back to a nice area. Cops kept getting called out. Someone then tipped them off that he had all kinds of health code violations and building code violations. So it got shut down. Then he lost a bunch of money, was headed towards bankruptcy and sold it. The new owners turned it into a subdivision with houses started off in the low $400k. Now it’s back to a mostly good area. One of my neighbors is part of the Creek Indians and bought out the land at the back. One guy down the road overdosed, and another died of heart attacks and a guy who was in the army, special forces of all things, was a brother to the dude who had a heart attack. He inherited that land and bought the property next to him and built a small home on it for his daughter. Few years ago another neighbor, a chick in her 30s , got clean. Got sober. Works full time now. She cleaned up her property and dirt bags no longer come around. Her ex actually broke into her house during hurricane Sally and assaulted her. She got out and was screaming and another neighbor, it’s the gay sister of the Creek dude who lives on his property, heard the screaming and she came out with her gun and shot at the guy and he left and was caught by the cops.
Now the most “criminal” aspect of the area is teenagers smoking pot and shooting off fireworks.
But even if I knew the area was bad before getting it, it would probably still have been what I was going to do. It was a few acres with a trailer on that had an addition built on to it, with a creek along the back. One for the few places with tons of woodland. The creek leads to a nature preserve that I can kayak too that’s 3 miles away. Even if I did not know how to use a gun, this would have been the most affordable solution. Got all of it for roughly $40k. Went from spending $20k a year renting an apartment to two years worth of rent for my own place. My monthly bills are now about $1,000 and that’s gas, food, auto insurance, and so on.
Now that I’ve fairly financially stable, even being confident with a gun, if I had to move it would be to another decent area. After the second break in, I almost considered selling and moving. Instead I bought a bunch of cameras, and placed them all over inside and outside very visible. Then all the other positive things happened and so there was no need to leave. This area is actually constantly getting better and building up. It’s close to the beach and cheaper than being at the beach. So property is being bought up and turned into beach rental homes. The new Main Street is now just a few minutes away.
But even if I moved to a very safe place I would keep my guns. Just no reason to get rid of them. Only have 2. Since I’m a liberal , most of my friends are also liberal. Especially important living in the Bible Belt in a very red county. Several of them were also afraid of guns. They now own some too and love it. One is even a guy who has seven kids. Only 40 and has seven kids. His guns, he owns more than me now. Does all kind of target practicing and even does that disc shooting.
Most people could easily learn how to prevent small kids from getting their guns.
Hold on. If "everyone in America should own a gun" why would it matter if a kid got hold of one? Aren't kids included in "everyone"?
I'm reminded of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Rahimi [PDF]. Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order for domestic violence. Under federal law, this meant he was restricted from possessing firearms. Rahimi was arrested following an incident where he fired at his girlfriend (or possibly the witness to his attempt at abducting her, it's not clear). Rahimi had a history of shooting guns in both public and private settings in ways that potentially endangered others (like taking a shot at his girlfriend), so he was the kind of person that most people, with some exceptions like @Skovand and Rahimi's attorneys, would think should be prevented from having access to guns. The reason this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the lower courts felt bound by the Supreme Court's recent holding in Bruen [PDF] that restrictions on gun ownership are only constitutional if they're consistent with longstanding American legal traditions. Since domestic violence existed in the earliest days of the Republic yet there were few, if any, legal sanctions attached to it (and none related to firearm possession) lower courts felt that federal restrictions on gun possession by those under restraining orders due to domestic violence allegations did not fit with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" demanded by Bruen. Eventually SCOTUS ruled against Rahimi on the grounds of "lower courts should read our minds, not our opinions", which I guess is more a failing of originalism as a Constitutional doctrine than guns themselves.
At any rate, why should someone like Zackey Rahimi (who is part of "everyone in America"), with a long history of using guns in a way that endanger other people, be allowed and even encouraged to own a gun?
so he was the kind of person that most people, with some exceptions like @Skovand and Rahimi's attorneys, would think should be prevented from having access to guns.
Do not put words in other people's mouths.
If you think an undesirable consequence is logically implied by the position another poster has expressed say that in so many words.
Most people could easily learn how to prevent small kids from getting their guns.
Hold on. If "everyone in America should own a gun" why would it matter if a kid got hold of one? Aren't kids included in "everyone"?
I'm reminded of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Rahimi [PDF]. Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order for domestic violence. Under federal law, this meant he was restricted from possessing firearms. Rahimi was arrested following an incident where he fired at his girlfriend (or possibly the witness to his attempt at abducting her, it's not clear). Rahimi had a history of shooting guns in both public and private settings in ways that potentially endangered others (like taking a shot at his girlfriend), so he was the kind of person that most people, with some exceptions like @Skovand and Rahimi's attorneys, would think should be prevented from having access to guns. The reason this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the lower courts felt bound by the Supreme Court's recent holding in Bruen [PDF] that restrictions on gun ownership are only constitutional if they're consistent with longstanding American legal traditions. Since domestic violence existed in the earliest days of the Republic yet there were few, if any, legal sanctions attached to it (and none related to firearm possession) lower courts felt that federal restrictions on gun possession by those under restraining orders due to domestic violence allegations did not fit with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" demanded by Bruen. Eventually SCOTUS ruled against Rahimi on the grounds of "lower courts should read our minds, not our opinions", which I guess is more a failing of originalism as a Constitutional doctrine than guns themselves.
At any rate, why should someone like Zackey Rahimi (who is part of "everyone in America"), with a long history of using guns in a way that endanger other people, be allowed and even encouraged to own a gun?
I’ll be honest. I presume a certain level of education with people. Such as I can say everyone’s and not mean criminal, people with domestic abuse arrests, or people with severe mentally handicaps and kids. Someone has to be very dumb to not get that.
Most people could easily learn how to prevent small kids from getting their guns.
Hold on. If "everyone in America should own a gun" why would it matter if a kid got hold of one? Aren't kids included in "everyone"?
I'm reminded of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Rahimi [PDF]. Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order for domestic violence. Under federal law, this meant he was restricted from possessing firearms. Rahimi was arrested following an incident where he fired at his girlfriend (or possibly the witness to his attempt at abducting her, it's not clear). Rahimi had a history of shooting guns in both public and private settings in ways that potentially endangered others (like taking a shot at his girlfriend), so he was the kind of person that most people, with some exceptions like @Skovand and Rahimi's attorneys, would think should be prevented from having access to guns. The reason this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the lower courts felt bound by the Supreme Court's recent holding in Bruen [PDF] that restrictions on gun ownership are only constitutional if they're consistent with longstanding American legal traditions. Since domestic violence existed in the earliest days of the Republic yet there were few, if any, legal sanctions attached to it (and none related to firearm possession) lower courts felt that federal restrictions on gun possession by those under restraining orders due to domestic violence allegations did not fit with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" demanded by Bruen. Eventually SCOTUS ruled against Rahimi on the grounds of "lower courts should read our minds, not our opinions", which I guess is more a failing of originalism as a Constitutional doctrine than guns themselves.
At any rate, why should someone like Zackey Rahimi (who is part of "everyone in America"), with a long history of using guns in a way that endanger other people, be allowed and even encouraged to own a gun?
I’ll be honest. I presume a certain level of education with people. Such as I can say everyone’s and not mean criminal, people with domestic abuse arrests, or people with severe mentally handicaps and kids. Someone has to be very dumb to not get that.
Or just from a place where the idea of widely available guns is itself considered very dumb. The idea that people should routinely have firearms in the home without a damn good reason is already so "out there" that we have no reason to suppose that anyone espousing it wouldn't be including domestic abusers, other criminals, kids and whoever else in their "everyone".
Most people could easily learn how to prevent small kids from getting their guns.
Hold on. If "everyone in America should own a gun" why would it matter if a kid got hold of one? Aren't kids included in "everyone"?
I'm reminded of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Rahimi [PDF]. Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order for domestic violence. Under federal law, this meant he was restricted from possessing firearms. Rahimi was arrested following an incident where he fired at his girlfriend (or possibly the witness to his attempt at abducting her, it's not clear). Rahimi had a history of shooting guns in both public and private settings in ways that potentially endangered others (like taking a shot at his girlfriend), so he was the kind of person that most people, with some exceptions like @Skovand and Rahimi's attorneys, would think should be prevented from having access to guns. The reason this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the lower courts felt bound by the Supreme Court's recent holding in Bruen [PDF] that restrictions on gun ownership are only constitutional if they're consistent with longstanding American legal traditions. Since domestic violence existed in the earliest days of the Republic yet there were few, if any, legal sanctions attached to it (and none related to firearm possession) lower courts felt that federal restrictions on gun possession by those under restraining orders due to domestic violence allegations did not fit with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" demanded by Bruen. Eventually SCOTUS ruled against Rahimi on the grounds of "lower courts should read our minds, not our opinions", which I guess is more a failing of originalism as a Constitutional doctrine than guns themselves.
At any rate, why should someone like Zackey Rahimi (who is part of "everyone in America"), with a long history of using guns in a way that endanger other people, be allowed and even encouraged to own a gun?
I’ll be honest. I presume a certain level of education with people. Such as I can say everyone’s and not mean criminal, people with domestic abuse arrests, or people with severe mentally handicaps and kids. Someone has to be very dumb to not get that.
Or just from a place where the idea of widely available guns is itself considered very dumb. The idea that people should routinely have firearms in the home without a damn good reason is already so "out there" that we have no reason to suppose that anyone espousing it wouldn't be including domestic abusers, other criminals, kids and whoever else in their "everyone".
So the idea of someone ownership is person. It’s an opinion.
The idea of lacking reading comprehension, and understanding what is being discussed and messing up on it like you two is not the same.
Last time saying this. The stupidity in this forum without the ability to block it is why I’m just going to bounce. You are a fucking idiot. Your fellow shipmate is a fucking idiot. Between the two of you yall can’t even count to one. If you can’t read the paragraph and get it. You’re just simply fucking stupid. Very fucking stupid. So fucking stupid I can’t say fucking stupid enough to get across.
I’ll be honest. I presume a certain level of education with people. Such as I can say everyone’s and not mean criminal, people with domestic abuse arrests, or people with severe mentally handicaps and kids. Someone has to be very dumb to not get that.
He's not here any more to see it, but @Skovand you'll need to remove "kids" from your short list of things above. Kids in Missouri can well and truly carry loaded weapons in public just for fun. Adults need not be present, which makes the status of firearms culture in MO -- how can I say this effectively for you -- fucking stupid.
It occurs to me that people who fly off the handle because other people didn't understand that they didn't mean what they said are also high on my list of people I'd rather not have access to firearms.
Most people could easily learn how to prevent small kids from getting their guns.
Hold on. If "everyone in America should own a gun" why would it matter if a kid got hold of one? Aren't kids included in "everyone"?
I'm reminded of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Rahimi [PDF]. Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order for domestic violence. Under federal law, this meant he was restricted from possessing firearms. Rahimi was arrested following an incident where he fired at his girlfriend (or possibly the witness to his attempt at abducting her, it's not clear). Rahimi had a history of shooting guns in both public and private settings in ways that potentially endangered others (like taking a shot at his girlfriend), so he was the kind of person that most people, with some exceptions like @Skovand and Rahimi's attorneys, would think should be prevented from having access to guns. The reason this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the lower courts felt bound by the Supreme Court's recent holding in Bruen [PDF] that restrictions on gun ownership are only constitutional if they're consistent with longstanding American legal traditions. Since domestic violence existed in the earliest days of the Republic yet there were few, if any, legal sanctions attached to it (and none related to firearm possession) lower courts felt that federal restrictions on gun possession by those under restraining orders due to domestic violence allegations did not fit with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" demanded by Bruen. Eventually SCOTUS ruled against Rahimi on the grounds of "lower courts should read our minds, not our opinions", which I guess is more a failing of originalism as a Constitutional doctrine than guns themselves.
At any rate, why should someone like Zackey Rahimi (who is part of "everyone in America"), with a long history of using guns in a way that endanger other people, be allowed and even encouraged to own a gun?
I’ll be honest. I presume a certain level of education with people. Such as I can say everyone’s and not mean criminal, people with domestic abuse arrests, or people with severe mentally handicaps and kids. Someone has to be very dumb to not get that.
That's the problem. Different people are going to draw different boundaries around who is included in "everyone". That was more or less Rahimi's argument before the Supreme Court, that he was included in "everyone". Since the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him (after initially disagreeing before Bruen was handed down) I'm not sure the line around who is included in "everyone" is a clear as you pretend.
If every time there if a multiple shooting incident in the US, the number of guns sold locally increases, it seems to follow that it is in the interest of the gun dealers and their lobbyists that there should be more, rather that fewer, firearms massacres. Hence the opposition to tighter controls on automatic weapons. I speak as a detached observer from a faraway land currently run by a bunch of pinko lefties (according to some).
"Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t."
This, in particular, is a stupid statistic, and quoting stupid statistics rather detracts from what is a sensible argument.
People with guns are more likely to kill themselves with guns than people who don't have guns. I think the phrase you're looking for here is "No Shit, Sherlock!".
An honest statistic would compare the overall suicide rate in long-term gun owners with the overall suicide rate in long-term non-gun-owners. Because "gun deaths" are not somehow a different death from knife deaths, or speeding truck deaths, or tall building deaths - they're just deaths.
Guns are an efficient tool for killing people. It's certainly reasonable to argue that some people with suicidal thoughts will kill themselves if they have access to a gun (quick and efficient), but wouldn't go through with it if they needed to arrange a more difficult way of dying. But the relevant thing to measure here is the total number of suicides prevented by gun control. Just measuring gun suicides is dishonest.
"A more difficult way of dying" is actually a pretty useful thing. It prevented me from suicide, many many years ago. I wouldn't discount it as a social good.
Not selling more than two packets of paracetamol (tylenol) at a time in the UK had a major effect on suicide rates in the UK for exactly that reason.
I think also coupled to being in blister packs rather than a bottle. 32 pills can still likely destroy your liver, but popping 32 out the packets might take long enough for that particular train of thought to get derailed.
Not selling more than two packets of paracetamol (tylenol) at a time in the UK had a major effect on suicide rates in the UK for exactly that reason.
I think also coupled to being in blister packs rather than a bottle. 32 pills can still likely destroy your liver, but popping 32 out the packets might take long enough for that particular train of thought to get derailed.
Perhaps. I can tell you that when I have enough of a headache to warrant painkillers, I'm very glad I don't have to faff around with blister packs. 32 pills is four person-days supply at peak use, which is probably fine for a single person to keep in a kitchen or bathroom cabinet, but isn't enough for a family that likes to be sick together.
News reports are calling the 14-year-old shooter a "gunman" and say authorities have already said he will be charged with murder and tried as an adult.
It's been a while, but I remember being 14, and no one thought I was an adult. Or treated me like one.
What does this "tried as an adult" thing mean? I don't think we have it in the UK.
We do. While most criminal proceedings for 10-17 year olds in the UK take place within the youth justice system, some exceptional cases can be tried at the crown court as they would for adults.
News reports are calling the 14-year-old shooter a "gunman" and say authorities have already said he will be charged with murder and tried as an adult.
It's been a while, but I remember being 14, and no one thought I was an adult. Or treated me like one.
I think it's a move to try to make people feel better(?) about a potential legal outcome? The right wing prefers this kind of calculus to any kind of rational reform re: firearms in this country. Their answer to four senseless deaths is the potential for one more state-sanctioned death.
Mass Shooting. This is where four or more people have been shot.
Mass Killing in which for or more people have been killed. And
Mass School Shooting is when it has happened in a K-12 educational institution.
Yes, there have been 385 mass shootings in the US, of which there have been 42 mass killings. 23 of which have been in schools. A total of 79 people have been shoot or killed in school shootings so far this year.
Mass Shooting. This is where four or more people have been shot.
Mass Killing in which for or more people have been killed. And
Mass School Shooting is when it has happened in a K-12 educational institution.
Yes, there have been 385 mass shootings in the US, of which there have been 42 mass killings. 23 of which have been in schools. A total of 79 people have been shoot or killed in school shootings so far this year.
Of course, this is in the United States alone.
This is perhaps a dumb question but… Are there school shootings anywhere else? I mean of the kind where someone just gets a gun and decides to do it—not the things involving wars, or terrorism, or the like.
Mass Shooting. This is where four or more people have been shot.
Mass Killing in which for or more people have been killed. And
Mass School Shooting is when it has happened in a K-12 educational institution.
Yes, there have been 385 mass shootings in the US, of which there have been 42 mass killings. 23 of which have been in schools. A total of 79 people have been shoot or killed in school shootings so far this year.
Of course, this is in the United States alone.
This is perhaps a dumb question but… Are there school shootings anywhere else? I mean of the kind where someone just gets a gun and decides to do it—not the things involving wars, or terrorism, or the like.
The ban hasn’t been completely successful, however - we’ve had three mass (not school) shootings killing a total of 22 people (including the three shooters) in the 28 years since Dunblane.
Comments
The result was extremely high rates of murder and honour killing, sometimes entire families wiped out in blood feuds, but little petty street crime. (Didn’t change the rates of corruption and human rights violations on the part of the government - because they always had more and bigger weapons).
If you, for example, accidentally hit a pedestrian in your car; you would be expected to pay blood money (regardless of fault), if you didn’t or couldn’t you might then become the subject to a blood feud*. So your survival could depend on wealth and family support.
TL:DR a fully armed society does not necessarily result in a low crime rate.
*Jews, foreigners and some other groups were considered exempt from blood feuds - and there were some locations where it was not considered proper to pursue a feud, including the capital I think. Most of the most serious feuds were over access to water.
The stories that affect me most are not so much the massacres by by some disturbed or criminal individual, horrific as those are, but things like the woman putting her handbag, with gun, in her supermarket trolley (with toddler, who finds it and shoots her). I have never thought of grocery shopping as something were I had to go armed . Because I know to the point of certainty that no one else has a gun. The more widespread the possession, the more general the paranoia, the more likely even a trivial incident ends in fatal violence.
US gun deaths in 2021:
Suicide - 26,328
Murder - 20,958
Accidental - 549
Involved law enforcement - 537
Undetermined - 458
Source: Pew Research
And sure, some of those suicides and murders would have taken place if guns weren't so readily available, but some wouldn't. Access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide (Harvard School of Public Health). Handgun ownership is associated with suicide risk (Stanford Medical School): "Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t." Restricting gun ownership, back when we did more of this, saved lives (Epidemiology 34(6):p 786-792, November 2023).
So no, we don't all need to own guns. In fact, the fewer guns the better.
If gun homicides were happening at the same rate in the UK, there would have been around 4200 in 2021. There were 35.
If gun deaths involving the police happened at the same rate in the UK, there would have been around 107 in 2021. There were 2.
This isn’t a pond-war post (the UK has dire statistics in many other comparisons, I am sure), I am just supporting the point @Ruth was making: the fewer guns the better. Guns are much more restricted in the UK - and police officers do not routinely carry guns.
About 13 years ago I was dating a chick who was a black Hispanic woman. Some dudes one night, while walking back to her house, few blocks away, started yelling racist stuff at me and her since she was dating someone white. Two of them suddenly jumped me, and one stabbed me three times in my left arm. I still have scars and always will from it. The other guy punched the girl I was with. I pulled my gun and shot the one guy in the stomach. He survived. As soon as I pulled it and shot the other two fled. We went to her house and called the cops. Told them where the guy was. He was still there and they handcuffed him and the ambulances came. I don’t know if they were going to kill me or not but he was definitely going to do even more life threatening harm to me.
The house where I live now use to be in bad part of town. One street over from me, on the other side of the woods was a series of trailer parks all owned by the same guy. Lot of shootings, drug overdoses and other forms of violence happened all the time. Lots of drug dealing. At the end of my street was someone who owned land that connected to that park and turned out they were also drug dealers. The guy ended up going away for a while. Three times I’ve had someone break into my house. Twice I was at home. Once I just happened to be outside in my backyard letting a moth go and the guy saw me through the window and fled. Once I was not there and the guy broke in, shot and killed my dog and stole random stuff. Nothing serious. I think it was just some junkie who ate a bunch of food, stole some clothes, and did steal a dewalt bag of battery powered tools which was around $1500 brand new but I’ve had most of them for like 8 years at that point.
But one of those times, I was home, guy broke in, I woke up and got my gun and pointed it at him. He had a machete and dropped it. Apologized, backed out the door and fled.
Me and my fiancee have both been well trained in using guns. Both were in the military for several years. Both have well above average gun skills and know how to properly secure one. Takes me about 10 seconds from the time I wake up the time the case is opened and the gun is loaded.
Several times it has been a tool for safety. At one point , got rid of them. During that time, nothing happened, as far as break ins. I just kept a knife for safety. Realized it’s stupid to not have one. A bad person with a gun will most likely be stopped by a good person with a gun.
Lots of people are scared of guns. They have next to no training with a gun. Even seeing one triggers them. When something dangerous happens and they feel threatened, they call the police, who show up with guns.
So I know I won’t ever use the gun for a crime. I’ll never just pull it out just because. I definitely won’t rob someone. I don’t get drunk, so I’ll never be high and waving it around. My gun is a tool for protection.
If you knew how to properly use a gun and how to store it. It would be perfectly safe in your house. If you never needed it, it would always just be there and locked up. If you ever did it and you don’t have it, then you just have to hope someone else with one shows up and helps you.
Probably not. Since this was the place most affordable. Bought a few acres that was very cheap along a river. It was not a bad spot when I first got it. But a farmer died and his son got the property. Stopped farming. Turned it into a serious of trailer parks. So it became bad after I got it. But it’s back to a nice area. Cops kept getting called out. Someone then tipped them off that he had all kinds of health code violations and building code violations. So it got shut down. Then he lost a bunch of money, was headed towards bankruptcy and sold it. The new owners turned it into a subdivision with houses started off in the low $400k. Now it’s back to a mostly good area. One of my neighbors is part of the Creek Indians and bought out the land at the back. One guy down the road overdosed, and another died of heart attacks and a guy who was in the army, special forces of all things, was a brother to the dude who had a heart attack. He inherited that land and bought the property next to him and built a small home on it for his daughter. Few years ago another neighbor, a chick in her 30s , got clean. Got sober. Works full time now. She cleaned up her property and dirt bags no longer come around. Her ex actually broke into her house during hurricane Sally and assaulted her. She got out and was screaming and another neighbor, it’s the gay sister of the Creek dude who lives on his property, heard the screaming and she came out with her gun and shot at the guy and he left and was caught by the cops.
Now the most “criminal” aspect of the area is teenagers smoking pot and shooting off fireworks.
But even if I knew the area was bad before getting it, it would probably still have been what I was going to do. It was a few acres with a trailer on that had an addition built on to it, with a creek along the back. One for the few places with tons of woodland. The creek leads to a nature preserve that I can kayak too that’s 3 miles away. Even if I did not know how to use a gun, this would have been the most affordable solution. Got all of it for roughly $40k. Went from spending $20k a year renting an apartment to two years worth of rent for my own place. My monthly bills are now about $1,000 and that’s gas, food, auto insurance, and so on.
Now that I’ve fairly financially stable, even being confident with a gun, if I had to move it would be to another decent area. After the second break in, I almost considered selling and moving. Instead I bought a bunch of cameras, and placed them all over inside and outside very visible. Then all the other positive things happened and so there was no need to leave. This area is actually constantly getting better and building up. It’s close to the beach and cheaper than being at the beach. So property is being bought up and turned into beach rental homes. The new Main Street is now just a few minutes away.
But even if I moved to a very safe place I would keep my guns. Just no reason to get rid of them. Only have 2. Since I’m a liberal , most of my friends are also liberal. Especially important living in the Bible Belt in a very red county. Several of them were also afraid of guns. They now own some too and love it. One is even a guy who has seven kids. Only 40 and has seven kids. His guns, he owns more than me now. Does all kind of target practicing and even does that disc shooting.
Hold on. If "everyone in America should own a gun" why would it matter if a kid got hold of one? Aren't kids included in "everyone"?
I'm reminded of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Rahimi [PDF]. Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order for domestic violence. Under federal law, this meant he was restricted from possessing firearms. Rahimi was arrested following an incident where he fired at his girlfriend (or possibly the witness to his attempt at abducting her, it's not clear). Rahimi had a history of shooting guns in both public and private settings in ways that potentially endangered others (like taking a shot at his girlfriend), so he was the kind of person that most people, with some exceptions like @Skovand and Rahimi's attorneys, would think should be prevented from having access to guns. The reason this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the lower courts felt bound by the Supreme Court's recent holding in Bruen [PDF] that restrictions on gun ownership are only constitutional if they're consistent with longstanding American legal traditions. Since domestic violence existed in the earliest days of the Republic yet there were few, if any, legal sanctions attached to it (and none related to firearm possession) lower courts felt that federal restrictions on gun possession by those under restraining orders due to domestic violence allegations did not fit with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" demanded by Bruen. Eventually SCOTUS ruled against Rahimi on the grounds of "lower courts should read our minds, not our opinions", which I guess is more a failing of originalism as a Constitutional doctrine than guns themselves.
At any rate, why should someone like Zackey Rahimi (who is part of "everyone in America"), with a long history of using guns in a way that endanger other people, be allowed and even encouraged to own a gun?
If you think an undesirable consequence is logically implied by the position another poster has expressed say that in so many words.
Dafyd Hell Host
I’ll be honest. I presume a certain level of education with people. Such as I can say everyone’s and not mean criminal, people with domestic abuse arrests, or people with severe mentally handicaps and kids. Someone has to be very dumb to not get that.
Or just from a place where the idea of widely available guns is itself considered very dumb. The idea that people should routinely have firearms in the home without a damn good reason is already so "out there" that we have no reason to suppose that anyone espousing it wouldn't be including domestic abusers, other criminals, kids and whoever else in their "everyone".
So the idea of someone ownership is person. It’s an opinion.
The idea of lacking reading comprehension, and understanding what is being discussed and messing up on it like you two is not the same.
Last time saying this. The stupidity in this forum without the ability to block it is why I’m just going to bounce. You are a fucking idiot. Your fellow shipmate is a fucking idiot. Between the two of you yall can’t even count to one. If you can’t read the paragraph and get it. You’re just simply fucking stupid. Very fucking stupid. So fucking stupid I can’t say fucking stupid enough to get across.
He's not here any more to see it, but @Skovand you'll need to remove "kids" from your short list of things above. Kids in Missouri can well and truly carry loaded weapons in public just for fun. Adults need not be present, which makes the status of firearms culture in MO -- how can I say this effectively for you -- fucking stupid.
That's the problem. Different people are going to draw different boundaries around who is included in "everyone". That was more or less Rahimi's argument before the Supreme Court, that he was included in "everyone". Since the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him (after initially disagreeing before Bruen was handed down) I'm not sure the line around who is included in "everyone" is a clear as you pretend.
This, in particular, is a stupid statistic, and quoting stupid statistics rather detracts from what is a sensible argument.
People with guns are more likely to kill themselves with guns than people who don't have guns. I think the phrase you're looking for here is "No Shit, Sherlock!".
An honest statistic would compare the overall suicide rate in long-term gun owners with the overall suicide rate in long-term non-gun-owners. Because "gun deaths" are not somehow a different death from knife deaths, or speeding truck deaths, or tall building deaths - they're just deaths.
Guns are an efficient tool for killing people. It's certainly reasonable to argue that some people with suicidal thoughts will kill themselves if they have access to a gun (quick and efficient), but wouldn't go through with it if they needed to arrange a more difficult way of dying. But the relevant thing to measure here is the total number of suicides prevented by gun control. Just measuring gun suicides is dishonest.
I think also coupled to being in blister packs rather than a bottle. 32 pills can still likely destroy your liver, but popping 32 out the packets might take long enough for that particular train of thought to get derailed.
Perhaps. I can tell you that when I have enough of a headache to warrant painkillers, I'm very glad I don't have to faff around with blister packs. 32 pills is four person-days supply at peak use, which is probably fine for a single person to keep in a kitchen or bathroom cabinet, but isn't enough for a family that likes to be sick together.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/04/georgia-high-school-shooting-apalachee
Mr Biden and Ms Harris have both commented, as one would expect. I wonder what Trump will say?
It's been a while, but I remember being 14, and no one thought I was an adult. Or treated me like one.
We do. While most criminal proceedings for 10-17 year olds in the UK take place within the youth justice system, some exceptional cases can be tried at the crown court as they would for adults.
More here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Georgia_(U.S._state)#:~:text=Capital%20punishment%20is%20a%20legal,place%20afterwards%20occurred%20in%201983.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean that.
I think it's a move to try to make people feel better(?) about a potential legal outcome? The right wing prefers this kind of calculus to any kind of rational reform re: firearms in this country. Their answer to four senseless deaths is the potential for one more state-sanctioned death.
The death penalty for people who are minors when they commit crimes was ruled unconstitutional in 2005.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons
Would that judgement survive the current SCOTUS?
EDIT: probably not, but overturning it would only affect 16/17 year olds.
Mass Shooting. This is where four or more people have been shot.
Mass Killing in which for or more people have been killed. And
Mass School Shooting is when it has happened in a K-12 educational institution.
Yes, there have been 385 mass shootings in the US, of which there have been 42 mass killings. 23 of which have been in schools. A total of 79 people have been shoot or killed in school shootings so far this year.
Of course, this is in the United States alone.
Oh thank God. That’s what I was thinking of, @KarlLB, yes, a 14-year-old being possibly sentenced to death.
This is perhaps a dumb question but… Are there school shootings anywhere else? I mean of the kind where someone just gets a gun and decides to do it—not the things involving wars, or terrorism, or the like.
We had one in Britain in 1996. It resulted in an almost total ban on gun ownership in the UK.
The ban hasn’t been completely successful, however - we’ve had three mass (not school) shootings killing a total of 22 people (including the three shooters) in the 28 years since Dunblane.
Yeah, but a LOT less. OMG.
I mean US 288, Mexico 8… in the US we have 36 times what Mexico does in the same period. :O