Of course you can always get an illegal gun. The point is that gun restrictions make it a lot more difficult and expensive to get one, thus reducing the number of armed criminals.
That is an assertion for which there is no substantive proof. A number of studies have been done on this subject, and it has not been found that gun laws reduce violent crime.
If gun ownership is widespread burglars will steal guns too and sell them on the black market. By reducing gun ownership the supply of illegal firearms will be reduced.
Again this is an unproven assertion. Marijuana and other drugs are smuggled in to the USA by the ton... if need be guns could be smuggled in the same way. Note the following:
the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Number Of Protective Uses Of Firearms In U.S: Projected at a minimum of 2.5 million cases annually, equal to 1% of total U.S. population each year. Criminal assailants are killed by their victims or others in only about 0.1%, and wounded in only about 1.0% of incidents as described above. Most such crimes are prevented by mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an intended victim.(Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, Targeting Guns, 1998)
A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, [16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. [17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported. [18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses. [19]
The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong. Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.
...The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.
The Kleck study concluded that there were possibly as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, many of which involved no shots fired or no one injured, and many of which were not reported:
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.
These Wikipedia articles are good sources of general information on concealed-carry permits and related issues.
They include information from both pro and anti perspectives.
Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[61]
Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[62]
More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Lott's study is not without controversy, but despite nit-picking about techincal proceedures remains siginficant:
Lott examines the effects of shall issue laws on violent crime across the United States.
His conclusion is that shall issue laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, steadily decrease violent crime. He explains that this result makes sense because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases.
From an excellent summary page:
Firearms as Used in Crime
Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms, and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)
Crime in the United States
Chance of Any Single Individual Being a Victim of Violent Crime In Their Lifetime: Currently about 65 to 70%, depending on age, profession, lifestyle, geographic and demographic factors.(US DoJ, FBI UCR)
Firearms Accidents and Firearms Safety Education
Fatal Firearms Accidents for All Ages Annually: 1,134 nationwide in 1996. Rate of 0.4 per 100M population. Represents a roughly 90% decrease from record high in 1904. Accident rate is down by 65% since 1930, while U.S. population has doubled and number of privately-owned firearms has quadrupled. Compare to other types of fatal accidents, for all ages: Motor Vehicles 16.7/100M, Falls 4.8/100M, Poisoning 4.0/100M, Drowning 1.7/100M, Fires 1.6/100M, Choking 1.1/100M.(National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, BATF, US Census)
Fatal Firearms Accidents for Children 14 and Under Annually: 138 nationwide in 1996. About 3% of all fatal accidents under age 14. Represents a 75% decrease from record high of 550 in 1975. Compared to other types of fatal accidents for children: Motor Vehicles 44%, Fires 16%, Drowning 14%, Choking 4.5%.(Nat'l Safety Council, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics)
Gun control laws effects on criminals, specifically the Brady law and NICS:
Actual Effect on Criminals:
Nationally convictions for 'attempt to purchase' by disqualified individuals under Brady now total 7 since early 1994. There are now in excess of 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws on the books, yet few if any have proven clearly effective in reducing violence or a criminal's access to firearms.(DPS/BCI, US DoJ, BATF)
Regicollis said:
I think gun ownership is a fake safeguard against tyranny. Individuals can only overthrow a government if they are organised. Organisation is far superior to gun ownership in this matter.
I also don't think you could get all 90 million gun owners to rebel. Even if you could get a half of the gun owners to join your revolution they would not stand a chance against the military and the police. A more likely scenario for a rebellion would be some small far-right militia group who choose to commit terrorism.
I don't think you looked up Fourth Generation Warfare, or thought this through. First, there is the question of whether the gov't could afford the political/PR disaster of using the military against its own citizens. Then there is the question of whether the military would OBEY such orders...or how much of them would. In practice, such orders might well drive a third of the military into the camp of the rebels. Next, there is the question of whether bombing and other drastic measures could be used without it being a political disaster, and given that the rebels may be hiding among the general population WITH the support of some of that population. We're not talking about open-field battle here. Finally there's the question of politicos who go too far simply being assassinated.
It isn't nearly as cut and dried as you think.
Regicollis said:
It does make murder harder to commit. You can kill someone with a single shot while killing someone with a knife is far more messy and takes more time; you also have to get closer to your victim which again makes it harder to do. Stabbing someone to death is a far more difficult thing to do psychologically than shooting them to death which can be done in a single moment of rage.
Killing someone with a single shot is not as easy for the average person as you might think, and singular gunshots are far from universally fatal... about 1 in 5. The fact is that non-firearm weapons are used in about 40% of murders, the last time I checked. Knives, bats, hammers and other bludgeons are the most commonplace.
Regicollis said:
I've talked to a few burglars. None of them wanted to meet the people who lived in the houses they stole from as it would be far too much a strain on their conscience. This goes so far that most burglars will actually cover family portraits so they don't have to look into the eyes of their victims. They don't like doing burglaries but they need the money for drugs.
Most burglars don't want to turn violent and face robbery charges instead of burglary. They also know that if they turn violent the risk of getting caught will rise because witnesses will have seen them. Thus virtually all of them choose to run away and break into another house instead.
Burglars are not psychopathic killers. They are either maladjusted teenagers, drug addicts or professionals who are too smart to turn violent and thus increasing the risk of getting caught.
I don't know what it is like in Denmark, but your assertions do not match the reality of burglaries in America. Where does your information come from? I am a former law enforcement officer and know a thing or two about criminals... and most of the criminals I have known are a far cry from the picture you paint. Many of them are vicious, and most of them will use force if you are "in the way"...whether you meant to be or not. Depending on the tender mercies of the criminal is a bad thing... many of them have none.
Regicollis said:
In most places you are free to defend yourself against crime. However a legitimate self-defence can turn into a crime in itself if the defence is out of proportion with the crime.
If I for instance were to know that somebody was going to utter slanderous remarks about me I don't think anyone would think it was justifiable if I killed him - even if that was the only thing I could do to stop him.
No one said anything about shooting someone simply for saying something ugly. We're talking about defending yourself and your home. When criminals break into your house, you have no idea of their intentions or how far they will go. Trusting to their benevolence is unwise, and most of them don't have any.
Regicollis said:
I certainly have no plans to emigrate to America but I like your country and like debating with you
As long as you're not intrested in imposing European views and values on my country, then we're just talking and no harm no foul.
