To some of the points above-
Yes, we have cars driven by idiots and that leads to death. There is talk in some states of charging those who drive drunk and cause a fatality with murder based on extreme recklessness or indifference to human life. We also have to go through a program to be tested to see if we can drive and our cars need to be inspected so that they are safe.
Although DUI's continue to happen and people die as a result, there is regulation to limit that. Should we get rid of all regulation then? Would the number of fatalities go up or down as a result?
It should be noted that in some places its easier to get a gun than a driver's license.
Likewise, people drown in pools, but there are also laws that require that you fence in your pool so the neighborhood kids don't sneak in and drown. Does that help keep the number of fatalities for pool accidents down? I would assume so.
Does gun control reduce the number of dead? Perhaps. It increases the cost of guns for criminals.
Dammit Boy- you ask if gun controls reduce crime- yet very few criminals in the US use automatic weapons because (1) the punishments are high, and (2) its hard to get them. If it was easier to get automatic weapons and the punishments didn't exist- we would probably have more gun related deaths among those parts of our society where gun related violence is high. Where gun related violence is low, probably not much change.
Why? Because as I've argued before- crime is more a case of socio-economics than guns. Some areas (inner city poor areas) suffer more gun violence than others (middle class suburbs and rural areas). Why? Gang activity, lack of jobs, little economic development. So where do the guns fit in?
Simple- guns make violence more lethal and easier. Its harder to kill someone with a knife, and you are more likely to kill someone with a gun than most other weapons. Of course you could use poison gas, or hang your victim, or electrocute them, or used an improvised explosive device- but those are rather difficult ways to kill someone in the US.
Dammit Boy introduced a video on the last page. Given that its ABC and looks like a local TV syndicate, its hard to say if that was a liberal or conservative station. Different stations have different political focuses, and even different networks have shows that represent different philosophies- (Lou Dobbs on CNN is farily conservative vs other anchors).
But much of that article falls on the "defensive use" argument. The idea is simple- defensive use of guns deters crime because criminals are less likely to attack someone who they think is armed- a rather simple deterrent argument. Fair enough. However, most people will never use their gun defensively or offensively. Furthermore some areas are more prone to gun violence and crime than others (due to socio-economics) and finally, there is also the danger that while having a gun may promote "defensive use" - it is also likely that it may lead to others form of homicide- negligent deaths, acquiantance homicides, etc. Does the benefit of having guns for "defensive use" balance out the costs of having a gun in the house? I'm not sure.
But it does seem to me that gun violence is especially high in certain areas and not others. Inner city, poor neighborhoods, generally minority populated, seem more prone to gun violence than others.
It also seems that because regulation is mixed, criminals are taking advantage of difference in gun laws to move guns or trade guns for other illicit goods (such as drugs). Guns flow from US to Mexico in exchange for heroin. Likewise, guns move from Virginia to New York in exchange for cocaine and other drugs. Even those states with currently low crime rates and low levels of gun homicides, may be encouraging other crime simply by creating the conditions in which the illegal trade is guns can flourism.
Honestly, I think that one can be pro-gun control and still be pro-legal gun. I don't really mind much that a lot of folks have legal guns. Hunting, target shooting, and even collecting should be rights that people can enjoy. If having a gun under your pillow lets you sleep better at night, fine.
I am not sure if that leads to a safer society. You are still going to have idiots like the one who shot up a room full of woman because he couldn't get laid. See
here and
here
Given that few people exercise in a gym with a gun, I can't see how defensive use would have helped here. It should be noted that this guy wasn't a criminal- just a lonely, frustrated whacko.
This is the costs of having whackos that you don't identify who can easily get guns that they can use on people. That's the price we, as a society, have to pay for guns.
That said, I think even pro-gun advocates and anti-gun advocates can reach some agreement on guns in society, if only to reduce the number of accidental deaths or the ability of criminals to get guns. I am not talking about banning guns, but merely reducing the number of deaths that result from guns.
I found these suggestions from a site that was rather pro-gun.
1) Current federal law (and a potpourri of state laws) forbid gun ownership by convicted felons and persons adjudged of unsound mind. This could be extended to embrace anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated or of multiple conviction of selected violent misdemeanors. Such laws should be leavened by allowing police to give special permits to own a gun to such people if they have not been in trouble for years.
Multiple convictions of violence or DUI would suggest a person prone to violence or willing to engage in reckless behavior.
2) The ban on felons owning guns is undercut because millions of sales are between private persons where the sellers have no way of checking whether the buyer is a felon. The obvious way to deal with this would be to require everyone who owns or wants to buy a gun to acquire a federal permit that would be available on proof that he/she was an adult without a felony record. But that is both politically and practically impossible. Gun owners, who are convinced that the anti-gun crusaders will eventually use permit records to confiscate all guns, would hysterically fight the law and, if it were enacted, would flout it en masse. More promising would be to have a criminal records check done with the driver's license. Every license issued would bear the notation "eligible to own firearms" (except, of course, for juveniles, felons and those with sanity records). Sale of a gun to a person without a driver's license bearing this notation would be a felony and also make the seller financially liable for any wrong the buyer did with the gun.
This seems a bit fair, but I am not sure if it goes far enough.
3) Guns commonly enter the underworld when stolen from lawful owners by burglars who find such theft profitable because guns are easily fencible items. One way to severely discourage such theft would be a dual law that (a) imposes a mandatory three year prison sentence on anyone knowingly possessing a stolen gun; and (b) rebuttably presumes knowing possession if the defendant is found to have possessed two or more stolen guns. Faced with this, fences may stop buying stolen guns, thereby discouraging burglars from stealing them.
This might help reduce the number of "stolen" guns getting in to criminal hands.
4) The potpourri of state laws governing gun ownership by minors should be strengthened by a uniform provision against possession of any kind of gun by any person under 18 years of age, except under the supervision of a parent or other responsible adult.
This may cut into hunting by teenagers, but I am fine with that.
5) It should be a felony for a parent to negligently allow a gun of any kind to fall into the hands of an unsupervised minor. Where the parent himself owns the gun illegally (e.g. because he is a convicted felon), there should be mandatory imprisonment for at least 5 years. The gun lobby has objected that a parent whose child has been killed in a gun accident should not be subjected to the additional penalty of a prison sentence. But people who are unwilling to obey current gun laws and too irresponsible to protect children against the consequences are too dangerous to be allowed at liberty, independent of any issue of punishment.
This seems a bit harsh to me. I would rather have provisions that if there are children in the home, guns should be locked up and safe.
6) The current potpourri of state laws on carrying a gun are inconsistent, irrational and so maladministered that permits to carry are granted to unqualified persons with special influence and arbitrarily denied to uninfluential persons, however well qualified.{207} They should be replaced by a comprehensive prohibition against carrying a loaded gun of any kind (whether concealed or openly) without a permit which would be issued as a matter of right, but only to persons demonstrating firearms skill and legal knowledge as to their use comparable to that required of a police officer in the jurisdiction.
Which would be similar to driving a car- you need to have a license and have the skill necessary.
7) In addition, it should be illegal to carry a loaded gun on the person, if inebriated (a prohibition that would apply even in one's own home), or while drinking in a bar.
I don't see much problem with that.
.
