It's sad when the most comprehensive argument both for and against gun ownership comes from a comedian

Cons: Mass shootings, suicide, increased likelihood of gun related crime

Pros: "fuck off... I like guns"

I like guns.

I get a significant amount of enjoyment out of shooting random objects with guns in a safe location.
Automatic guns are really fun to shoot. Powerful guns are really fun to shoot.
I have no purpose for having them other than to enjoy myself.

If guns are banned I will be sad.
I do not like to be sad.

And that is the best argument for owning a gun. If you are a responsible, law-abiding citizen, why shouldn't you have a gun? It is fun to shoot guns. I once fired an AK47 on full auto in Cambodia. It was goddamn awesome.

I have several friends here in NZ who hunt. Every now and then, I get a present of some venison. I love venison, it's really tasty.

But if someone here said "I need a gun for protection", even the other gun owners would think they were a paranoid nutjob. As Jim says in the linked video "how many enemies do you have that you think someone is coming to murder you?".

If someone broke into my house, a) they probably wouldn't have a gun and b) I'd say "Fuck it, take the TV, I'm insured... I'll get a new one.. also you have 5 minutes before I call the cops. Here, I'll help you disconnect it". Not only is someone stealing my shit not worth dying for, it's not even worth killing for.

But here's the thing. Almost no-one (no-one with any sense) is actually suggesting banning guns, simply regulating them, like any sensible country does.

I'll be honest, the self-defense angle has never made much sense to me. I have a coworker who is an NRA instructor for their self-defense inside and outside the home courses, and talking to him, you really have to devote a lot of time to practice and technique to have much chance of being effective in a close-quarter, life-or-death situation. Then there is the constant planning to have your concealed weapon at hand, or on the nightstand, and having to carry million-dollar personal liability insurance, to cover legal costs if you do have to use a weapon in self-defense. It does sound like a very paranoid mindset, to me - but I'm from a backwoods area of New England where no one ever even locks their doors.

One of the problems is that the United States is a lot bigger than people seem to realize, and it is far from a homogeneous place. Leaving aside any racial issues, people in Alabama have a different culture than people in SoCal, who have different ideas than people in NorCal. Massachusetts and New Hampshire, two smaller neighboring states in the north-east, have completely different gun control laws and gun cultures.

I don't know that this is really a debate that can have a productive outcome... I would be very concerned about any regulations that criminalized innocuous behavior. It's already far too easy to get wrung up on some kind of regulation or ordinance you didn't know was illegal if you are stopped by a cop having a bad day. I'm also concerned that the people who draft many of these regulations have no freaking idea what they are talking about, and that they would push into law something which has good optics, but is in practice ineffective or even anti-productive, a la the TSA.

I have a vested interest in trying to keep gun control laws to a minimum reasonable level, since I'm a gun owner, and I don't like being made to feel like a criminal because I happen to have inherited a number of iron tubes and enjoy using them from time to time to blow holes in soda cans or to put meat on the table (Hunting and fishing laws and regulations are an entire other can of worms - I'm not sure a completely legal deer has ever been shot since they stopped being the personal property of old-world monarchs). I choose to live in an area that is relatively safe, and where there is a culture of responsible gun ownership. At least to some extent, I think the pushback against gun regulations is that it feels like top-down collective punishment, of the school-room "Well, somebody crapped in the urinal, the whole class has detention for a week, m'kay?" variety. Some jackass pissed in the punch-bowl and ruined things for everybody else that was just going about their business.

You're pointing this out as a good thing, but even this is endemic! That's 700 public executions per year. What the fuck?

German police use about 80 bullets per year total, and they're 1/4th the population, so thats ~320 adjusted for the US population.
One US city's police will use that many bullets in a day.

Why so much killing? This is not normal or ok.

Most of those who die in that situation are re-offending felons. Personally, I think criminals should have way harsher sentences, without plea options as that would be preferable to the very high rates of criminal recidivism we experience.

The United States Department of Justice tracked the re-arrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.^[12] Key findings include:

• Released prisoners with the highest re-arrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

It's not a bad thing that they're killed in the middle of a crime, it's a bad thing that (most likely) the first times they were caught, they were let off easy.

America does have a lethal-crime problem. It's obvious to the rest of the world, but I have no idea why Americans try to downplay it.
Don't you want to live in a safer world where you don't *need* to worry about home defense? You've bought a lethal weapon out of fear and you've used it to make threats against people's lives! That's not normal in other safe, Western countries!

We "downplay" it because it's not that big of a deal for us. Although the statistics don't compare directly (differences in what's called "violent crime"), in the USA we had roughly 1.2 million violent crimes total (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime)

In the UK (2 years later, can't find matching year statistics), there were 8.9 million violent crimes (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf).

Note, that's not per capita either.

Our uninhibited gun culture in the USA can be criticized for more deaths of criminals, of course, but the result of that is the intended consequence. The possibility of death during commission is a great deterrent for the USA. Areas which restrict guns as much as possible (Think Detroit/New Orleans) almost always suffer very high crime rates here. Everywhere in our top 50 most violent areas make it extremely hard to get concealed carry permits, or "assault weapons" (ugh term). http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/

Even if everyone (criminals and others) gave up their guns in the USA, and they were all melted, there's a good chance that the robber I encountered a few days ago would instead just beat me with a hammer. So no, I'll keep mine, he can keep his (if he has one), and we'll have a level field if he decides to rob me while armed.

Although the statistics don't compare directly (differences in what's called "violent crime")

You do realize that 'violent crime' in the UK encompasses every idiot who has a few too many and takes a swing at someone in the bar, as well as anyone making verbal threats? Also the UK counts all sexual assaults as violent crimes, whereas the US only counts 'forcible rape'.

Those data sets are incomparably different.

That's a biased source.

Definition. In the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program,violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/

I'm also concerned that the people who draft many of these regulations have no freaking idea what they are talking about, and that they would push into law something which has good optics, but is in practice ineffective or even anti-productive, a la the TSA.

It's definitely anti-productive to do nothing, though, in the face of widespread gun violence. If gun owners and advocates want sensible, effective regulations which protect the activities they care about most, they can get involved in the process and present their own legislative approaches. If the response is to treat all regulations as the most extreme possible case, like a gun ban, and to reject everything, then the policy response they favor is maximum gun availability. Since that position is known to correlate with additional and more severe violence, that position isn't going to be one that society at large "accepts". Though in practical terms that's where we are, people won't just stop noticing the problems.

At least to some extent, I think the pushback against gun regulations is that it feels like top-down collective punishment, of the school-room "Well, somebody crapped in the urinal, the whole class has detention for a week, m'kay?" variety. Some jackass pissed in the punch-bowl and ruined things for everybody else that was just going about their business.

That's very understandable. But expanding background checks isn't a punishment and doesn't criminalize ordinary behaviors of responsible gun owners. Nor is increasing punishments for improper gun use or irresponsibility. If gun owners and advocates won't lean on politicians and the NRA to allow sensible reforms that huge majorities favor and won't impact legal and responsible gun owners, then they're easy to cast as a part of the problem. When the reason that gun owners and advocates resist any and all reform is fear of a ban on all guns or collective hurt feelings, it's easy to cast them as irrational and petulant.

It's not an equivalent split-- you can support a very minor gun reform, a full-on ban, or anything between on the one side. The other side has only an extreme, absolutist position. In the national debate today those are the only practical divisions. Siding with the latter is actively choosing more and worse violence, and for me to accept that tradeoff there would have to be one hell of a benefit on the other side of the ledger. Assuaging irrational fears hurt feelings among the overly sensitive doesn't get me there.

That's a biased source.

Yeah, you don't get to get do that. I linked to the Skeptical Libertarian specifically because I figured you wouldn't react well to the matching article on politifact.

You will now please note that *both* articles explicitly quote the FBI definition you just posted, and then proceed to dissect why that isn't equivalent to the definitions used in the UK

If gun owners and advocates want sensible, effective regulations which protect the activities they care about most, they can get involved in the process and present their own legislative approaches.

This has already been done.

http://i.imgur.com/c3jcQuT.png

then the policy response they favor is maximum gun availability. Since that position is known to correlate with additional and more severe violence, that position isn't going to be one that society at large "accepts". Though in practical terms that's where we are, people won't just stop noticing the problems.

I think you're wrong here on that position causing issues, and on society's acceptance. This is why there was a huge kickback after Obama proposed more gun regulations after the Sandy Hook shooting.

It's not an equivalent split-- you can support a very minor gun reform, a full-on ban, or anything between on the one side. The other side has only an extreme, absolutist position.

Of course. Most gun owners are ok with the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA. Personally I'm against the 86 Hughes amendment and FOPA, but most gun owners are ok with those too.

You have to realize that gun owners used to have way more freedom to open carry/concealed carry, and they've willingly given that up already, and further discussion of control will be fought, regardless of how benign it seems. Maybe if we could get a compromise which actually gives back some rights as well, that would be ok.

Yeah, you don't get to get do that. I linked to the Skeptical Libertarian specifically because I figured you wouldn't react well to the matching article on politifact.

You will now please note that *both* articles explicitly quote the FBI definition you just posted, and then proceed to dissect why that isn't equivalent to the definitions used in the UK

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

The recalculation reaches a similar conclusion that follows the reported trend. The part that was inconclusive was the exact numbers that were reported. Besides, I didn't use the report that article is dissecting for my information either.

German police use about 80 bullets per year total, and they're 1/4th the population, so thats ~320 adjusted for the US population.

These cannot be compared since they have an entirely different base. Every bullet shot by German police counts a lot more severely.

German police shoots a well-known felon with a long police record. To make the image more dramatic, let's say "while he is holding a hostage".

Big investigation, commissioner needs to justify the shooting, a lot of red politicians argue that police is way too brutal and shoots way too often. Cop gets reproval from commissioner. A lawsuit is held and the ultra-left judge asks: "Did you really have to shoot him? Oh come on, couldn't you have talked him out of that situation and help him resocialize, become a useful member of society? Were you even sure it was a real gun that he was holding to that person's head? You wanted to kill someone, didn't you.".

By contrast, US cops shoot someone who is entirely innocent (or maybe, for a change, a felon). Black of course, or latin-american. Because hey, you don't shoot white people, and if someone's black, chances are that he is a felon anyway. Why did they shoot him? Yeah, you know, some shop was robbed, and he was around, and... did I mention he was black? Oh, and he started running when cops pulled guns and opened fire. Clearly he was a felon.

So it turns out that person was on his way back from work and only started running away because someone was shooting. The angry colored community is in the streets for a week and everybody plays like they're profoundly touched and couldn't imagine how such a thing could happen, and that's it. Commissioner tells cop "Yeah right, well done, I'll propose you for a medal".

Black of course, or latin-american. Because hey, you don't shoot white people

That's a lie forced by the media for dramatization. More whites then blacks are shot by police, however, blacks are slightly higher than twice as likely per capita to get shot by police.

However, this difference disappears almost completely when accounting for the crime rate differences between majority White and majority Black neighborhoods.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

I think you're wrong here on that position causing issues, and on society's acceptance. This is why there was a huge kickback after Obama proposed more gun regulations after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Interestingly, the Sandyhook incident and responses to it correlated with record sales. For several years now, it has been almost impossible to find .22LR (generally the cheapest, most available target-shooting caliber) ammunition at any price, because people have been stockpiling it. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/31/the-22-ammo-shortage-mystery-solved.aspx

I would not be surprised to see a similar reaction to this incident.