Man accidentally shoots self (in the butt) in NV theatre

[His Divine Shadow]

OK yeah my point is not that guns affect the crime rates in a positive direction, or a negative one. Mostly that they have no real influence in it, stats from all countries I think proves this, even in the US I believe most violent crime is committed by the people who would not be able to own one legally, and gun ownership in the US has gone up massively since the 90s and they have still significantly reduced overall murder rates to an alltime low since the 1960s now. So I don't think that legally held guns have more than a negligible effect in the overall picture really (though gunsafes would be the #1 most effective thing to implement in the states if something was to be done), regardless of looking at europe or the US.

Canada I think is a good example of my thinking as well. With such a huge landborder, there's nothing stopping illegal guns from going up there in unstoppable amounts, but they still have way way less crime, IMHO this is because they lack the societal requirements for violent crime to the same extent(poverty and all the evils that stem from it). Hence guns are, IMO, an indicator, not a cause. Another good example of why (legal) guns or handguns does not have much todo with crime rates is Sweden. The report I had earlier mentioned from RIkspolisstyrelsen in Sweden said that over 80% of guns found in conjunction with crimes came from abroad, only 3% could be tied to legal swedish owners (either as stolen or comitted by the owner), the rest where unknown/unable to determine.

Re handguns vs rifles, the numbers cited by me is not guns per capita, but rather if you follow the link to the table it is "Ownership of firearms and handguns". Its percentages of owners, not actual gun numbers. A number which is very much more relevant in crime statistics as in how distributed and thus available they are. In the USA the distrubition of both rifles and handguns is much larger, while in scandinavia its more concentrated. Our bell curves of guns per person would be very different.
Why the our statistics differ the way they do is because legal handgun owners in sweden/finland are much more likely to own several pieces. Due to collectors, enthusiasts and sport. That is the same in both sweden and finland. For instance, in 2005 Bengt Ericsson's collection/warehouse was sold off by his estate, he had owned/collected some 2k+ guns, including some 1k+ handguns/SMGs. All legal and registered in Stockholm. (Yes, I took an extreme example but you get the picture).

I did realize recently that your statistics where in reference to something else, I did find them and also found that Swizterland is quite high too, 10.1, Norway was 3.6, that snot far from the US figures of 17 something. I am not sure if those statistics take into consideration how the guns are spread out, I got the impression they merely used the total amounts vs the population and got the household figures like that. And in that case we should recognize that the US has a lot of collectors too, probably more than we do here and more extreme ones.

[Spoonist]

@HSD
Generally I'd agree with your sentiment, but specifically I'd disagree.
If we can get reliable statistics out of the systems then we can target specific instances of risks which are overrepresented in the numbers. By doing that we can limit the over represented outliners without necessarily imposing stricter control on the whole.
For instance, in the US the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban takes away your right to firearms if you have a conviction of domestic abuse. Another such example is the more known "waiting period" for firearms purchases to go in effect.
Such laws which specifically targets something can be very effective if implemented right.
Looking at finnish statistics there are several chances of implementing such targeted laws to reduce violent crime, so I'd definately claim that such laws can have/have a clear effect in the US as well.

Also laws which are specifically made for police to restrict access to the most common types of violent crime weapons will have a huge impact. When interviewing police officers in countries where stricter laws on carrying deadly weapons, like firearms, daggers, switchblades etc, the thing they love the most about them is not that it would "prevent" criminals from getting such weapons (they don't). But instead that they can remove such weapons from them when found. This is a very important tool for officers to defuse potentially dangerous situations.
While on the other hand police officers where such laws are not in effect have to let suspects and belligerents keep their weapons, which statistically lead to more violence when the officers are no longer there to keep the peace.
Typical such use would be rounding up huligans and frisk them for illegal weapons.

In the US these types of laws are often included in the Gun Control debate due to the amendment thingie so advocating such things usually places you in the pro-gun control camp. Even if you have nothing against private gun ownership. For example what do you yourself think of a 3-day waiting period for firearms purchases, the right to concealed carry without a specific license, or the right to own firearms regardless of prior criminal convictions? I'd guess that you would get a very low rating on the NRA political test. Top that off with self defence laws and you'd probably not get to go to the conventions...

Your use of Canada is telling for instance since Canadas laws are very very strict compared to the US average.


Regarding statistics.
You are right that the stats I cited are a bit strange if compared to hard data. It's based on surveys and includes access to guns in the household. So in some cases it counts all people in a household with access and not just the license holder. Also I think they remove kids under a certain age. Again because it makes more sense in crime statistics.
So with gun control laws like keeping them locked in a safe and the rest of the family not knowing the access codes that brings availability down.

If you are looking for current hard stats for sweden, this is the page:
http://www.polisen.se/Global/www%20och% ... iffror.pdf
Comparing that with
http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____262459.aspx
You can see that the average license holder in 2011 owns about 1974496/610074= ~3,24 guns, excluding military ones, blackpowder etc.
We can also see that the hard data on license holders vs pop is 610074/9 482 855= ~ 6.4% of the population.

Regarding american collectors etc.
The suprising thing when looking at american statistics is that a vast amount of people in the most densely populated regions does not own a firearm. This means that statistics on gun ownership in the US is really apples and oranges because the vast majority does not even have a close relative/friend that owns one, let alone own one themself.
So even when you are correct that they do have lots of weapons per owner and lots of collectors etc, spread out over the population they do not have enough of such people to compare with swedish/finnish stats.
On top of that a lot of the "home protection" owners, own only one sometimes two weapons, since that is enough for protection.

[His Divine Shadow]

The Canadian example was used specifically because the Canadian laws are for criminal intents, quite toothless, because they share a gigantic land border with the US, where guns are easier to acquire. It is because of that that I find it rather telling that given this supposedly easy access to guns that there isn't more violent crime, because the access (for criminals) is there, but the crime isn't. Reason? I submit it's because of Canadas superior welfare state reducing crime. I also found the role of Canadian gun laws to be quite irrelevant because the govern legal gun owners and legal gun owners tend to be the most law abiding segment of the population anyway and least likely to commit crimes. This is my reasoning and idea on the subject anyway, and why the main focus ought to be on stopping criminals (or in some other way unqualified) from stealing from legal owners, or otherwise acquiring guns. Hence why I think the gun safe requirement would the single most effective thing that could be done.

Here's a recent and interesting study in swedish btw:
http://www.criminology.su.se/polopoly_f ... Norden.pdf

[TheFeniX]

When interviewing police officers in countries where stricter laws on carrying deadly weapons, like firearms, daggers, switchblades etc, the thing they love the most about them is not that it would "prevent" criminals from getting such weapons (they don't). But instead that they can remove such weapons from them when found. This is a very important tool for officers to defuse potentially dangerous situations.

What? Even though I'm legally allowed to carry a firearm, daggers (or "double-bladed knives over.... 3" I think) and switchblades are illegal to carry. You act like US cops see an illegal weapon (or legal one being illegally carried) and just say "whelp, nothing to be done about it!" Even with a CHL, if a cop actually spots your firearm, you're going to be in a world of shit (and lose your gun).

Typical such use would be rounding up huligans and frisk them for illegal weapons.

They're doing this shit in New York right now basing most of it off the horrible crime of "being black in public."

[Enigma]

Gun safety rules are apparently different in America than they are in Canada. In Canada, if you're transporting a handgun legally, the gun and ammo must be kept separate. It is illegal for anyone but a police officer to walk around with a loaded handgun.

Even if you feel you must carry a weapon, what is the point of keeping it loaded? The risk of accidental discharge is obviously much higher in that situation, and do people seriously think that the ability to quick-draw and be shooting in two seconds is something they're going to realistically need?

On top of that, police officers do not have holsters without straps to keep the gun in place. I remember a few years ago of the OPS (Ottawa Police Services) constables having at least two straps on their holsters.

[TheFeniX]

Even if you feel you must carry a weapon, what is the point of keeping it loaded? The risk of accidental discharge is obviously much higher in that situation, and do people seriously think that the ability to quick-draw and be shooting in two seconds is something they're going to realistically need?

Um... yes? Considering the distances at which most attacks take place, carrying a loaded but unchambered pistol is basically giving yourself a poorly designed club. Further, it would make revolvers worthless. The problem is someone can clear distance extremely fast and if you're already involved in a struggle, you are not going to be able to chamber a round to defend yourself. You'd be better off using a knife or blackjack.

On top of that, police officers do not have holsters without straps to keep the gun in place. I remember a few years ago of the OPS (Ottawa Police Services) constables having at least two straps on their holsters.

I've shot with (and noticed off-hand) more than a few Texas officers who carry something like a Glock (which has no locking safety) without a strap. They're usually using a locking holster like some models offered by Galco or Comp-tac. The issue is that, since their duty weapon is in plain view, a suspect can make a grab for it. Straps make this more difficult, but something like a Comp-Tac is designed to require a "snapping" straight draw in order to release the weapon (provided you've taken the time to set the screws to the correct tightness).

This makes a practiced draw extremely quick and also prevents someone from pulling the weapon out of the holster during a struggle.

[Spoonist]

@HDS
Agreed on all of the welfare reduces the potential for crime etc. I also agree that other factors than gun control are more important to violent crime.
Hence why I said I agree generally with your sentiment.
It's only in the specific case when you say stuff like "my point is not that guns affect the crime rates in a positive direction, or a negative one." that I'd argue otherwise, as in the examples given.
So as before, I think that if we had this conversation live you and I would be agreeing a lot more, but since we have it online these uncertaintees creep in.

What? Even though I'm legally allowed to carry a firearm, daggers (or "double-bladed knives over.... 3" I think) and switchblades are illegal to carry. You act like US cops see an illegal weapon (or legal one being illegally carried) and just say "whelp, nothing to be done about it!" Even with a CHL, if a cop actually spots your firearm, you're going to be in a world of shit (and lose your gun).

Uhm, I said no such thing as you can see if you reread the post you quoted, nowhere did I mention american police officers specificly. Nor did I imply anything regarding US police officers behaving differently than officers in other countries. The world is a big place and there are countries more liberal with guns than the US.

You must be reading in something from someone/somewhere else.

To clarify with american only examples, since Alaska does not restrict their pop from carrying firearms their officers does not have that tool and would fall into the second category I mentioned, while for instance Illinois police officers would fall into the first category having that tool. See? No mention of US vs non-US at all, but rather that such laws give their officers a tool they appreciate when dealing with belligerents.

Typical such use would be rounding up huligans and frisk them for illegal weapons.

They're doing this shit in New York right now basing most of it off the horrible crime of "being black in public."

Hence my "if implemented correctly" caveat.

Case in point would be like Kamikaze Smith has mentioned several times, overuse of tazers. On paper tazers is a marvellous extra tool for police officers not to have to use a real gun. However depending on training and implementation of discipline, they can instead become something routinely used outside their intended purpose.

Or like the Domestic violence thingie, which had the legal effect that you lost the right to carry only for minor abuse, while worse crimes like actually murdering the spouse wouldn't. The way it affected police officers and military personnel convicted for minor abuse before the law was created is not a "correct implementation" either.

But that is a completely different discussion regarding legaslative power and the difference between proffessional law and politics.

[TheFeniX]

To clarify with american only examples, since Alaska does not restrict their pop from carrying firearms their officers does not have that tool and would fall into the second category I mentioned, while for instance Illinois police officers would fall into the first category having that tool. See? No mention of US vs non-US at all, but rather that such laws give their officers a tool they appreciate when dealing with belligerents.

I still don't understand your point. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's legal to carry anywhere. And cops can and do remove any items they deem may be a threat during their interactions with citizens up to handcuffing unarmed suspects they haven't arrested yet due to safety concerns.

Having laws for citizens to carry certain weapons in no way removes tools from an officer's "bag." If he thinks there's a threat, no matter how remote, he can disarm that person as he sees fit. He cannot however keep a person's weapon after-the-fact without cause.

Typical such use would be rounding up huligans and frisk them for illegal weapons.

They're doing this shit in New York right now basing most of it off the horrible crime of "being black in public."

Hence my "if implemented correctly" caveat.

I don't think it's possible to correctly implement a system where citizens have no expectations of privacy on public property: but I get your point.

[Spoonist]

Having laws for citizens to carry certain weapons in no way removes tools from an officer's "bag." If he thinks there's a threat, no matter how remote, he can disarm that person as he sees fit. He cannot however keep a person's weapon after-the-fact without cause.

Oh come on. Now you are just being willfully obtuse. It aint rocket science.
Getting to confiscate it IS THE TOOL. Hence why I specifically mentioned "keep their weapons" as opposed to "lead to more violence when the officers are no longer there to keep the peace".
Having to give the weapon back IS NOT HAVING THE TOOL.
So yes having laws that restrict citizens from carrying weapons GIVES THE OFFICER AN EXTRA TOOL.

Read my post again.

Also laws which are specifically made for police to restrict access to the most common types of violent crime weapons will have a huge impact. When interviewing police officers in countries where stricter laws on carrying deadly weapons, like firearms, daggers, switchblades etc, the thing they love the most about them is not that it would "prevent" criminals from getting such weapons (they don't). But instead that they can remove such weapons from them when found. This is a very important tool for officers to defuse potentially dangerous situations.
While on the other hand police officers where such laws are not in effect have to let suspects and belligerents keep their weapons, which statistically lead to more violence when the officers are no longer there to keep the peace.
Typical such use would be rounding up huligans and frisk them for illegal weapons.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Case in point would be like Kamikaze Smith has mentioned several times, overuse of tazers. On paper tazers is a marvellous extra tool for police officers not to have to use a real gun. However depending on training and implementation of discipline, they can instead become something routinely used outside their intended purpose.

Taser was never meant to replace the firearm or to be used in situations in which a firearm is justified. What it was meant to do is give officers another tool in the the non-lethal force range. This reason is because the taser can fail quite easily. The thin wires can break or the connection might not be completed due to loose clothing or failure to take into consideration the 8 degree angle on the bottom probe or you're so close that a large enough muscle isn't effected to bring the subject under control.

This is why people with edged weapons, blunt objects, or just sheer physical superiority still get shot.

[Spoonist]

Case in point would be like Kamakazie Sith has mentioned several times, overuse of tazers. On paper tazers is a marvellous extra tool for police officers not to have to use a real gun. However depending on training and implementation of discipline, they can instead become something routinely used outside their intended purpose.

Taser was never meant to replace the firearm or to be used in situations in which a firearm is justified. What it was meant to do is give officers another tool in the the non-lethal force range.

Ah, I stand corrected, I must be mixing up the local argumentation.

But I'm curious here. I see a lot of situations where officers talk about subduing aggressive suspects by using tasers where they would have otherwise had to draw their firearm.
Like the typical stand-off where someone aggressive/under the influence is refusing to comply with dropping a potentially dangerous object.
Or am I missing something like the number of officers on the scene? I can imagine that if one is alone one would not have the luxury of using the taser due to the risks, while if I have backup they can have a firearm ready, in case the situation goes hot, but I can use the option of the taser?

[Enigma]

On top of that, police officers do not have holsters without straps to keep the gun in place. I remember a few years ago of the OPS (Ottawa Police Services) constables having at least two straps on their holsters.

I've shot with (and noticed off-hand) more than a few Texas officers who carry something like a Glock (which has no locking safety) without a strap. They're usually using a locking holster like some models offered by Galco or Comp-tac. The issue is that, since their duty weapon is in plain view, a suspect can make a grab for it. Straps make this more difficult, but something like a Comp-Tac is designed to require a "snapping" straight draw in order to release the weapon (provided you've taken the time to set the screws to the correct tightness).

This makes a practiced draw extremely quick and also prevents someone from pulling the weapon out of the holster during a struggle.

I think the purpose was to make the gun more secure in the holster than to make it easy for a quick draw. We're talking about a city that its police officers have to file a bunch of paperwork for every bullet fired.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ah, I stand corrected, I must be mixing up the local argumentation.

But I'm curious here. I see a lot of situations where officers talk about subduing aggressive suspects by using tasers where they would have otherwise had to draw their firearm.
Like the typical stand-off where someone aggressive/under the influence is refusing to comply with dropping a potentially dangerous object.
Or am I missing something like the number of officers on the scene? I can imagine that if one is alone one would not have the luxury of using the taser due to the risks, while if I have backup they can have a firearm ready, in case the situation goes hot, but I can use the option of the taser?

You've got half of it. It is the number of officers that affords you more options but it is also the actions of the subject. In those situations the subject isn't attacking anyone but had they charged an officer, or someone else, it would likely be gunfire that brings them down. In other words it has not risen to the level of justified use of deadly force.