Gun Control

[Jub]

If removing guns doesn't result in less death due to violent crime then why are they the weapon of choice for murders the world over?

Except in Britain, where very few people have guns.

So they mostly just stab each other to death with sharp objects...

I wonder what the percentage of deaths is like per attack with a gun versus a knife...? It seems likely that attacks with knives would results in less deaths simply because guns are more effective weapons.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If removing guns doesn't result in less death due to violent crime then why are they the weapon of choice for murders the world over?

Except in Britain, where very few people have guns.

So they mostly just stab each other to death with sharp objects...

I wonder what the percentage of deaths is like per attack with a gun versus a knife...? It seems likely that attacks with knives would results in less deaths simply because guns are more effective weapons.

It depends on the knife and the rounds in the gun. A kitchen knife causes a lot of tissue damage. In fact, a hammer is probably more deadly than both of them hit for hit.

[Jub]

It depends on the knife and the rounds in the gun. A kitchen knife causes a lot of tissue damage. In fact, a hammer is probably more deadly than both of them hit for hit.

I know that there are various factors involved, but the gun seems likely to be deadlier than the knife for a few reasons. Among them the two I think play the largest role are that a gun is more likely to score a hit in the first place and that you can physically block a knife with other parts of your body or another weapon that reduce the lethality. However a knife has at least one factor that might make it more likely to kill you than a gun; the fact that people seem more likely to try to fight an attacker armed with a knife than one with a gun. This would lead to knife attacks in situations where a person armed with a gun would have simply taken what they wanted.

I would still guess that in situations where you have a chance to see that attack coming a gun will tend to leave you dead or badly wounded more often then a knife will, but I have to admit that this isn't 100% black and white.

---

Now to address my level of familiarity with guns.

I have shot rifles both air and otherwise, and air pistols. I was in a marksmen course in Army Cadets so I understand that shooting is a fun activity and that when safely handled the risks posed by a gun are negligible. I also think that air weapons are just as enjoyable for target shooting as a real weapon, though obviously they won't be nearly as good at longer ranges or for skeet shooting. That said I have never purchased my own gun and don't feel the need to own one for self defense purposes. I don't hunt, nor do I feel likely to start unless something unexpected happens.

I also understand that not all gunshots are lethal and that many commonly found household items have just as much a chance of killing somebody if they actually hit their intended target. The issue is that guns are more likely to hit their target and can do so at range. Very few other things can do this and those that can tend to have other drawbacks that make them less optimal for killing people.

[Darth Tedious]

Excluding thrown knives (which can hit targets at a distance), you can only stab someone at point blank range.

What is your basis for saying that guns are more likely to hit their target?

[Broomstick]

I know that there are various factors involved, but the gun seems likely to be deadlier than the knife for a few reasons. Among them the two I think play the largest role are that a gun is more likely to score a hit in the first place

I question that assertion, particularly for pistols. Sure, if you're within arm's reach scoring a hit with a gun is near-certain, but at arm's length that's true of pretty much every weapon. The accuracy of pistols falls off rapidly with distance, accounting for situations in which dozens of rounds might be fired yet few or none hit their target.

I think media portrayals of snipers and unrealistic marksmanship by cops, criminals, and various forms of heroes/protagonists give people an unrealistic impression of just how easy/hard it is to hit something with a handgun.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Among them the two I think play the largest role are that a gun is more likely to score a hit in the first place

You have obviously never tried to hit a moving target.

and that you can physically block a knife with other parts of your body or another weapon that reduce the lethality.

Only if you are trained. You also dont block a knife with some other weapon. The size of a knife makes that very difficult, instead, you try to deflect the arm away often including various joint locks. Entire forms of fighting unarmed against someone with a knife have been developed specifically because doing so is very difficult, even if the guy with a knife is an untrained street tough. That said, there is this little thing called pain. If I take a stab to the arm with a knife, sure, that may not be deadly, but the pain and blood loss will make me less able to do the same with subsequent stabs. I may not hit what I want on the first try, I will probably stab something.

That said, if I take a 9mm and shoot someone with it, chances are unless I have training, I probably wont hit anything immediately lethal. If I hit them at all.

Now, once we have eliminated the issues with actually hitting your target with gun or knife, well, that depends on the gun or knife. You dont want to compare a pocket knife with a shotgun for example. You also do not want to compare a glock 9mm to my Type XVIIIc longsword. That would be bad.

In either case, in terms of attempt per attempt lethality, you have no evidence one way or the other. Your argument is concentrated bullshit. As usual.

[Simon_Jester]

Another reason knives can be extremely deadly is that they don't put someone down with the first stab most of the time.

I've heard of knife killings with dozens of wounds- because one party freaks out and starts slashing and stabbing over and over until the other person stops twitching, which takes a while. Gunshot wounds tend to cause a lot more immediate shock, but for that exact reason someone who gets shot may be more likely to fall over and stay down immediately. If they get medical attention, they may be better off than they would be in a knife fight.

That's such a fucking retarded concept. You actually think it's a respectable argument and it scares me. The right to free speech means that not only should people who preach tolerance have a voice, but also the biggest scumbag racist has a voice as well. We regulate free speech and we even ban it in some places, but this should only be done for good reason. Not to placate the fearful.

Again, Fenix, Purple's a fascist. I have never once seen him 'get' the logical social reasons why democracy exists and works better than tyranny over the long haul. He just switches back to "well, someone should make people stop doing everything I disapprove of, and force everyone to do things in a way I consider effecient."

As far as I can tell, his ideal government would look a lot like Nicolae Ceaușescu's... which ends like this:

By early 1989, Ceaușescu was showing signs of complete denial of reality. While the country was going through extremely difficult times with long bread queues in front of empty food shops, he was often shown on state television entering stores filled with food supplies, visiting large food and arts festivals, while praising the "high living standard" achieved under his rule.

Special contingents of food deliveries would fill stores before his visits, and well-fed cows would even be transported across the country in anticipation of his visits to farms. In at least one emergency, he inspected (and approved) a display of Hungarian produce, which apart from some corn and several melons, was largely constructed of painted plastic and/or polystyrene. Meanwhile, staples such as flour, eggs, butter and milk were difficult to find and most people started to depend on small gardens grown either in small city alleys or out in the country. In late 1989, daily TV broadcasts showed lists of CAPs (kolkhozes, collective farms) with alleged record harvests, in blatant contradiction of the shortages experienced by the average Romanian at the time.

Some Romanians, believing that Ceaușescu was not aware of what was going on in the country outside of Bucharest, attempted to hand him petitions and complaint letters during his many visits around the country. Each time he got a letter, he would immediately pass it on to members of his security. It is not known whether Ceaușescu read any of these letters. It is alleged that severe penalties would result from any anti-state actions, including such letters. People lived in fear of the regime and of each other. Secrecy had become a way of life, due to people being reluctantly recruited as spies for the political system. Sometimes those reluctant spies came from the same family, eventually forced to inform on their own.

Just read his posts, man. It's all there.

[PeZook]

The thing about guns vs. knives and their lethality is that guns are designed to be used at a distance, which means it's easier to go from menacing the guy to get what you want to actually killing him, overcoming the psychological resistance to killing your fellow man.

While with a knife, you have to stab someone to reliably kill them. Slashing attacks are decently common, but are virtually always survived by the victim. Stabbing wounds are just as dangerous as gunshot wounds, yes, but don't happen as often: because stabbing someone is difficult, psychologically.

Hence why soldiers prefer ranged weapons, too, and why it's easier to turn a normal person into a killer soldier, if you can give him a rifle, than it is to do the same if he gets a sword.

Of course, violent criminals may simply have no problem with stabbing people in the first place, since it's likely you need be a bit broken to be a VIOLENT criminal (as opposed to just "a criminal" who's unlikely to murder someone in the process of getting what he wants). The case of Britain would seem to support that, since gun death were converted into stabbing deaths in a virtually 1:1 proportion after guns were banned: but then again, Britain never had quite as many guns floating around as the US, so if you could wave a magic wand around and remove all guns from the US, the number of fatalities (not crime, just fatalities) might actually drop.

Of course, this is impossible and if you tried to do it in reality, you'd cause more harm than good.

I am not ignoring it. I am citing a principal. What you call "rights" are just privileges. And you should be required to prove that allowing a privilege is good for society before it is allowed. Not just that it would do no harm but that it would actively improve society.

So, is this why no country ever tried doing things that way that, or...?

You should realize your idea is stupid when even totalitarian states like the USSR didn't start from that principle, because it's monumentally impractical to base law on the principle of "What is not allowed is banned". Hence why everybody since ancient Sumer did the exact opposite: "What is not banned is allowed". Just thinking about it for five minutes should tell you why.

[TheFeniX]

I wonder what the percentage of deaths is like per attack with a gun versus a knife...? It seems likely that attacks with knives would results in less deaths simply because guns are more effective weapons.

Reports are sketchy, Gary Kleck (a researcher often cited in the gun control debate) figured that stabbings were often more fatal than shootings. However, issues were found with his methodology such as not counting victims that were dead before medical help arrived. It's generally accepted than being shot is more deadly than being stabbed. The death rate for being shot with a handgun seems to be around 22-25%, whereas knives range from 4% all the way to 17% depending on what studies are done in what areas. Knives seem to be much less lethal in Seattle (4%) but much more lethal in Britain where I had originally seen a fatality rate of 17% but now cannot find my link for the life of me.

The problem is murder rates aren't dropping when legal guns are removed from the picture or even when knives are the preferred choice for criminals. Other weapons are being used effectively to either make up the difference or actually increase the murder rate. This may have something to do with knives now becoming viable to commit more crimes with, but it's difficult to make this correlation because few criminals convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder are going to say "Oh, well I was really trying to kill him, but my knife couldn't get the job done."

Again, Fenix, Purple's a fascist.

I figured that, but I also figured just saying "you're a fascist" wasn't much of an argument.

The thing about guns vs. knives and their lethality is that guns are designed to be used at a distance, which means it's easier to go from menacing the guy to get what you want to actually killing him, overcoming the psychological resistance to killing your fellow man.

As stated a few times in this thread, handguns are actually a poor choice for hitting something at a distance, especially since it's unlikely most conditions murders take place in are the same as shooting at the firing range on a nice Sunday afternoon. This is why many lethal engagements with pistols take place at spitting distances. They're sidearms: for use when you're out of ammo for or don't have a rifle. Another issue with knife vs pistol (or any gun really) is that adrenaline (such as that from deciding you're going to murder/rob someone) works against you when wielding a gun, but works for you when wielding a knife or other object that requires physical strength and stamina to operate. This however doesn't stop a lot of murders and robberies because surprising a victim means the engagement happens on the aggressor's terms with little chance to do anything but give them what they want or run and pray. However, if you spot someone with bad intentions any appreciable distance away and you take off running (especially perpendicular), even if they're crazy/stupid enough to open fire you, you stand an extremely good chance of not being shot.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if guns make the average person's ability to commit murder a bit easier. After-all, there is that disconnect. And it obviously gives people of a small stature or the disabled more effective access to deadly force. But even with that, we don't see anything reflected in the statistics.

While with a knife, you have to stab someone to reliably kill them. Slashing attacks are decently common, but are virtually always survived by the victim. Stabbing wounds are just as dangerous as gunshot wounds, yes, but don't happen as often: because stabbing someone is difficult, psychologically.

Acting in a tense situation is hard psychologically and that includes someone even using a gun in the commission of a crime or murder. Armed forces training focuses more on breaking the individual down and integrating him/her into a unit and teaching them to react when it's needed. A big problem with rookie cops isn't their accuracy or knowledge of the law: it's that they haven't developed the experience to overcome what I've heard called "condition white." Basically, when stress piles up in a very short amount of time, the brain can effectively shut down and the person becomes oblivious to danger. It's not really about getting people to kill, it's about getting them to do anything when the shit hits the fan.

Hence why soldiers prefer ranged weapons, too, and why it's easier to turn a normal person into a killer soldier, if you can give him a rifle, than it is to do the same if he gets a sword.

Well, that's mainly because you don't need the muscle memory, experience, and stamina to fire a gun effectively unlike using a sword or longbow. History shows it's pretty easy to train someone psychologically to kill. But longbowmen took years to train to use their weapon effectively and they couldn't even see who they were killing. Modern rifles require days of training at worst. Your biggest hurdle is getting a soldier to react and/or not shit himself when things get bad.

[Alyrium Denryle]

History shows it's pretty easy to train someone psychologically to kill.

That is... not actually true. I will direct you toward a book:
On Killing
Lt Col. Dave Grossman PhD
(yes, that is a lot of letters before and after the name).

Basically, If you look at history and archeological evidence up until after WW2, you find that people are and always have been very reticent to kill. For example, in experimental wargames using lasers with a pre-set chance to miss their target and a "reload" time equal to muskets, you find casualty rates larger than actual colonial era casualty rates per second or minute of firing. When you go back and look at dig sites, you find muskets that were loaded 3, 4 even five times and never fired, and you find a great many of them. Even going into the pre-modern period, casualty rates are much lower than you might expect. Massive armies clash with only a few thousand casualties before one side breaks, that sort of thing.

The real massacres are more common
A) after the invention of artillery and other mechanized weapons like tanks, planes etc where there is mechanical distance from a person, range (so you cannot see their face, or are targeting another machine rather than an actual person), or diffused responsibility (you are a part of the artillery loading machine). This is why bayonet charges were effective. The enemy usually broke before contact, and if not the combat was short. One side or the other would break very quickly.

B) When crowd dynamics do most of the killing as per agincourt

C) When your army is REALLY pissed off (say, after a 5 month siege)

D) When there is massive social distance between your army and the other guy's. This is why Knights were terrifying. Sure there was the horse and the armor, but the reality was, that guy had no problem mowing down peasants because they were literally beneath him. Lesser than. They did not usually kill others of their social class save by accident. They even monetized not killing other nobles. Of course, the reverse was also true. At Agincourt, Henry V ordered french prisoners killed, because he was not sure if he had won and did not want enemy troops at his back. His own nobles flat out refused, so he had to get some archers (already busy stabbing out the eyes of knights trapped in mud) to do it. It is hard to get one commoner to kill another, at least when race and religion were not at issue. A swede cant look over across the line of battle and see a dane, and not think "This guy is just like me, why am I killing him? Because some noble wants him dead? Fuck that.". More often than not, he will either go through the motions and not fire his weapon, or he will fire over the head of the enemy line.

[TheFeniX]

Basically, If you look at history and archeological evidence up until after WW2, you find that people are and always have been very reticent to kill. For example, in experimental wargames using lasers with a pre-set chance to miss their target and a "reload" time equal to muskets, you find casualty rates larger than actual colonial era casualty rates per second or minute of firing. When you go back and look at dig sites, you find muskets that were loaded 3, 4 even five times and never fired, and you find a great many of them. Even going into the pre-modern period, casualty rates are much lower than you might expect. Massive armies clash with only a few thousand casualties before one side breaks, that sort of thing.

Interesting. I have to wonder on two points though:
1. Are shots missing and or not being fired because of an aversion to killing or because of the desire to not be killed? It's easy to line up a shot and reload when you're not having to worry about getting shot yourself.
2. What affect does conscription have vs a volunteer army? After all, you might be able to train conscripts to use a rifle (or anything really), but is it that they don't want to kill for some random asshole noble? Or is it that they don't want to die for some asshole noble? Volunteers generally know the associated risks better and also don't feel like they've been kidnapped to fight some asshole's war.

Is that book worth a read more so than just the data? Basically, is it a book you read rather than just get a bunch of statistics from? I've heard Grossman's name before, but I can't pinpoint where. Ah, checking his bio, he co-authored the book about the dangers of TV and video game violence. Meh, I still might give On Killing a go if it's a good read. I've just been reading shitty sci-fi lately. It's really time for some non-fiction.

D) When there is massive social distance between your army and the other guy's.

I admit, I'm no history buff, but one thing that always got me with war vs crime (because the whole "only military needs guns" issue crops up a lot in this debate) is that it's easier to shoot a person of a different race who can't even speak your language/is a different religion/has different customs. However, we find that 80-94% of crime is intraracial. Blacks do tend to victimize whites more than whites victimize blacks (although nowhere near what racists spout), but this isn't about race so much as it is that blacks tend to be poorer and whites control more wealth (why wouldn't they rob people with more money?). However, I had a link (from the FBI, I think) with a report that was: "crime doesn't pass socio-economic boundaries as often as people think." It basically said upwards of 80% of crime could be labelled "poor victimize other poor" and "middle class victimize other middle class," etc. But I can't find the link for the life of me, so don't quote me on it.

[PeZook]

As stated a few times in this thread, handguns are actually a poor choice for hitting something at a distance, especially since it's unlikely most conditions murders take place in are the same as shooting at the firing range on a nice Sunday afternoon. This is why many lethal engagements with pistols take place at spitting distances. They're sidearms: for use when you're out of ammo for or don't have a rifle. Another issue with knife vs pistol (or any gun really) is that adrenaline (such as that from deciding you're going to murder/rob someone) works against you when wielding a gun, but works for you when wielding a knife or other object that requires physical strength and stamina to operate. This however doesn't stop a lot of murders and robberies because surprising a victim means the engagement happens on the aggressor's terms with little chance to do anything but give them what they want or run and pray. However, if you spot someone with bad intentions any appreciable distance away and you take off running (especially perpendicular), even if they're crazy/stupid enough to open fire you, you stand an extremely good chance of not being shot.

It's not about accuracy ; It's about overcoming the resistance to killing another person. It's much easier with a gun, because you don't have to get close and thrust an object into his/her flesh ; In other words, it's easier to pull the trigger than to thrust a blade into somebody: both because you are removed from danger (fighting someone up close is always dangerous) and you are removed from the other person, to an extent.

This is why most knife attacks are slashings, rather than stabbings. Of course, accuracy might play a role in lowering lethality of guns in such situations, yes, but it's easier to start shooting than start stabbing.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if guns make the average person's ability to commit murder a bit easier. After-all, there is that disconnect. And it obviously gives people of a small stature or the disabled more effective access to deadly force. But even with that, we don't see anything reflected in the statistics.

My point exactly.

Acting in a tense situation is hard psychologically and that includes someone even using a gun in the commission of a crime or murder. Armed forces training focuses more on breaking the individual down and integrating him/her into a unit and teaching them to react when it's needed. A big problem with rookie cops isn't their accuracy or knowledge of the law: it's that they haven't developed the experience to overcome what I've heard called "condition white." Basically, when stress piles up in a very short amount of time, the brain can effectively shut down and the person becomes oblivious to danger. It's not really about getting people to kill, it's about getting them to do anything when the shit hits the fan.

Military training is, in fact, in large part about overcoming people's resistance to killing. Training methods are being optimized to make shooting at people a reflexive, unthinking action ; In WW2, shooting rates (the number of soldiers who would actually fire their weapons) were about 15-20%. A lot of interviewed soldiers also remarked they didn't fire even when there was no danger to themselves.

Well, that's mainly because you don't need the muscle memory, experience, and stamina to fire a gun effectively unlike using a sword or longbow.

Not really ; Armies armed with ranged weapons were always reluctant to close to stabbing distance, leading to absurdities like two lines firing at each other at fifty paces for half the day, when a bayonet charge could've decided the engagement in minutes. Romans had a big problem with their legionairres slashing and not stabbing, too: they had to use lots of training to overcome that tendency.

[His Divine Shadow]

Of course, violent criminals may simply have no problem with stabbing people in the first place, since it's likely you need be a bit broken to be a VIOLENT criminal (as opposed to just "a criminal" who's unlikely to murder someone in the process of getting what he wants). The case of Britain would seem to support that, since gun death were converted into stabbing deaths in a virtually 1:1 proportion after guns were banned: but then again, Britain never had quite as many guns floating around as the US, so if you could wave a magic wand around and remove all guns from the US, the number of fatalities (not crime, just fatalities) might actually drop.

Finland has had one of the highest murder rates in europe, over 3.20 per 100k at one point and most murders here are done with knives and other other improvised implements, guns standing for a relatively consistant 14% of total murders from year to year.

I've heard of knife killings with dozens of wounds- because one party freaks out and starts slashing and stabbing over and over until the other person stops twitching, which takes a while. Gunshot wounds tend to cause a lot more immediate shock, but for that exact reason someone who gets shot may be more likely to fall over and stay down immediately. If they get medical attention, they may be better off than they would be in a knife fight.

Reminds me of a story the newspaper ran on two drinking buddies here a few years ago. They got into a fight after having too much booze and one stabbed the other. Instead of going to the hospital they made up and continued drinking, unfortunately the other persons injuries where more serious than he thought in his inebriated state and he was dead by morning.

[Simon_Jester]

1. Are shots missing and or not being fired because of an aversion to killing or because of the desire to not be killed? It's easy to line up a shot and reload when you're not having to worry about getting shot yourself.

If I've got my facts straight:

Soldiers would usually carry out the reloading action (extensively drilled) flawlessly in the musket era. Occasionally some poor sap would forget to take the ramrod out of the barrel before pulling the trigger, but that was the worst you'd see.

The only thing they'd do wrong that frequently was forgetting to pull the trigger. Which is a very strange action to get wrong if you're not reluctant to kill people.

I admit, I'm no history buff, but one thing that always got me with war vs crime (because the whole "only military needs guns" issue crops up a lot in this debate) is that it's easier to shoot a person of a different race who can't even speak your language/is a different religion/has different customs. However, we find that 80-94% of crime is intraracial. Blacks do tend to victimize whites more than whites victimize blacks (although nowhere near what racists spout), but this isn't about race so much as it is that blacks tend to be poorer and whites control more wealth (why wouldn't they rob people with more money?). However, I had a link (from the FBI, I think) with a report that was: "crime doesn't pass socio-economic boundaries as often as people think." It basically said upwards of 80% of crime could be labelled "poor victimize other poor" and "middle class victimize other middle class," etc. But I can't find the link for the life of me, so don't quote me on it.

Some crimes are committed within a social circle. Robberies of businesses, where generally the robbers know the business before they try to steal anything from it. Or gang wars that basically reprise the ugliness of tribal warfare with none of the redeeming qualities. Or crimes of passion like adultery, and the violence that sometimes results from them.

A perfect stranger is less convenient to get at, and creates a lot more unknown variables, for a criminal.

Of course, violent criminals may simply have no problem with stabbing people in the first place, since it's likely you need be a bit broken to be a VIOLENT criminal (as opposed to just "a criminal" who's unlikely to murder someone in the process of getting what he wants). The case of Britain would seem to support that, since gun death were converted into stabbing deaths in a virtually 1:1 proportion after guns were banned: but then again, Britain never had quite as many guns floating around as the US, so if you could wave a magic wand around and remove all guns from the US, the number of fatalities (not crime, just fatalities) might actually drop.

Finland has had one of the highest murder rates in europe, over 3.20 per 100k at one point and most murders here are done with knives and other other improvised implements, guns standing for a relatively consistant 14% of total murders from year to year.

And this despite having so many guns in the first place?

Not a good argument for banning the guns, then, if killers are preferentially using knives.

I've heard of knife killings with dozens of wounds- because one party freaks out and starts slashing and stabbing over and over until the other person stops twitching, which takes a while. Gunshot wounds tend to cause a lot more immediate shock, but for that exact reason someone who gets shot may be more likely to fall over and stay down immediately. If they get medical attention, they may be better off than they would be in a knife fight.

Reminds me of a story the newspaper ran on two drinking buddies here a few years ago. They got into a fight after having too much booze and one stabbed the other. Instead of going to the hospital they made up and continued drinking, unfortunately the other persons injuries where more serious than he thought in his inebriated state and he was dead by morning.

...That has a certain dark-comedic aspect to it which will forever (slightly) alter my perception of the Finnish national character.

To be fair, it's kind of a counterpoint to what I said- a single stab wound being dangerous enough to kill someone without treatment. At the same time, it kind of supports it. Very few people who'd just taken a bullet would go "nah, it's all right man, I forgive you, let's have another beer," no matter how drunk they were.

[PeZook]

In the US, killers still prefer guns ; Although it's kind of interesting that as the age of the victim increases, the probability of them having been murdered with a gun decreases.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

[TheFeniX]

It's not about accuracy ; It's about overcoming the resistance to killing another person.

That part of my post was to answer the idea that you have no options against an attacker armed with a pistol, when you actually have quite a few depending on circumstances. As for the rest, I'll concede on what it takes to actually kill someone. I don't have the knowledge to argue it.

I will say though that, when thinking about it, it may not even be fair to compare the two (even though I've done it myself). If we're talking about violent criminals (unlike soldiers), interviews with repeat offenders, gang-bangers, and the like: they've usually seen more terrible shit by the time they hit puberty than most of us would see in our lives. There is of course always the problem with exaggeration in these interviews, but hearing gunfire nightly, seeing a few friends (or enemies) murdered, possibly being in and out of juvenile detention centers (which are considered worse than prison by some accounts), and growing up in a social group where violence and/or murder is a perfectly acceptable resolution to a dispute: many criminals have likely overcome the urge to not kill their own early in life. Much earlier than say someone given a rifle (possibly never even seeing one beforehand) and told to fight for king and country.

In the US, killers still prefer guns

To expand, criminals in general prefer guns, at least in the US. Muggers/Robbers use them to force compliance.

Weapons are an important source of power frequently wielded to achieve some emotional or material goal - to obtain sexual gratification in a rape or money in a robbery, or, more frequently, to frighten and dominate victims in some other assault. All of these things can be gained without an attack, and indeed the possession of a gun can serve as a substitute for attack, rather than its vehicle. In robberies, offenders without guns often feel they must attack their victim in order to insure that the victim will not resist, while robbers with guns are confident they can gain the victim's compliance merely by pointing their gun at them. In assaults, a gun can enable an aggressor to terrify his victim or emotionally hurt him, making a physical attack unnecessary.

And indeed, studies have invariably indicated that gun robbers are less like to attack or injure their victims than are unarmed robbers. On the other hand, if the victim is injured, he is more likely to die if shot with a gun than if injured in some other way. As with assaultive crimes, it is unclear how much of this greater fatality rate is attributable to the weapons and how much to robber differences.

Criminal gun use seem to reduce the violence involved in robberies and muggings. However, when things go wrong, someone is much more likely to die.

[Alyrium Denryle]

1. Are shots missing and or not being fired because of an aversion to killing or because of the desire to not be killed? It's easy to line up a shot and reload when you're not having to worry about getting shot yourself.

This is colonial/napoleonic era line combat. There is often no cover and you lining up your gun and shooting makes no difference in the probability of death. There are also plenty of first hand accounts, letters, diaries and the like, indicating that this was due to an inability to pull the damn trigger.

2. What affect does conscription have vs a volunteer army? After all, you might be able to train conscripts to use a rifle (or anything really), but is it that they don't want to kill for some random asshole noble? Or is it that they don't want to die for some asshole noble? Volunteers generally know the associated risks better and also don't feel like they've been kidnapped to fight some asshole's war.

According to the author, it does not appear to matter much. The psychological mechanisms are the same. It was only after new training regimes were implimented post WW2 that the actual willingness to kill stopped being an issue. This is because militaries noticed the problem, and addressed it in training not only by breaking down individual identity and building a group one, but also dehumanizing the enemy de jure in training.

Of course, you need to account for the reasons someone volunteers. Someone who volunteers because they are tempermentally a sort of guard dog for society have a much easier time dealing with the psych trauma of killing than someone who joined for the educational benefits.

Is that book worth a read more so than just the data? Basically, is it a book you read rather than just get a bunch of statistics from? I've heard Grossman's name before, but I can't pinpoint where. Ah, checking his bio, he co-authored the book about the dangers of TV and video game violence. Meh, I still might give On Killing a go if it's a good read. I've just been reading shitty sci-fi lately. It's really time for some non-fiction.

Eh, the video game and movie violence thing... it was the 90s.

The book is actually a very good read. Simultaneously the most depressing and uplifting thing I have read all year.

I admit, I'm no history buff, but one thing that always got me with war vs crime (because the whole "only military needs guns" issue crops up a lot in this debate) is that it's easier to shoot a person of a different race who can't even speak your language/is a different religion/has different customs. However, we find that 80-94% of crime is intraracial. Blacks do tend to victimize whites more than whites victimize blacks (although nowhere near what racists spout), but this isn't about race so much as it is that blacks tend to be poorer and whites control more wealth (why wouldn't they rob people with more money?). However, I had a link (from the FBI, I think) with a report that was: "crime doesn't pass socio-economic boundaries as often as people think." It basically said upwards of 80% of crime could be labelled "poor victimize other poor" and "middle class victimize other middle class," etc. But I can't find the link for the life of me, so don't quote me on it.

A lot of that has more to do with encounter rate than anything else. A black person is more likely to encounter white people then black people, even when black people are disproportionately in poverty, there are still a LOT more white people.

[TheFeniX]

According to the author, it does not appear to matter much. The psychological mechanisms are the same. It was only after new training regimes were implimented post WW2 that the actual willingness to kill stopped being an issue. This is because militaries noticed the problem, and addressed it in training not only by breaking down individual identity and building a group one, but also dehumanizing the enemy de jure in training.

That makes sense. What little reading I've done on the topic regards comparisons between vietnam conscripts and volunteers vs the volunteer army we had going into Afghanistan and Iraq. Not exactly relevant to what you posted.

Of course, you need to account for the reasons someone volunteers. Someone who volunteers because they are tempermentally a sort of guard dog for society have a much easier time dealing with the psych trauma of killing than someone who joined for the educational benefits.

Funny enough, this was a flaw found in Grossman's methodology IIRC. Basically, they could find instances that violent kids watched/played violent TV/Video Games. So, that's what made them violent as opposed to someone with naturally aggressive tendencies would gravitate toward violent entertainment.

Eh, the video game and movie violence thing... it was the 90s.

The book is actually a very good read. Simultaneously the most depressing and uplifting thing I have read all year.

I might pick it up. I have to make a trip to the mall soon anyways (ugh) and I can always go by the bookstore.

A lot of that has more to do with encounter rate than anything else. A black person is more likely to encounter white people then black people, even when black people are disproportionately in poverty, there are still a LOT more white people.

You would think it would lead to more than ~+10% criminal encounter rate though. This is also why I hate how many statistics focus on "black vs white," ignoring minority vs minority but also sometimes lumping Hispanics into either white or non-white groups. I swear, looking over a lot of Federal statistics, you would think they've never seen a Hispanic. Then again, even though romantic comedies want you to assume otherwise, Hispanics integrate with whites much easier than any other race, at least in Texas. I have multiple friends that are part of white/hispanic pairings and, with the exception of the elderly (both white and hispanic), it generally passes without comment.

This leads me into another point because it's where I got started in this years ago. Houston's "Compton" or whatever you want to label your "bad part of town" is "5th Ward" (PDF). You find a mix of Hispanics and Blacks (about 40/60) with little white representation. You also find a crime-rate double that of the greater Houston area, but also a quality of life that's just atrocious.

American is always portrayed as an extremely gun-happy and violent place to live, but it's really that crime rates are being bolstered by relatively small areas being riddled with crime (among other things). But since I can't find any break-down of the racial crime stats, it's hard to tell if blacks are still victimizing blacks at the same rate when economically similar Hispanics live right next door (and vice versa). This is mainly because census data does a breakdown of race (white, asian, black), but also of ethnicity (hispanic vs non-hispanic). It's really not important though because it's not hard to show that race isn't the real issue, but poverty and population density and it's related issues such as poor access to education and economic advancement.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Funny enough, this was a flaw found in Grossman's methodology IIRC. Basically, they could find instances that violent kids watched/played violent TV/Video Games. So, that's what made them violent as opposed to someone with naturally aggressive tendencies would gravitate toward violent entertainment.

It is not even that. To use an analogy.

It is the difference between:

That beligerent asshole in a bar who starts a fight because he is an asshole

That great guy in the same bar who gets fragile people out and shields them from drunken violent assholes with his body

Those people caught in an unexpected and unwanted situation who may be forced to defend themselves or cower under a pool table.

Not that this situation happens often, but it is the sort of archetype.

Sure, you get temperamentally violent people in the military, but they are actually actively screened out, because they cannot be trusted in civilian life or in their unit.

The second sort, the ones who shield people are perfectly trust worthy. Kind of like a really really well trained police dog. I dont like comparing people to dogs, but it is otherwise hard to explain. They have an ideological commitment to the well being of society. Thus, they have a high tolerance (relatively) for killing others, but only inside the moral context of the defense of their social unit and those weaker than themselves. This is the archetypal military man, but IIRC only make up about 5-10% of even volunteer militaries.

Then there is everyone else. Conscripts, regular people who joined up for the tuition benefits. Before training changed, it was really hard to get them to kill. The problem now is more that in order to get them to kill, you run the risk of making them a little bit dangerous.

[PeZook]

To expand on that, modern training makes killing a reflexive action dependent more on muscle memory than conscious decisions ; But Grossman himself notes that this can make the trauma of killing worse for the recruit, because he will shoot at silhouettes unthinkingly.

So training doesn't make people more EAGER to kill, just more able to.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There's something to be said in terms of psychological health at just making an army angry instead of making it into trained killers. The kind of patriotic fervour that swept through the Russians before Borodino, with the display of Icons and a direct personal sense that your land and your family and everything that you knew and understood, your entire culture, was directly under threat by an enemy which would tear up and destroy all of it, by the Anti-Christ himself. They didn't need any special training to make it the bloodiest field in Europe. I think this may in fact go a long way toward explaining how battles with similar numbers of troops in history, on similar terrain, can have radically different outcomes. After years of warfare, the Duke of Marlborough advanced into France; Louis XIV despaired, issued his appeal to the French people in completely unheard of terms from the Sun King before, and in the hearts of the Frenchmen on the field at Malplaquet, something changed, and the fighting continued with bayonet and musket-butt hand to hand in the woods for hours in addition to the tremendous slaughter of the French firing from their prepared positions, especially at the Prince of Orange's troops.

In the same way the stoic ruthlessness at Borodino stands all the higher because of the actually rather bad job Kuznetsov did that still resulted in such an ultimately favourable outcome for the Russians. We see at both battles a similar sort of theme: A homeland genuinely in threat, a broad-based cultural appeal that you were personally and directly threatened not merely in your life, but in your family and your way of living as practiced by many prior generations. The result is a particularly motivated kind of willingness to kill. That same theme repeats itself many times, and the cultural conditions which come together to empower an army to actively seek out killing on the field as individuals clearly mark the difference between the Patriotic War of 1812 and the First World War for the Tsarist Regime, for instance. In the former the average soldier could intuitively grasp that his homeland was fatally threatened by a force that wouldn't just kill him but obliterate his entire worldview from the face of the Earth. In the later war, there was no equivalent sense whatsoever. It returned when fighting against Hitler.

I think the difference is that a person won't necessarily kill even when doing so would help save their own life--but when you successfully raise the spectre of total cultural obliteration, of making it, so to speak, so that even your grave won't be remembered, that your entire set of memories and experiences is threatened, it fundamentally changes the game. The problem of course is that a nation can be severely defeated without being obliterated--so this is not an effective strategy for motivating your army in minor wars of defence, or any kind of offensive war whatsoever. Modern training is arguably about creating an army that is capable of demonstrating the willingness to kill that an army trying to save their nation from total obliteration shows, when that army is invading another country or on a peacekeeping mission.

[TheFeniX]

I would like to take this time to talk about a topic not usually brought up in the gun control debate (except by people who don't understand anything about fully-automatic weapon). "Machine Guns" were required to be registered through use of a transferable stamp system with the passing of the 1934 National Firearms Act.

It wasn't until 1986 that the ownership of full-auto weapons became illegal under the "Hughes Ammendment" of the (hilariously named) "Firearm Owners Protection Act." Now, before anyone chews me out by saying "But FeniX, full-auto weapons are still legal:" Yes, they technically are. But they also technically aren't. The Federal Government wasn't about to make thousands of Americans criminals overnight. So, they "grandfathered" in weapons manufactured prior to 1986, while making any private ownership of fully-automatic weapons manufactured after that date illegal. The whole purpose of this act is to create a dwindling supply of the weapons until no legal versions exist at some point in the future: so, ownership becomes illegal once those guns are removed from the market.

So, why shouldn't they be illegal? Well, mainly because no one is being killed by legal ones.

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of ATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify ATF after moving a registered gun between states.

I've "heard" of up to 3 murders from other posters, but found nothing. Even so, we can't even get into double-digits on a year period, much less 80 years.

Now, what's usually brought up when you discuss "machine guns/assault rifles" or whatever is the North Hollywood Shootout. Which is weird because it happened a decade after the 1986 ban. Anyways, Two heavily armed and armored bank robbers started a massive shootout with police and civilians leading to the entire country freaking the fuck out. A couple facts of note:
1. None of the fully-automatic weapons were legal to own. They were illegally converted from semi-automatic versions.
2. At least one of the gunmen was a convicted felon, so it was illegal for him to own any sort of firearm.
3. Over 1100 rounds were fired by the suspects. There were wounded, but no fatalities (with the exception of the criminals).
4. Interviews with police stated the determining factor of the shootout was the body armor the criminals were wearing, not their automatic weapons.

We also, find that "Machine Gun crime" generally accounts for ~2% of gun crime (depending on area). Even though Hollywood portrays gang and drug violence as everyone packing Tek9s and MAC10s, that just doesn't happen and it's not hard to assume why. They are hard to conceal, expensive, and get the Federal government involved when you start using them.

Assault Rifles, Machine Guns, whatever: the "perfect killing" weapons capable of untold destruction in the hands of private citizens killed less people in 80 years than the number of people who likely choke to death on their own spit every year. Seriously, I can't think of any other cause of death which could possible be that low when you consider there's still around 200-300k weapons out there that fall under the Hughes amendment.

[Beowulf]

Of those last two links, they are slightly misleading. The first of those two only discusses firearms recovered in connection with a crime, with a caveat that it does not in fact actually cover the entire state. It's only firearms recovered by the Bureau of Forensic Services, which primarily works with departments too small to have their own forensics section. IOWs, primarily rural. Only 1 submachinegun was recovered in connection with a homicide, and small samples are known to throw statistics quite a bit. There's also nothing on whether it was a legally registered machinegun, an originally legal machinegun that was illegally transfered, or an illegal conversion of a semi-automatic weapon.

The other link is specific to CA assault weapons. Given the publication date, it'd be the original by name ban, which naturally only covered semi-auto weaponry.

[chitoryu12]

To be quite honest, I actually fear knives more than guns. It takes much less skill to inflict wounds with a knife, and even against a small switchblade, the wounds they inflict will be painful and risk slicing open blood vessels and reducing how well I can move and fight back. Not to mention that an attacker NEEDS to get in close and knows this, which means that he'll be more willing to close the distance between us unless the knife is only an intimidation attempt that he doesn't plan on backing up with force. Yes, someone can simply walk up to me and put a gun against my chest. But not everyone will do that if they have a weapon that they know (or "know") that they can use as far as 20 yards away.

A lot of people try to discount the deadliness of a knife or how nasty and disabling wounds from them can be. Make no mistake, if I was carrying a gun and someone pulled a knife on me, I'd run as fast as I could because as soon as he gets close enough to make contact, I'm in for a lot of trouble.

[chitoryu12]

Also, it's far more likely that I'll deal with a knife than a gun. Literally anybody can be carrying a knife. I've had fat middle schoolers pull switchblades on me. You can find knives of suitable size to carry in just about any household, and they're extremely cheap and can be acquired very easily from many stores. The average wannabe tough guy is a hell of a lot more likely to have a small knife than a small gun, which means that he's already able to inflict deadly wounds to most people he meets because they aren't carrying ANYTHING.