Oh, look! Another US mass shooting.

[ibanezmonster]

OK by me. I cannot answer the rest of your questions, but cannit for the life of me understand why a large collection of guns among the general populace contributes to security.

It doesn't. The NRA wants people to believe that so they can make money to buy more mansions or yachts or whatever.

[mn dave]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/compton-school-board-approves-ar-15-rifles-for-campus-police/378738/

[Ken B]

OK by me. I cannot answer the rest of your questions, but cannit for the life of me understand why a large collection of guns among the general populace contributes to security.

We have quite a number of guns in Norway, but they are shotguns and rifles for hunting mostly. You put them in your car and drive to the hunting area or shooting range- Try showing up with one of them in the city and you will quickly be picked up by the police. Handguns are strictly regulated and generally not tolerated outside shooting clubs and the like. You certainly cannt buy one without some very strict screening.

Well the question is not, how can a collection of guns contribute to safety. That might be a good question for Japan, and maybe gun control would work in Japan. But there are already a whole lot of guns in the USA. The real question is, GIVEN that a large group with malicious intent already has guns, how can a collection of guns in other hands contribute to safety. And it's easy to see.

[Que]

Well the question is not, how can a collection of guns contribute to safety. That might be a good question for Japan, and maybe gun control would work in Japan. But there are already a whole lot of guns in the USA. The real question is, GIVEN that a large group with malicious intent already has guns, how can a collection of guns in other hands contribute to safety. And it's easy to see.

So the whole idea of the benefits of owning a gun is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy... You need one, because everybody else has one. And everybody else has has one because it is their unalienable right.. Isn't that is a strange way to achieve individual freedom?
This is what might be called a "prisoner's dilemma". You are forced to do something, because you can't trust the other part from refraining to do so either. Both parties end up loosing out on the optimal solution.

I also think you might overestimate the safety owning a gun might provide. I'm very curious if there would be any research on that - are gun owners less likely to be killed?

Ordinary citizens (non criminals) are mostly killed by people in their immediate social circle anyway - people they know, and not by a random burglar.
And if a random burglar would appear, would you be prepared or would you be sound asleep in your bed?
Would the fact that you have a gun at hand increase your chance of survival, or actually decrease it? Would you take more risks, assuming that a gun in your hand will protect you?
Would the burglar be less, or more inclined to use possible lethal force?

I'm not sure, but it all does not seem so clear cut to me...

Q

[Ken B]

So the whole idea of the benefits of owning a gun is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy... You need one, because everybody else has one. And everybody else has has one because it is their unalienable right.. Isn't that is a strange way to achieve individual freedom?
This is what might be called a "prisoner's dilemma". You are forced to do something, because you can't trust the other part from refraining to do so either. Both parties end up loosing out on the optimal solution.

I also think you might overestimate the safety owning a gun might provide. I'm very curious if there would be any research on that - are gun owners less likely to be killed?

Ordinary citizens (non criminals) are mostly killed by people in their immediate social circle anyway - people they know, and not by a random burglar.
And if a random burglar would appear, would you be prepared or would you be sound asleep in your bed?
Would the fact that you have a gun at hand increase your chance of survival, or actually decrease it? Would you take more risks, assuming that a gun in your hand will protect you?
Would the burglar be less, or more inclined to use possible lethal force?

I'm not sure, but it all does not seem so clear cut to me...

Q

New Erato suggested there is no way a collection of guns can improve safety. That is a strong statement.  But there are ways. You mentioned game theory. You can model situations like this as games, or set up simulations. It is not hard to prove that under many conditions deterrence works. It depends on a lot of things, including initial conditions. That is my point.
You asked a bunch of questions, and admit the answers are not clear ( and I agree they are not clear). If all that is unclear then how can the conclusion about gun control be clear? Surely all those questions matter.

[Que]

New Erato suggested there is no way a collection of guns can improve safety. That is a strong statement.  But there are ways. You mentioned game theory. You can model situations like this as games, or set up simulations. It is not hard to prove that under many conditions deterrence works. It depends on a lot of things, including initial conditions. That is my point.
You asked a bunch of questions, and admit the answers are not clear ( and I agree they are not clear). If all that is unclear then how can the conclusion about gun control be clear? Surely all those questions matter.

What is not entirely clear, to me, is what the best individual choice would be in a situation of general gun availability.
I am not entirely convinced that even in those circumstances, getting a gun would actually be the best option?

What is clear from the numbers however, is that non availability would the best (=safest) option.

Q

[Florestan]

Ken, do you own a gun? If yes, do you carry it with you routinely? If yes, are you prepared to use it if need be?

[Ken B]

Ken, do you own a gun? If yes, do you carry it with you routinely? If yes, are you prepared to use it if need be?

Oh Lord no, I do not own a gun. Nor do I want one.
As for using one if I did, probably. I am notably cool in crises, and pretty unflinching in general.

Plus I resent the weight of carrying a cell phone 

[Dungeon Master]

Australian comedian Jim Jeffries skit on gun control is actually the best argument I have ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/v/EBpuLlw4Xjs

[Florestan]

Excellent! I particularly liked his point about the "well-regulated militia" being armed with muskets. I think, too, that the whole claptrap about governments being afraid of becoming tyrannical because people bear arms is as laughable as it gets in the contemporary world. Actually, it has been so even in the past. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history can come up with examples of tyrannical governments being instituted amidst spread ownership of guns.

As an aside, I love his range of facial expressions. 

[The new erato]

about governments being afraid of becoming tyrannical because people bear arms

Wasn't the weapon amendments in the US constitution (pardon me if I'm inaccurate here) about the opposite; people bearing guns to avoid the government becoming oppressive (as in having a militia of equals instead of an standing army that could be turned against the people)? 

Seems they ended up with the worst of two worlds; a large standing army as well as a trigger happy populace.

[Florestan]

Wasn't the weapon amendments in the US constitution (pardon me if I'm inaccurate here) about the opposite; people bearing guns to avoid the government becoming oppressive (as in having a militia of equals instead of an standing army that could be turned against the people)? 

I think so, but then again Jeffries is spot on: while both the government and the militia have only muskets, people have their chances; fighting heavily armed governments with pistols and riffles, only Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris or Bruce Willis could do successfully. 

Seems they ended up with the worst of two worlds; a large standing army as well as a trigger happy populace.

Indeed.

[ibanezmonster]

Australian comedian Jim Jeffries skit on gun control is actually the best argument I have ever seen.

Awesome! 

[Ken B]

Wasn't the weapon amendments in the US constitution (pardon me if I'm inaccurate here) about the opposite; people bearing guns to avoid the government becoming oppressive (as in having a militia of equals instead of an standing army that could be turned against the people)? 

Seems they ended up with the worst of two worlds; a large standing army as well as a trigger happy populace.

Well, there were a lot of things argued. But in the Federalist a major argument was as you say, to avert the need for a standing army. Cromwell being the poster child for the dangers of a standing army.

[The new erato]

Well, there were a lot of things argued. But in the Federalist a major argument was as you say, to avert the need for a standing army. Cromwell being the poster child for the dangers of a standing army.

They sure posted themselves into a corner with that one. Now they instead need a massively armed police force to keep the armed population at bay......

[Ken B]

They sure posted themselves into a corner with that one. Now they instead need a massively armed police force to keep the armed population at bay......

Well the massively armed police is a whole other issue, but yeah apologists for THAT talk about guns.

The foolishness affects both sides. Impossible to match the guns for the blind stuff from the NRA, but that sort of "no retreat" attitude happens on the other side too. Areas where guns are permitted have bans on stun guns. That is counter productive I'd say. If I decide I want a weapon, and the law says I can get one,  and am content with a stun gun, isn't it better I have one of those than a Colt .45?

[The new erato]

I'm stunned.