Will eliminating all handguns save lives?

[Starboard Tack]

[MrSlayer]

1. If we could make them all magically disappear then yes.

Of course it would. The handgun makes cowards into killers.

[Warpy]

3. There's no way to eliminate them

so we'd have to attack it from the ammo end, no longer making the most common sizes.

That would inconvenience long gun owners, too, so it will never be done.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Rather a defeatist attitude

[SteveM]

56. I'm sure the alcohold prohis had victory in their sights? nt

[Starboard Tack]

65. Not too many places allow alcohol consumption in the street, car, classroom

You call that prohibition?

[MrSlayer]

8. I know, that's why I said "magically".

That horse left the barn a hundred years ago and more.

[pipoman]

40. It would never be done regardless of long guns

a silly Chris Rock bit which, as many comedy parody, sounds semi reasonable though based on a completely fictional, constitutionally impossible scenario. The standard which was set in the SCOTUS Miller case is, "in common use for lawful purposes", which will always apply to the hundreds of million handguns in the US.

[Warpy]

49. Of course not, it's almost as unworkable as trying to scoop up handguns

and eliminate them. However, it's just another approach should this country ever get serious about disarming Harry Homeowner along with the neighborhood street thugs.

[Riftaxe]

33. If you're that influenced by inanimate objects

perhaps you need a nice rest in comfortable room with padded walls.

[oneshooter]

45. They are!! Many anti's claim that they can "feel" the evil projected by a concealed handgun. n/t

[MrSlayer]

69. I'm not quite understanding you.

Can you deny the fact that guns make it so easy to kill that people who normally would never fight you fair become "tough guys" all of a sudden? Happens all the time.

[Llewlladdwr]

77. "Happens all the time" ?

Could you provide a link to a single documented instance? Thanks!

[MrSlayer]

78. You must have very little understanding of inner city violence.

Kids kill other kids all the time. And adults, a lot of time for very little reason. And all because it's just so easy to walk up and put someone's head out with a gun. Look up some info on the Crips wars and drug corner battles. It's not that hard a concept to get. A gun makes it way too easy to kill. Things that used to be settled with a fistfight are now settled with gunplay.

[bluerum]

2. Eliminating disease would probably save more lives.

[Starboard Tack]

4. Medical professionals and researchers are working on that one

[Kennah]

12. Better regulation of NSAIDs would probably save more lives

[petronius]

5. I think the word you're looking for is "would"

Some version of "magically" should also appear in the question... ;)

[Starboard Tack]

7. Feel free to post your own poll

[Starboard Tack]

9. I haven't given up on the American people yet. Remember 2008 "Yes we can!"

[cleanhippie]

10. Will eliminating poll questions save us from idiotic poll questions?

[Kennah]

13. That would make for an interesting poll: Can questions be eliminated from polls?

[Starboard Tack]

16. It may seem idiotic to you Clean Hippie (whatever that means)

But it really is a straightforward question. I admit that it may appear to be as idiotic as asking "Will eliminating cancer save lives?". However, you may have noticed that we have members who disagree with the premise. Now, let me ask you a question, do you think those who voted "NO" are rational individuals? Think carefully now. You may find it is not as idiotic as you thought.

[cleanhippie]

17. I guess we can never be free of idiotic questions.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[Starboard Tack]

21. No problem. Stay tuned

[cleanhippie]

27. Oh yes, I am riveted.

Who knows what nonsense you will post next.

[Simo 1939_1940]

48. Bravo! I'll second that emotion. NT

[Kennah]

11. There are no magic wands

If there were magic wands, and one could eliminate all handguns from the U.S., would not some enterprising criminal syndicate simply import handguns to meet the need, as happened during Prohibition? Canada also prohibited alcohol consumption, but alcohol production was legal and profitable to quench the thirst of Americans who wanted a drink.

If one could eliminate all handguns from the planet, would not some enterprising criminal syndicate simply start manufacturing handguns? Some say Afghanistan is in the Stone Age, and yet there is a thriving firearms manufacturing industry there.

If one could erase the knowledge of handguns from everyone on the planet, would not someone eventually decide to cut a rifle down to smaller, more portable, proportions and re-invent the handgun?

If one could erase all knowledge of firearms, gunpowder, explosives, rocketry, the internal combustion engine, and probably a host of other sciences and technologies, perhaps one could prevent the firearm from ever re-entering any society. However, in a world where we have been to the moon and back, and have computers powerful enough to model Climate Change, I think someone is eventually going to figure out how to build a lethal, handheld, projectile weapon that weighs under 2 pounds.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Let's start simple and progress from there.

Wait for the poll on solutions before you fire your big guns. Right now, I'm just trying to see the true lay of the land. So far, we have 3 members who disagree, unbelievable as that may sound. It's a very simple question requiring a simple answer.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. Just eliminate the hands.... the rest will take care of itself. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

18. You don't have to tell us, but I'm curious as to how you voted

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. I didn't, but I know one thing, trying to fight a war on drugs doesn't work, trying to eliminate

people who hate your abuse of power by abusing your power doesn't work, and getting rid of the hate, treating mental illness and taking the stuffing out of white collar crime might be just as effective as rationing handguns. I'd like to know where crime is the lowest and why, handguns or no handguns.

http://www.guninformation.org/

[Starboard Tack]

22. It's just a question. A very simple question.

Some voted NO. Aren't you curious as to why they voted NO?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

23. They voted no because that is what they believe. Simple. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

25. Exactly!

Now why would they vote NO? Any ideas? Because they are not telling us why.

[gejohnston]

34. I voted no

because it has not any place else. A life saved will be canceled out by one taken.

[Starboard Tack]

37. "A life saved will be canceled out by one taken."

I respect your honesty. As you already know, I strongly disagree with your reasoning. We both know it has worked in the UK, but you would argue "A life saved will be canceled out by one taken." By that, you are saying that all the murders, suicides, accidental shootings and SD and other justifiable homicides, currently accomplished with handguns, will still occur, regardless the total absence of all handguns.
Do you truly believe that?

[gejohnston]

64. UK is not quite the same

the gun ban did nothing either way. It actually affect gun ownership that much. UK guns have always been farmers and rich people for hunting. Pistols, not so much. Before any laws it was the same other than the few target shooters.
Suicides would remain the same, Americans would just hang themselves like most other countries
gang murders would still use pistols like they do everywhere else. Since the penalty for machine gun and pistol would be the same, just as well get the latter from Mexico.
Few SD results in shooting anyone. Crazy asshole ex husband will be able to beat wife to death and other SD situations where wits and less than lethal will not do. That is what will off set the lives saved from guy going off the deep end and shooting up office, school etc.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. I am not voting.

This is by far too simplistic of a question. It would be similar to asking if lives would be saved by eliminating poverty and hunger. :(

[Starboard Tack]

24. Good. You don't have to vote if you are not sure. Thank you for your honesty.

You may want to note that one third have voted NO so far

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. I abstained because...

...I view "eliminating all handguns" as impossible.

(Unless you own a wand.) ;)

[Starboard Tack]

28. Suspend your disbelief for a moment and just address the question.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. Okay.

I would say probably no, there would be no net savings in lives.

[Starboard Tack]

35. Great. Would you care to expand on that, please.

You assert that eliminating all handguns would result in
"no net savings in lives."
Not even one life would be saved? Do you understand the meaning of "net savings"?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. net savings

If someone is killed by a rifle, shotgun or knife instead of a pistol, they are not less dead.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Their odds would be better if attacked by a knife

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.<37> Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.

Approximately 6,500 homicides were committed using handguns in 1999; since there were roughly 70 million handguns, the chance of any particular gun being used in a homicide is very low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. According to the FBI...

...during an assault, your chances of being injured are decreased if you resist/fight back. Your chances are best if you resist with a firearm.

To be responsible, I can take a course to refresh my skills with a gun once a year and practice a few times a month. The type of dedication required to practice defense with/against a knife would require training a few times a week. Not many people have this kind of time.

Just out of curiosity, in your scheme, would the cops have to surrender their handguns, as well?

[Starboard Tack]

71. Of course cops should not routinely carry handguns

You can't expect regular folk to not carry if cops are carrying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. For the record...

...I believe that schemes aimed at lowering the number of firearms in general circulation, whether a specific type such as "assault weapons" or handguns or just firearms in general, are flawed. Those who intend to use weapons for illegal purposes tend to separated from them only once the crime is done and they've been arrested.

I see the number of firearms in private hands as entirely irrelevant to the rate of violent crime.

[Starboard Tack]

74. Most schemes are flawed. Do you have suggestions beyond the status quo?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. re: "Do you have suggestions beyond the status quo?"

I am in favor of having laws regarding single-shot and semi-auto firearms of not more than .50 cal regulated by state laws only. I would like to see the BATFE concerned with firearms only outside of those limits. The federal government has become too big and that is just another instance of the problem. Essentially, I see all of the functions of BATFE as duplication of effort/duty/expense. It should be sold to some foreign country who may want it or dissolved.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. By definition, yes. Truly eliminating just about ANY object is likely to save lives.

For example, Ladders are responsible for a cerain number of deaths each year.
If there were no such thing as Ladders... some people that would have otherwise been killed will have survived.

This poll is flawed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. "...some people that would have otherwise been killed will have survived. "

But only to die by hanging out of windows. We could save them as well by eliminating windows but how would we exit from burning buildings where fire consumes or blocks the stairs?

[Starboard Tack]

36. Thank you

How is the poll flawed?

[rrneck]

46. I'll show you. nt

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

54. I see you posted.

It was designed to be distinctly unoriginal to point out how poorly written yours was.

Figured out the flaws yet?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

31. Since 1987 "shall issue" concealed carry has swept across our nation ...

Since it is difficult to conceal a rifle or a shotgun, handguns are the prime weapon carried.

Also in recent years the sale of handguns has increased dramatically. However the rate of handgun homicide has fallen since the mid 90s.

Going great guns: Handheld, semiautomatic sales increase
By Michael McCord
[e-mail]
March 15, 2009 2:00 AM

It's unclear how effective President Barack Obama's policies will be in reversing the nation's economic slide, but since his election he has proven to be a one-man stimulus package for one sector of the economy — gun sales.

Since November, sales of handguns and tactical or semiautomatic rifles have increased by 50 percent in 15 states as gun shops and sporting-goods stores like the Kittery Trading Post and Dick's Sporting Goods have benefited from concerns, real or not, that the Obama administration will enact strict gun-control laws such as a revival of the 1994 assault weapons ban — or even, as some pro-gun Web sites have suggested, take guns away from lawful owners.

Nationwide, according to data from the FBI and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, November gun background checks increased 42 percent from the year before. In December, background checks were up 24 percent, 29 percent in January, and 23 percent in February. Background checks are considered an indication of retail sale activity.

"We've had a double-digit increase in sales of handguns and tactical rifles beginning about a week before the election...," said Fox Keim, vice president of the Kittery Trading Post. "Manufacturers can't keep up with demand and we are seeing a backlog of orders ranging from six months to two years for certain products.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090315-NEWS-903150345

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

[Starboard Tack]

38. All very interesting, but nothing to do with the OP

How do you vote Spin?

[spin]

47. I voted that eliminating all handguns would not save lives ...

based on the fact that firearms are often used to stop criminal attack. Handguns are often owned for self defense.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
May 1997

Guns in America: National Survey on
Private Ownership and Use of Firearms

The NSPOF provides the most complete
data available on the private
stock of firearms in the United States,
including the kinds of guns owned, by
whom they are owned, and for what
purpose they were acquired. When
asked, handgun owners usually gave
self-protection as their primary motive
for owning guns, while long-gun owners
mentioned hunting or target shooting.
Other findings support the
conclusion that handguns are much
more likely than long guns to be kept
unlocked and ready for use in the
home and to be carried in public; they
are much less likely to be used in
sporting activities.
http://www.tscm.com/165476.pdf

A number of surveys have been conducted to determine how many DGUs occur on an annual basis.

COUNTING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

How many times each year do civilians use firearms defensively? The answers provided to this seemingly simple question have been confusing. Consider the findings from two of the most widely cited studies in the field: McDowall et al. (1998), using the data from 1992 and 1994 waves of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), found roughly 116,000 defensive gun uses per year, and Kleck and Gertz (1995), using data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), found around 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Many other surveys provide information on the prevalence of defensive gun use. Using the original National Crime Survey, McDowall and Wiersema (1994) estimate 64,615 annual incidents from 1987 to 1990. At least 19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically indistinguishable) to the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found numbers consistent with the NCVS (other gun use surveys are reviewed in Kleck and Gertz, 1995, and Kleck, 2001a).
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103

Even if the 116,000 figure for DGUs is accurate and not a low estimate, it is still a indication that in many of these instances the attack that necessitated the use of a firearm could have resulted in death or serious injury. Since handguns are often owned and used for self defense, it's logical that eliminating all handguns would not save lives but might increase the number of lives lost.

[Starboard Tack]

53. So, you discount all the accidental deaths as being irrelevant?

[cleanhippie]

59. Well sure, because thats exactly what he just stated!

Except that it's not. Its not even close to what he just stated.

WTF, man? You can't seem to even make an honest acknowledgement of what someone just posted.

:puke:

[Starboard Tack]

60. There are no reliable stats on DGU and you and he know it.

From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Do they just get balance out by folk who claim DGU?
Sounds like some of you guys will co to any extreme to justify your behavior.

[spin]

63. I would say there were far more lives saved in the same period of time ...

because of the legitimate use of firearms. As you point out, no reliable stats for DGUs exist.

It is also quite possible that if firearms were banned and confiscated the amount of innocent people killed by attackers would increase dramatically. Criminals fear armed individuals far more than police.

If you disagree with the above statement try posting a sign that says your home is a gun free zone in your front yard.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Are you saying more lives would have been saved during that period if handguns hadn't existted?

Because that is the hypothetical we are discussing here, not banning or confiscating firearms. Nothing to do with homes being gun free zones. I believe guns should be allowed in the home. That should be up to the homeowner.

[spin]

67. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying ...

If handguns would have been eliminated during the period of time from 2001 to 2007, legal concealed carry would have also been banned as those who have permits carry handguns, not shotguns or rifles.

People who have concealed carry licenses have been able to successfully defend themselves far more times than the number of people killed in accidental shootings. Remember we are dealing with a seven year period of time and 4900 accidental shootings or an average of 700 per year.

I seriously believe that far more than 700 deaths per year are stopped by those with concealed weapons in our nation. Remember that in most instances where a concealed weapon is used, shots are not fired. Most DGUs never make the news or are entered into any database.

Of course you probably disagree and unfortunately there is no way to determine which of us is right.

I do have two questions, when you ask:

Are you saying more lives would have been saved during that period if handguns hadn't existed?

are you saying that they suddenly disappeared during those years through a miracle or that they had never been invented? You clarified your statement by saying that:

Because that is the hypothetical we are discussing here, not banning or confiscating firearms. Nothing to do with homes being gun free zones.

But in your hypothetical situation where no handguns existed you also added

I believe guns should be allowed in the home.

Does that mean that since handguns do not exist there are none in the homes? I ask this because if your hypothetical does permit handguns in the home, there would be a lot more lives saved by these weapons.

I should also note that the original poll question you asked to start this thread was:

Poll question: Will eliminating all handguns save lives?

No time frame was mentioned and in order to eliminate all handguns it would be necessary to stop all production as well as ban and confiscate these weapons. In fact, you would have to do this world wide, as if you didn't smugglers would make enormous profit supplying handguns to criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

72. What would they have been defending themselves against if handguns didn't exist?

Do you think muggers and burglars would have been using long guns? I doubt it. If they are armed at all, their weapon of choice would most likely be a knife. Knives can easily be defended against in a home setting with a shotgun. In the street I would rather use a stout cane or dog against a knife. Bullets have a tendency to stray.

The poll was intended to find a common base from where to proceed, not to provide a solution.
Regarding handguns in the home - it would be great if we could magically restrict them to home use only and no children would ever pick them up and shoot each other. But, as we know, that is a fantasy.

Regarding handguns not existing during those years in my hypothetical - it is irrelevant whether they magically disappeared or had never existed.

No time frame was mentioned and in order to eliminate all handguns it would be necessary to stop all production as well as ban and confiscate these weapons. In fact, you would have to do this world wide, as if you didn't smugglers would make enormous profit supplying handguns to criminals.

You are correct, but we can get very close by making the penalties unacceptable. Going to prison for a long time is unacceptable to most people. If it can work in the UK, I see no reason why it can't work here.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. What is your objection to the Department of Justice DGU numbers?

Oh, right, it shows you to be wrong, so you reject it.

[spin]

61. No. On the other hand I don't count them any higher than I do the lives ...

that are saved by those legitimate use of firearms.

Both my mother and my daughter successfully used handguns to stop an attack. There is a good possibility that if they would not have had access to a firearm they would have been raped and possibly killed. Fortunately no one ended up shot or injured in either incident.

My question back ...

Do you discount all the lives that are saved by the use of firearms for legitimate self defense?

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Save some? Yes. Kill others? Yes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. I honestly have no idea. My crystal ball is rather cloudy today.

[Logical]

42. I have no doubt that if you could eliminate all handguns the murder rate would drop. But...

Of course that is impossible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. IME it would cost more lives and $$$ than it saves

The OP continues to ignore the good handguns bring in terms of saved lives, reduced injuries, and diminished property loses to handguns used in self defense and not just against people. While there is difficulty in collecting such metrics, they cannot simply be ignored in any honest discussion

[krispos42]

44. Will making everybody immortal save lives?

That's equally as likely, after all.


Loaded question, bad question, misleading question. No votey, unrec.

[one-eyed fat man]

55. Might be worse

Suppose that since handguns were all of a sudden unavailable but hacksaw and files were not, criminals just sawed off shotguns to make them concealable.

A .357 magnum at 710 ft. lbs. muzzle energy pales in comparison to a 12 gauge shotgun with a muzzle 1590 ft. lbs.

Most killers are forward thinking, they plan the murder. To believe that a killer would abandon his plan merely because one means is unavailable is naive.

The net result of banning handguns might be like banning red cars because a study shows that drunks prefer red cars. Drunks would still drive drunk, they just wouldn't do it in red cars.

Banning handguns would not keep criminals from killing people, they would merely substitute other weapons, possibly even more lethal ones.

People once were absolutely certain that if you banned alcohol men would not drink up their paychecks, abuse their wives and neglect their children.

[spin]

68. Good point. Often an individual can survive a close range shot from a .357 magnum ...

but the chances of living after being hit at close range by a sawed off 12 gauge shotgun using buckshot is much smaller.

[SteveM]

57. Unrec.: prohis' wet dream. And then there were shotguns and MACs.nt

[Euromutt]

76. Judging by medieval homicide rates, no

As far a historians can make out, murder rates in 14th century England and Germany were at least four times as high as the United States' current rate, and generally far higher than that. And that was before man-portable firearms became available in Europe.

Of course, society has changed markedly since then, and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment greatly altered attitudes about the value of human life. The is a discernible correlation between the spread of the Enlightenment throughout Europe, starting England and the Netherlands, and a fall in murder rates. Thus, there's at least an indication (and a fairly strong one at that) that willingness to commit homicide is closely linked to cultural mores, in particular the notion that personal or family honor have higher value than the life of someone who slights that honor.

[Howzit]

79. Harvard study thinks they have the answer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x475526