Does owning weapons make one more likely to be a killer?

^Or getting shot.

What was the topic again?

I don't think anyone's actually discussing the title question anymore. Is there really any point to this thread as it is now? It's just a bunch of people sniping*

Well, robbery is pretty big in England...

Teufel, if you're still around, I think you're taking objection to the idea that owning a gun somehow alters one's moral state; as if the gun mysteriously starts talking to you being all like "You know you want to use me to shoot somebody". I'd agree, this is bullshit. Guns can't impart morals anymore than bubble gum.

So let's say you are correct, guns don't make people more likely to be killers. True. How about, guns increase the possibility of making a killer more likely to ACTUALLY kill someone? Follow me on this one:

We acknowledge that certain people posess a level of decency, self-control, healthy fear of the justice system, whatever, that causes terminal force to never be a consideration. Now, we'll label the rest of the people killers, or at the very least potential killers.

Having a gun acts an accelerant; it gives the trained killer a means to kill many people in a shorter frame; it gives the 50-50 people (folks who are simply violent and lack self-control, but aren't assassins) a means to turn their standard violent outbursts into murderous violent outbursts; and it gives people who are pretty normal but simply haven't developed a no-violence approach to things a means to turn their "moment of anger" into a "moment of terminal violence".

Likewise, a lack of gun is a retardant; the trained killer will have to make to do with meleee weapons that won't kill the same number in the same frame; the violent person will most likely not have their violence outburst turn deadly; and the normal person with moments of lack of self-control has a better chance that their momentary loss of self-control won't involve a moment of deadly force.

edited 11th Apr '12 7:44:18 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Deterrence is an immeasurable part of crime prevention. How many people consider a crime and go "Nah, not worth it. I might get caught and end up shot, or arrested and charged with the death penalty after I killed that dude."

Deterrence matters. A lot. If murder weren't harshly punished, for instance, holdups would end up involving the criminal shooting the clerk, simply because that's one less witness. They don't because one less witness isn't worth the punishment of a first degree murder charge when caught. Which is why most clerks survive a holdup if they just cooperate.

I would say that this is true. A psycho is a psycho, but a psycho with varying degrees of weaponry is more lethal by varying degrees as a result.

That being said, I feel it's an acceptable consequence.

For the title question for the thread? It doesn't make someone more likely to BE a killer, but it makes someone more likely to be a BETTER killer than they would be otherwise. The level of training isn't really what matters, an unarmed soldier or civilian versus an armed soldier or civilian is going to be an easy comparison when it comes to lethality. The gun is the great equalizer.

edited 11th Apr '12 8:42:40 PM by Barkey

Ok we are a bit hung up on the weapon part. The weapon doesn't cause anyone to be a killer. Weapons regardless of the type of weapon used in general make it easier to be a killer should you choose to go out and try and kill someone. That is still semantics though.

The question we should be asking is what makes someone more likely to be a killer. Simply having some object does not make you more likely to be a killer. What Mental, Emotional, Physical, situational, and any other factors push someone to kill. Normally humans don't go around killing others without something affecting them.

While I agree with you, I have to add that normal people also have a psychological reluctance to kill their own kind: I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the US Marines get trained to deal lethal blows by muscle memory, so that they will automatically do it without thinking, so I am not quite sure if the deterrence is quite as great as you make it out to be. Not to mention that people can escape the law if they are good enough.

Still, having a deterrence is better than none.

Ira are you sure about that?? Humanity seems to excel at finding new and creative ways to mutilate and kill it's own kind.

Shit, most of our scientific advancements are the result of military breakthroughs (i.e. the Internet, walking on the Moon).

No one knows. That's why it's immeasurable. If you believe the right bear arms makes people safer or the execution of convicted felons is a effectively deterrence that's a perfectly reasonable opinion, but there isn't that much evidence to support it.

Umm yeah basically.

edited 12th Apr '12 2:35:49 AM by joeyjojo

As I said, I've read it somewhere. Not sure how credible it is. Just putting it out there.

Isn't it because it is immeasurable that no one knows how effective the deterrence is? I agree with your point but I'm not sure if I'm reading your post right.

edited 11th Apr '12 11:05:59 PM by IraTheSquire

Deterrence is a very significant part of crime prevention*

Have you ever SEEN someone untrained try to use a bladed weapon to hit a target outside of a carefully controlled environment? And a small bladed weapon, such as a dagger or small knife, is actually far easier to conceal then a relatively bulky handgun.

If you are trained how to fight, it's not going to matter what kind of weapon you use against someone who has no training.

If you are not trained how to fight, you're not going to hit a damn thing beyond a few feet with a gun anyways. How often does an innocent bystander get hit? Actually, not really all that often and it isn't limited to firearms. The vast, vast majority of those stray bullets end up embedded in the dirt or someone's wall, and not someone's skull. Even with automatic weapons - especially with automatic weapons, because they're very hard to aim without a mount and have a tendency to pull up, meaning most bullets fly OVER the target and bystanders and to areas where they generally can do a lot less harm.

You swing with a bat and miss and cave some guy's skull in - this is compounded by the fact that people like to get close within a few feet to watch fights, but will quickly scatter if there is a firearm involved.

edited 12th Apr '12 3:09:48 AM by Vehudur

I think you're using a different definition of the word "killer" than I am. As far as I'm concerned, a person is only a killer if they try to kill someone else and succeed. Someone who tries and fails to kill another person is not technically a killer.

I mean, there could be a lot of mental, emotional, situational, etc. factors pushing me to become an astronaut, but if my space shuttle blows up before I actually get into outer space, then I'm not an astronaut, no matter how strong my motivation was.

Prove it.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but the idea of more guns = less crime it's not something that to be taking at face value.

I really, seriously doubt this.

One of the reasons why an untrained psycho with a melee weapon is that others can see that s/he has a weapon that s/he is swinging around at random, and therefore they can get out of the way and not get hit. You can't exactly see a random bullet coming at your way and dodge it. In fact, you can't really dodge a bullet unless you're Neo in the Matrix.Anyone far enough to not see a psycho with a gun won't know that the psycho has just fired a random bullet that is coming their way. I don't think that you need much aiming to hit somebody when you're firing a machine gun into a crowd of people.

Also, hasn't there been cases of random people being hit/killed by bullets that have been accidentally fired into the air (and hence why there are laws forbidding discharging a weapon within urban areas in US)?

edited 12th Apr '12 6:28:35 AM by IraTheSquire

I'm not saying that the more guns you throw into society, the less crime you have. I'm saying that gun ownership being commonplace is a deterrent that does prevent some crimes from happening in the first place, crimes where success or failure hinges on someones ability to fight back.

I can't give you any statistics beyond that I've seen news articles over the years where a guy got caught or gave up in the middle of an act and the danger to his person was an element in how that outcome came to be. But I have spent my entire adult life in the security and law enforcement field, and deterrence is a primary concern in preventing an incident.

Let me give an example of how deterrence works from my own career... At my base, we had several of our people sick and on leave one night. We were operating on a skeleton crew of 3 people for the entire base(now given, it was a relatively small air station) and our answer to this problem was to have our boss on the cameras in dispatch, a guy at the gate, and a guy driving around the perimeter in circles all night. This guy would occasionally take an alternate route, and then turn around and run the circuit in the opposite direction. The purpose of this is to give the appearance of more than one patrol, and be a deterrent to an attack should we be being observed.

Deterrence is the art of making someone who is observing you and planning you ill will decide you aren't worth the effort, and that another target is much more appealing. So yes, having my "Protected by Springfield Armory" sticker on my front window with a picture of a gun means it's an active deterrent to burglary(at least while I'm home, when I'm not home, my guns are locked up anyway so no big deal there)

If it means the guy down the street gets robbed instead, then so be it. Better than it happening to my home.

Barkey, is the thing you described above a common military tactic, confusing the enemy by making him think he's up against more people than he actually is?

That's the definition I'm using as well. The murderous bastard who never has the means or opportunity to kill is completely irrelevant when compared to the normal down-to-earth cool guy who simply snapped at the exact moment he had a firearm and a potential victim in reach.

I too call BS on this. A lunatic with a loaded Glock will spray 12 shots wildly. Yes, 11 will hit the walls and floor, but I'm more concerned with the one that winds up in some innocent bystander. Not to kill them, maybe, but being confined to a wheelchair is just as bad.

edited 12th Apr '12 7:43:55 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

But thats attempted murder, which is still a crime

Yes I agree but owning a weapon makes other crimes easier to commit

@Starship - it's common for situations where you think you might be outnumbered and especially during a guard mission. Otherwise, we have a thing where we "make contact with the smallest element possible," which is intended to get the enemy to underestimate us and encourage them to commit their own forces early. Then we flank left (or right), and slay those fools.

I'll take 50 attempted murder convictions over one manslaughter or murder charge.

Cool. Damn, I missed out not joining the military.

edited 12th Apr '12 7:46:13 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Just because it makes a possible crime easier to commit, doesn't.mean that that individual will commit said crime.

Yes, deception is a huge part of warfare, has been since Sun Tzu. Making the enemy think that there are more of you than there really are leads them to develop strategies, meaning that suddenly they are planning an engagement against what they think is a larger force.

If I attack the left flank of an enemy battle line with only a platoon, they have to take a gamble to hold their forces on their right side instead of enveloping me, because who attacks with just a platoon? Or we might have a second platoon waiting in ambush for that enveloping strategy. Then you move your forces around even further left into an L shape, and roll their entire battle line from the side. It's a lot like chess, with a sort of poker face involved. Martello is the man with the plan on that though, he has a formal education on the subject, I'm just going off my own intuition.

Gun owners using their own firearms to commit crimes is such a rarity. Statistically it is VERY low to the point of almost never happening, perhaps a handful of times per year.

edited 12th Apr '12 8:29:40 AM by Barkey

What, so you're B.A. and Martello is Hannibal??

Nah, not so much B.A.

More like I've led squads and fireteams before, and been involved in platoon sized actions and slightly larger. I've learned via participation, independent study, and speaking to people with more experience than me about the subject. You start to learn the general gist of how these things work during the after-action report of an operation you've been in. Instead of just being a puzzle piece, you get a step-by-step report on how the bigger picture evolved.

That and I've been playing RTS games since I was a wee one, that can't hurt. I play Total War like a boss.

edited 12th Apr '12 10:17:02 AM by Barkey

I assume when you say "gun owners" you mean "registered gun owners". Even taking that into account, though, almost all guns used in crimes were originally manufactured and purchased legally, so the legal availability of guns still has a direct impact on criminals' access to guns.

Yes, after being stolen from careless people.

This is what gunsafes are for. I don't think anybody is going to break into my apartment with the required equipment to get my firearms, meaning a blowtorch or C4.

Securing your firearms is half of gun safety in a nutshell. I do not find it acceptable that I have to suffer because a bunch of idiots haven't learned that lesson. I handle my firearms safely, secure them safely, and use them responsibly. Nobody is going to infringe on my rights when I'm doing all the right things if I can help it.