Gun Control

[Kriegsmier]

Gun control? Fine....i'll just use the 10" bayonet on my M1 instead. :thumbsup:

[Furah]

Guns should be made almost entirely un-acquirable to the public. Consider the following: how many gang members have assault rifles? Almost none. Why? Because those kinds of guns are kept very far away from civilian hands. If handguns were given the same steep inaccessibility, criminals wouldn't have them either. I wouldn't mind if there were guns that you could be loaned out at shooting ranges and for hunting season- so long as they were kept careful track of.

I'm pretty sure the situation in Egypt is made worse by civilian inaccessibility to firearms. There's a reason why assault rifles are less favoured than handguns, you can't hide an assault rifle in your pants.

 

But the important thing is that he is an idiot, so he deserved the loss of his son, right?

 

The important thing is that the story is a fictional supposition which is additionally simply not true on an overall statistical basis - guns improve safety more then they harm it. Statistically speaking, having a pool in the back yard is 9 times more dangerous then a gun on the nightstand.

Statistically speaking, a pool has a purpose other than killing.

So do guns.

[Sir_Redhead]

Guns should be made almost entirely un-acquirable to the public. Consider the following: how many gang members have assault rifles? Almost none. Why? Because those kinds of guns are kept very far away from civilian hands. If handguns were given the same steep inaccessibility, criminals wouldn't have them either. I wouldn't mind if there were guns that you could be loaned out at shooting ranges and for hunting season- so long as they were kept careful track of.

I'm pretty sure the situation in Egypt is made worse by civilian inaccessibility to firearms. There's a reason why assault rifles are less favoured than handguns, you can't hide an assault rifle in your pants.

 

But the important thing is that he is an idiot, so he deserved the loss of his son, right?

 

The important thing is that the story is a fictional supposition which is additionally simply not true on an overall statistical basis - guns improve safety more then they harm it. Statistically speaking, having a pool in the back yard is 9 times more dangerous then a gun on the nightstand.

Statistically speaking, a pool has a purpose other than killing.

So do guns.

 

 

9/10'ths of the firearms I own, are used for sports. Trap, Skeet, Action Pistol, etc...

 

Living in the middle of nowhere, if someone breaks into my house or I hear a noise in the middle of the night that shouldn't be there (Something smashing), you bet your cabbage I'll have a gun in my hand checking it out. (More likely to be a baseball bat, which I have in my closet). Will I pull the trigger on my .45 the moment I hear a sound? No. Will I pull the trigger if I see someone? No. I'll shout things like "Who the cabbage are you!?!? Get the cabbage out of my house!"

 

If there is another human on the other end of my sights, there is a consequence to pulling the trigger. Unless the life of my family, or myself is in direct danger, I wouldn't even think of shooting.

[Zierro]

If guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

 

Strong point. Also, in response to killing being the only use of a gun, this is not the case. I'm sure I speak for most here when I say that intimidation is the main reason a gun is desirable for self-defense proponents, and pulling the trigger would only be conceived if an innocent life was in immediate danger. The reason I'm against gun bans in America is because I want lives to be saved.

[das1330]

If guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

 

Strong point. Also, in response to killing being the only use of a gun, this is not the case. I'm sure I speak for most here when I say that intimidation is the main reason a gun is desirable for self-defense proponents, and pulling the trigger would only be conceived if an innocent life was in immediate danger. The reason I'm against gun bans in America is because I want lives to be saved.

 

Statistically speaking you are correct. While I don't remember the name of the study off the top of my head, something like 19 times out of 20 no shots were fired when a gun was used in self defense.

[Yoshi999]

If guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

 

Strong point. Also, in response to killing being the only use of a gun, this is not the case. I'm sure I speak for most here when I say that intimidation is the main reason a gun is desirable for self-defense proponents, and pulling the trigger would only be conceived if an innocent life was in immediate danger. The reason I'm against gun bans in America is because I want lives to be saved.

 

Statistically speaking you are correct. While I don't remember the name of the study off the top of my head, something like 19 times out of 20 no shots were fired when a gun was used in self defense.

 

I actually remember reading something like that, and it makes sense. I've got guns (a 9mm, 12 gauge shotgun, and a few rifles) and none of them are for self defense although if someone broke into my house and posed a threat to me, I might try to shoot them, but first I would tell them to wait while I find the key to unlock the lock on one of them :P . I've got my guns just for sport shooting and training to qualify yearly at the range for work. I know quite a few people who just enjoy shooting and like to do it as a sport. I'm not condemning anyone's beliefs on the matter, but I believe if you destroy guns in America the only people who would have them would be the criminals.

[Blyaunte]

If guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

 

Strong point. Also, in response to killing being the only use of a gun, this is not the case. I'm sure I speak for most here when I say that intimidation is the main reason a gun is desirable for self-defense proponents, and pulling the trigger would only be conceived if an innocent life was in immediate danger. The reason I'm against gun bans in America is because I want lives to be saved.

 

Statistically speaking you are correct. While I don't remember the name of the study off the top of my head, something like 19 times out of 20 no shots were fired when a gun was used in self defense.

 

95% of statistics are made up on the spot ... :rolleyes:

[foursideking]

In america, guns kill people. In soviet russia, people kill guns! (Yechov smirnov reference...couldn't resist)

[sees_all1]

95% of statistics are made up on the spot ... :rolleyes:

I spy with my little eye someone who hasn't taken a university level course in statistics.

[Blyaunte]

95% of statistics are made up on the spot ... :rolleyes:

I spy with my little eye someone who hasn't taken a university level course in statistics.

Obviously, I forgot to put in the [/sarcasm] tag ...

[sees_all1]

95% of statistics are made up on the spot ... :rolleyes:

I spy with my little eye someone who hasn't taken a university level course in statistics.

Obviously, I forgot to put in the [/sarcasm] tag ...

It didn't look like to me that you were sarcastic - usually when I see someone cite that "statistic", it tells me a couple of things -

1. They don't know how to reject or parry statistical claims made by others

2. They don't understand statistics enough to make their own claims

- basically, a humorous attempt to draw attention away from a personal weakness in debates.

 

 

Anyhow, to try and put my post back on topic, I was wondering if any of you have watched the Discovery Channel's show called Sons of Guns?

As crazy as it seems, I'd trust one of those nutters with a firearm more than I would a random, average citizen of the U.S. The main reason is because the guys on that show know that if they do anything wrong (illegal) with their gun, they're likely to lose it, and that seems punishment enough to deter them. Also, they know how to handle guns, which is more than I can say for the average person.

[Blyaunte]

95% of statistics are made up on the spot ... :rolleyes:

I spy with my little eye someone who hasn't taken a university level course in statistics.

Obviously, I forgot to put in the [/sarcasm] tag ...

It didn't look like to me that you were sarcastic - usually when I see someone cite that "statistic", it tells me a couple of things -

1. They don't know how to reject or parry statistical claims made by others

2. They don't understand statistics enough to make their own claims

- basically, a humorous attempt to draw attention away from a personal weakness in debates.

 

Well - I could sit here and argue with people that gun ownership is unnecessary, but they'd just quote random statistics that they've made up on the spot, or claim to have read/seen/not made up, without providing supporting links or evidence to the contrary.

 

The sad reality about the entire gun ownership (control) debate is that, really, if you feel compelled to own one for the purposes of your own personal security what does that imply about:

 

1. The society in which you live in that you have to physically arm yourself in order to protect yourself from your fellow citizens; and

 

2. Does possessing a firearm with the intention of harming another person in order to protect your "stuff" from someone else, mean that you have so little concern for the life of another human being that you'd rather kill them than lose your X-box?

:unsure:

[Furah]

Anyhow, to try and put my post back on topic, I was wondering if any of you have watched the Discovery Channel's show called Sons of Guns?

As crazy as it seems, I'd trust one of those nutters with a firearm more than I would a random, average citizen of the U.S. The main reason is because the guys on that show know that if they do anything wrong (illegal) with their gun, they're likely to lose it, and that seems punishment enough to deter them. Also, they know how to handle guns, which is more than I can say for the average person.

If someone didn't know that, and didn't know how to safely handle a firearm, I'd be wondering why they have a licence to own one in the first place.

[foursideking]

It's kinda weird though at the same time though. I mean, all it takes is 1 paranoid gun nut to see another paranoid gun nut's holster to start a shootout, right? I trust those 'pro-gunner' people the same as I trust any ordinary person on the street holding one, in the sense that I don't trust'm very much. And to quote well hated american figurehead general lee: 'men who have nothing to fear weild nothing.'

[Blyaunte]

'men who have nothing to fear wield nothing.'

 

Neat quote. I've never heard that one. :shades:

[Giordano]

 

2. Does possessing a firearm with the intention of harming another person in order to protect your "stuff" from someone else, mean that you have so little concern for the life of another human being that you'd rather kill them than lose your X-box?

:unsure:

How is this bad, exactly? The general logic, not just for the xbox specific distraction.

 

You're gonna have to evauate this a bit more. I've never once read or heard a good argument for the preservation of dangerous criminals.

 

PS. Rehabilitation back into society isn't a good argument if you don't get my post.

[sees_all1]

Well - I could sit here and argue with people that gun ownership is unnecessary, but they'd just quote random statistics that they've made up on the spot, or claim to have read/seen/not made up, without providing supporting links or evidence to the contrary.

Pretty much every statistic used in this thread has been cited by a reputable source, or a reputable source has been given when asked. Maybe you're not paying any attention?

 

1. The society in which you live in that you have to physically arm yourself in order to protect yourself from your fellow citizens; and

Our society requires police officers, who are armed to protect citizens (I don't understand your argument - "boo hoo some people are mean")

2. Does possessing a firearm with the intention of harming another person in order to protect your "stuff" from someone else, mean that you have so little concern for the life of another human being that you'd rather kill them than lose your X-box?

:unsure:

I'm pretty sure that people who own firearms strictly for defensive reasons do not have "the intention of harming another person", because it would be a contradiction of terms.

Also, take note that using a gun in a defensive situation does not mean that you have to fire it, or take the life of another human being in order to protect yourself, your family, and your possessions:

 

From Arguing with Idiots, p.57

Actual reports of successful defensive non-shootings are low (and you won't find them in the news - nothing could bore the media more than "no shots fired"), but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. Social scientists studying the phenomenon disagree widely about the actual numbers, but one set of thirteen different surveys yielded results ranging from 760,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses per year. According to another particularly well-respected survey, no shots were ever fired in over three-fourths of such defensive gun uses.

 

 

A.D.D. moment- A few grassroots efforts are under way to do the job the media won't and track defensive gun uses. You can find updates on two of them here:

www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd

www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

(emphasis mine)

 

From the back of the book:

SOURCE:

Gary Kleck, "Guns and Self Defense," in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Piscataway, N.J.: Aldine Transaction, 1997).

Google'd the source, the guy is a criminologist at Florida State University and has a phd.

[Blyaunte]

Well - I could sit here and argue with people that gun ownership is unnecessary, but they'd just quote random statistics that they've made up on the spot, or claim to have read/seen/not made up, without providing supporting links or evidence to the contrary.

Pretty much every statistic used in this thread has been cited by a reputable source, or a reputable source has been given when asked. Maybe you're not paying any attention?

 

Actually - you're the one not paying attention. Scroll back and read where I made my original comment. Two guys claiming percentages and neither of them backing the statistics with hard data. :P

 

1. The society in which you live in that you have to physically arm yourself in order to protect yourself from your fellow citizens; and

Our society requires police officers, who are armed to protect citizens (I don't understand your argument - "boo hoo some people are mean")

 

So - if you've an armed police force, then why do you need guns to protect yourself?

 

2. Does possessing a firearm with the intention of harming another person in order to protect your "stuff" from someone else, mean that you have so little concern for the life of another human being that you'd rather kill them than lose your X-box?

:unsure:

I'm pretty sure that people who own firearms strictly for defensive reasons do not have "the intention of harming another person", because it would be a contradiction of terms.

 

Really? Ask the common populace if, they were in possession of a firearm, whether or not they'd open fire on some one in their home that they thought were taking their things and you'd likely end up with a very high percentage that'd say "yes".

 

Keep in mind -- that question is posed carefully. I am not calling them a "dangerous intruder". It's not a "home invasion". It's merely someone in their home.

 

Also, take note that using a gun in a defensive situation does not mean that you have to fire it, or take the life of another human being in order to protect yourself, your family, and your possessions:

 

From Arguing with Idiots, p.57

Actual reports of successful defensive non-shootings are low (and you won't find them in the news - nothing could bore the media more than "no shots fired"), but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. Social scientists studying the phenomenon disagree widely about the actual numbers, but one set of thirteen different surveys yielded results ranging from 760,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses per year. According to another particularly well-respected survey, no shots were ever fired in over three-fourths of such defensive gun uses.

 

You're quoting Glenn Beck!??! SERIOUSLY? :lol:

[sees_all1]

Actually - you're the one not paying attention. Scroll back and read where I made my original comment. Two guys claiming percentages and neither of them backing the statistics with hard data. :P

No, the point has been made several times before and quoting it again would be redundant.

 

So - if you've an armed police force, then why do you need guns to protect yourself?

...

You're quoting Glenn Beck!??! SERIOUSLY? :lol:

You know what's funny about Arguing with Idiots? They first preface a section with an "idiot's question," then they proceed to answer it with examples, historical facts and hard data. They then go down the line of all the questions and stupid points an "idiot" would bring up in that same vein of argument.

Unfortunately, that book is at home right now, so all the statistics and sources it found are not at my fingertips, but the larger points they make that I still remember are:

-Average police response sucks, on the order of 7 minutes or more.

-The police are not required by law to protect civilians (from a court case where the cop being sued was on duty in a position to help but chose not to)

-There tends to be an inverse relationship of the percentage of population that is armed versus the overall amount of violent crime

[Blyaunte]

Actually - you're the one not paying attention. Scroll back and read where I made my original comment. Two guys claiming percentages and neither of them backing the statistics with hard data. :P

No, the point has been made several times before and quoting it again would be redundant.

 

Then I am Sally come lately - I scrolled through a few pages and saw no hard data -- just some base numbers.

 

I'd like a link if you can find it.

 

So - if you've an armed police force, then why do you need guns to protect yourself?

...

You're quoting Glenn Beck!??! SERIOUSLY? :lol:

You know what's funny about Arguing with Idiots? They first preface a section with an "idiot's question," then they proceed to answer it with examples, historical facts and hard data. They then go down the line of all the questions and stupid points an "idiot" would bring up in that same vein of argument.

Unfortunately, that book is at home right now, so all the statistics and sources it found are not at my fingertips, but the larger points they make that I still remember are:

-Average police response sucks, on the order of 7 minutes or more.

-The police are not required by law to protect civilians (from a court case where the cop being sued was on duty in a position to help but chose not to)

-There tends to be an inverse relationship of the percentage of population that is armed versus the overall amount of violent crime

 

- Isn't 7 minutes is acceptable? The common perception always seemed that you could get a pizza to arrive faster than the police.

 

- I realize that the police aren't required to protect civilians. Laws are likewise more oriented to preserving property than human lives. What do you think that says about or society?

 

- Are you saying that more guns makes less violent crime? I'd like to see that data, because from what I have found those numbers don't hold up. Let's make that a discussion point for later. I'm out of here now, and away most of the night. I will go poking about for the data I had on that and present it later. Most likely tomorrow. Okay?

[Furah]

 

- Isn't 7 minutes is acceptable? The common perception always seemed that you could get a pizza to arrive faster than the police.

 

- I realize that the police aren't required to protect civilians. Laws are likewise more oriented to preserving property than human lives. What do you think that says about or society?

 

- Are you saying that more guns makes less violent crime? I'd like to see that data, because from what I have found those numbers don't hold up. Let's make that a discussion point for later. I'm out of here now, and away most of the night. I will go poking about for the data I had on that and present it later. Most likely tomorrow. Okay?

- I'm 15 minutes away from the nearest police department, that becomes 22 minutes before police could arrive. On the other hand, I could pull out and load a shotgun and ask the intruder to leave in under 1 minute. If he doesn't leave I'd happily shoot a hole in the wall near him to show him I'm not joking. I would then call the police and let them know what happened. Even if it took them 2 hours to arrive, nobody would be hurt, the cost of replacing my stuff would be the cost of filling in the hole, compared to say, $300-400 to replace my phone, $800 to replace my computer, $500 to replace my 360 elite, or $300 for a new wii. We also own 2 race horses which would sell for around $8,000-10,000 each.

 

- To quote a song, "Your flesh means more than you."

 

- More guns may or may not lower violent crime, but, the U.S. government “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness

of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”

 

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, CDC, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Oct 3, 2003 – a systematic review of 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence.

[foursideking]

@furah: the amount of time you'd spend in jail for doing that...close to 8months. Even if a burglar/someone suspicious is intruding, it still doesn't give you the right to fire your gun off willy nilly. The question isn't 'should people own/be allowed to use guns on suspicious people', the question is 'if you're really that afraid of burglary/crime, then why do you live in your residence/place and not somewhere else'. To quote what I said to the owner of our local shooting range, 'why do you really need a gun? Are you so afraid of other people that you need insurance should one of them turn rogue? Or are you trying to make yourself seem like more of an 'artificial threat'. Either way, I say adieu'

[Giordano]

Better to be safe than sorry, no?

 

A gun is cheaper than a house.

 

1st rule of driving: never assume other drivers will be logical.

[foursideking]

And should an accident happen, a minor leg wound is worth more than a dead burglar/you spending 30yrs in jail. Why not use non-lethal weopens, like say, pepperspray. Or pepperballs. Then you can shoo away intruders without worrying about accidentally blowing their brains out. (And if you're confused about what pepperballs are, they're paintballs filled with either liquid pepperspray or other non-lethal chemicals which have the same effect as pepperspray.)

[Giordano]

If you're more worried about the defenders jail time, you'll want less strict self defense laws, not more gun control.