Guns, your take

[Backtothemac]

Since several people objected to my thread related to my new secondary occupation as a member of the posse here in my parish, and objected to my having weapons at home, and that my daughter is learning to shoot, I would like to get everyone's take on owning guns, having guns, etc.

[mactastic]

I would have titled the thread "Guns are bad/No they're not/Yes they are/Screw you Hippie/Drop dead redneck scum" myself.

:p

[Blue Velvet]

I'm not sure why people actually need guns, only to protect themselves from others with guns which they need to protect themselves from the others with guns.

[mactastic]

I'm not sure why people actually need guns, only to protect themselves from others with guns which they need to protect themselves from the others with guns.
How sure are you of your ability to fend off a mountain lion, should the need arise? Not all of us live in Central London flats you know...

[leekohler]

I have no problem with them whatsoever. I used to shoot as a kid. It was fun. I took hunter's safety courses as well.

I think if more people educated themselves about guns and how to properly handle them, we'd have fewer problems with them just like so many other things in the world.

[blackfox]

As to my 2 cents on the issue, I personally do not like guns that much. That said, I really think it is an issue of responsibility, not guns per se, that is the issue.

Like being a parent, and automobile owner, or a pet owner, some people will take it upon themselves to take all necessary steps to honor that responsibility, and others won't.

Which is why I somewhat bristle at gun-ownership being cast as a Right and not a Privilege. The latter implys a certain amount of responsibility, while the former does not.

Still, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and point to examples of poor gun-ownership/behavior and rail for a blanket, black/white solutions - such as banning firearms.

Personally, I would prefer more stringent gun-ownership laws, and mandatory, periodic testing on gun-handling, roughly analgous to some countries Drivers ED/license renewal.

[Blue Velvet]

How sure are you of your ability to fend off a mountain lion, should the need arise? Not all of us live in Central London flats you know...

No but tell me. How many deaths in the US over the last 10 years due to mountain lions versus gunshot wounds?

[mactastic]

No but tell me. How many deaths in the US over the last 10 years due to mountain lions versus gunshot wounds?
Dunno... all I know is that there are more reasons than protecting yourself from people with guns to own a gun.

[eva01]

No but tell me. How many deaths in the US over the last 10 years due to mountain lions versus gunshot wounds?

But what happens if these mountain lions are the ones holding the guns?

ah but yes to the point

I agree that guns are an uncivilized weapon. A light saber is much better.

I do not like guns for my real point.

[cslewis]

Personally, owning a gun isn't something that I'm planning on doing. I just don't see a practical application for one. To all those who do choose to own them, I just ask that they're responsible and intelligent when using them...

...just like everyone else is!

[~Shard~]

To put it simply, a gun is a weapon. It is used to destroy. That is the purpose for which it was deisgned. If we lived in a mature society where the only use for guns was for recreation (going out to the range, target practice, shooting as a hobby, etc.), sure that would be fine. But the fact is, it is in our nature to destroy ourselves, and irresponsible people misuse and abuse guns. And at the end of the day, yes, they are weapons. To that end you might as well start a similar thread gauging people's opinions on plastic explosives and land mines. To sum this line of thought up, the world would be a better place without guns. Whether that is because of guns themselves of because of society and human nature is open for debate. (Keep in mind though as well that a car can be a weapon as well if misused.)

All that being said, I'd like to shift gears and make 2 other points.

Number one, I am an Engineer, and from an engineering perspective, I appreciate the complexity and amazing design of many guns. The physics behind it fascinate me as well. I love knowing how things work, and many guns are quite the complex machines - a marvel of engineering. And yes, the same could be said for the nuclear bomb as well. ;) :cool:

Number two, my father-in-law is the head firearms instructor for the RCMP, the national police force here in Canada. He has a workshop, complete with a metal lathe, where he builds guns from scratch and bullets as well. I really appreciate his talents. He has many old guns which are more antiques than anything. And he taught his daughter (my wife) how to shoot when she was little as well, and no harm has come out of that. I do respect his skill as well, as for the past countless years he has been the Grand Aggregate Winner at all the shooting competitions he has been involved in, and has more "Top Shot of North America" trophies than I can count. Yes, he is arguably the best in the continent for marksmanship and the like - quite an achievement. :cool: All this being said, he is an easy-going, great guy, and is deifnitely not the stereotypical "gun freak" you might think would fit into this category.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the matter, since you asked... :cool:

[satty]

I obviously agree with blackfox, but want to add a couple of things as well.
Many people are not as responsible as they should be, therefore you need rules. If those rules are breached, the freedom has to be taken away.

So some of the rules could be like:

Training and test of the gun-holder incl. a license. Minimum age of a gun-holder to get such a licence, allowed to train if younger.

Training is ristricted to certain locations, i.e. shooting range, gun clubs.

Gun-holders should not be allowed to take any drugs anytime (this includes especially alcohol). Test by independent doctors multiple times a year.

Threatening other people with the use of weapons, even only vocaly, should be strictly forbidden (apart from real self-defense).

Gun-holders should not be allowed to use their weapons as "phallus-symbols" (sorry didn't find a better term).

Failing of one of the rules means loosing the license and the guns.

[iGary]

I'm for people being able to own guns as long as they are fit to own one.

[2nyRiggz]

Guns are for protection/destruction(take your pick) i'm not too fond of guns and i really don't like stupid people with guns because thats the killer right there.


Bless

[Backtothemac]

Wow, great responses.

If I could live in a society where there were no guns for bad guys to get their hands on, then would I own them? No. But reality is that in this country at least, there are plenty of people that carry them with bad thoughts in their minds.

I personally would rather have one and have a chance than not have one and not have any chance.

[calculus]

I'm for people being able to own guns as long as they are fit to own one.
Me too. My fitness test would be that wanting to own one counts you out.

[neocell]

Like I said in Backtothemac's original thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=207009), it doesn't have to be about the individual who purchased the gun, or has the gun, but what effect this may have to general population around them (ie a child who plays with it, a child's friend who plays with it, a B&E situation etc. etc. etc.). Guns are meant for injuring or killing, bottom line. One may say it's for defense, but how to you use it for defense? You injure or kill with it. And as BV has clearly indicated the need for a gun for protection against wildlife is stretching it. Sure you may be eaten by a tiger or lion or whatever, but what are you doing in that situation in the first place, and in all reality how likely is this to ever happen? Just guessing here but chances are, in the long run, you'll have a greater likelihood of having a gun related incident than a wild animal attack, so you're only doing yourself, and those around you, harm when going down this path.
Now if someone entered my home and put my loved ones at risk, yes indeed I would love to be able to protect them in the most drastically efficient way possible. But that protection for a very unlikely occurrence, can not come at the cost of have a continual risk of a gun in my house.
Everyone has to decide the balance for themselves. Cost versus benefit ratios (and I'm not talking dollars)

[calculus]

Wow, great responses.

If I could live in a society where there were no guns for bad guys to get their hands on, then would I own them? No.
Do you not think that keeping them in one's home can only help the 'bad guys' to get their hands on them?

[Blue Velvet]

If I could live in a society where there were no guns for bad guys to get their hands on, then would I own them? No.

That's probably the main reason for an individual's particular response on the matter. I've lived in three countries through my life. Not one of them permitted the easy ownership of firearms except in the case of maybe rifles/shotguns for hunting.

Even with the situation in the US, I'm not sure why people are allowed to buy assault rifles and other similar weaponry... but I'm probably misinformed here. Is it easy to get hold of an AK47 or something similar in the US?

[mactastic]

Do you not think that keeping them in one's home can only help the 'bad guys' to get their hands on them?
Not unless they have mad safecracking skillz.

[Backtothemac]

Like I said in Backtothemac's original thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=207009), it doesn't have to be about the individual who purchased the gun, or has the gun, but what effect this may have to general population around them (ie a child who plays with it, a child's friend who plays with it, a B&E situation etc. etc. etc.). Guns are meant for injuring or killing, bottom line. One may say it's for defense, but how to you use it for defense? You injure or kill with it. And as BV has clearly indicated the need for a gun for protection against wildlife is stretching it. Sure you may be eaten by a tiger or lion or whatever, but what are you doing in that situation in the first place, and in all reality how likely is this to ever happen. Just guessing here but chances are, in the long run, you'll have a greater likelihood of having a gun related incident than a wild animal attack, so you're only doing yourself, and those around you, harm when going down this path.
Now if someone entered my home and put my loved ones at risk, yes indeed I would love to be able to protect them in the most drastically efficient way possible. But that protection for a very unlikely occurrence, can not come at the cost of have a continual risk of a gun in my house.
Everyone has to decide the balance for themselves. Cost versus benefit ratios (and I'm not talking dollars)
I think you make a very vaild point. My rebutal is simple. The defense is to save your own life, or your family's life. Yes, it is an offensive action, but the end result is defensive in nature. You said that you would love to be able to protect your family in the most drastically efficent way possible. Well, that is with a hand gun, or some other weapon. You can shoot someone without it being lethal. IE knee, arm, thigh, etc. You don't have to kill someone to stop someone with a firearm. Futhermore, what is the continual risk of a weapon if you secure it? My dad had probably 20 guns in the house, be neither me, or my friends ever touched them. Because we respected them. We were taught to respect the weapon so that people did not get hurt. Also if you secure the weapon, were is the risk? I have a trigger lock and a slide lock on each weapon. I don't have them in a gun safe because I choose not to have one. I do have them where my daughter cannot gain access to them, and again, they are stored with security.

I totally respect your opinion, and position so don't think that I do not respect it. But reality is reality. In America there are to many crimes that occur to not protect yourself, and as I said, if the bad guys only had knives or rocks, etc, there would be no need for a sidearm. But, the reality is that they do get their hands on weapons, and they sadly use them to make their crimes easier. My weapons make their crimes much more difficult if the need ever arises.

[Backtothemac]

Do you not think that keeping them in one's home can only help the 'bad guys' to get their hands on them?
No, and I don't follow that logic at all. We have an alarm system on our home. If someone breaks in the alarm goes off.

In order to get the weapons, they would have to know where they are, know the combination to the trigger lock, and the slide lock, then know where my ammunition was, and the combination to the case that it is kept in.

By that time, either the cops are there, or I am there. See the point? Plus, please understand that I carry the weapon on my when I am not at home, and when home it is secure.

[iGary]

Me too. My fitness test would be that wanting to own one counts you out.

So the mere fact that you want to own a gun makes you...? :confused:

[eva01]

So what is the point of owning a gun to protect yourself in your home from buglers and such if you keep it in a safe so that it takes time to get it out by which time you could all be dead.

[Backtothemac]

So what is the point of owning a gun to protect yourself in your home from buglers and such if you keep it in a safe so that it takes time to get it out by which time you could all be dead.
Well, that too is a valid point. However, I can get to the secure location, remove the trigger lock, remove the slide lock, and load a magazine in under 15 seconds at last test. That is at the farthest point from the location of the weapon in the house. You have to know how to do it and you have to practice. Just like field striping a weapon takes practice.

[calculus]

So the mere fact that you want to own a gun makes you...? :confused:
yup ... unfit. It's the Catch 22 thing

[krimson]

Do you not think that keeping them in one's home can only help the 'bad guys' to get their hands on them?

You may want to have a talk with whoever you're getting your example from, sounds like that person is leaving his/her firearms loaded in the living room w/ the front door open for the public to see.

for me, all my firearms have trigger locks at least. My pistol is undernearth the bed in a top mounted lock box. You'd NEED to know it was there to steal it. My rifle is in a safe, it's a couple hundred lbs at least and is bolted to the floor. Ammo is locked in a different area.

i think im pretty responsible, and i'd wished everyone else is too.

[calculus]

So what is the point of owning a gun to protect yourself in your home from buglers
I know it's just a typo but it's such a lovely one. Help! There's a bugler in the house!

[calculus]

i think im pretty responsible, and i'd wished everyone else is too.
I'm sure you are doing all the right things once you've decided that you need guns - I don't doubt that at all.

[Dont Hurt Me]

People Kill, Guns do not. Thats my take wish i still had my ppk.:(

[mactastic]

You can shoot someone without it being lethal. IE knee, arm, thigh, etc. You don't have to kill someone to stop someone with a firearm.
I don't think this is such good advice. If you have enough reason to shoot someone in the leg, you should have enough reason to aim center mass and fire. Particularly in situations inside where you may or may not know what is on the other side of a wall if you miss those much smaller targets outside the center mass area.

I'd also add that for indoor use, you should look into something frangible like Glazer Saftey Slugs. You live in a developed area, right?

Also, on a related note (and I'm sure you're not there yet, but may be some day) if you reload your own ammunition, don't use that in any weapon you carry for law enforcement or self-defense purposes. Lawyers will use that as evidence of intent to do malicious harm or something along those lines if anything ever goes wrong.

[dejo]

America should take a good look at western Europe. Guns are illegal for regular citizens and its noticable in every statistic you can imagine.

I'm referencing a quote from the other thread, but in response, here's a statistic that I read in Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's book "Freakonomics": "On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than just about any other country, and yet it is one of the safest places in the world. In other words, guns do not cause crime."

[Backtothemac]

People Kill, Guns do not. Thats my take wish i still had my ppk.:(
whoooo That is a sweet weapon. They have one here in town that is used, and I almost bought it.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Even with the situation in the US, I'm not sure why people are allowed to buy assault rifles and other similar weaponry... but I'm probably misinformed here.
Is it easy to get hold of an AK47 or something similar in the US?[/QUOTE]

Because the gun lobby here has blown the intent of the Second Amendment completely out of the water.


Is it easy to get hold of an AK47 or something similar in the US?
While this is purely anecdotal evidence, my girlfriend's father had a large collection of guns (more than twenty - he was an avid hunter) that went to her when he died. We spent a good bit of time visiting local gun shops and the like as we were selling them off. I didn't see any AK-47's, but I did see quite a few M-16's and other, earlier weapons for sale. My grandfather also still has the weapons he was issued in WWII.

[neocell]

I think you make a very vaild point. My rebutal is simple. The defense is to save your own life, or your family's life. Yes, it is an offensive action, but the end result is defensive in nature. You said that you would love to be able to protect your family in the most drastically efficent way possible. Well, that is with a hand gun, or some other weapon. You can shoot someone without it being lethal. IE knee, arm, thigh, etc. You don't have to kill someone to stop someone with a firearm. Futhermore, what is the continual risk of a weapon if you secure it? My dad had probably 20 guns in the house, be neither me, or my friends ever touched them. Because we respected them. We were taught to respect the weapon so that people did not get hurt. Also if you secure the weapon, were is the risk? I have a trigger lock and a slide lock on each weapon. I don't have them in a gun safe because I choose not to have one. I do have them where my daughter cannot gain access to them, and again, they are stored with security.

I totally respect your opinion, and position so don't think that I do not respect it. But reality is reality. In America there are to many crimes that occur to not protect yourself, and as I said, if the bad guys only had knives or rocks, etc, there would be no need for a sidearm. But, the reality is that they do get their hands on weapons, and they sadly use them to make their crimes easier. My weapons make their crimes much more difficult if the need ever arises.
I can appreciate your point, though obviously I can not empathize with it as I have only lived my own life, and like I said early I have not lived in regions in which personal safety has been an issue (thus my own personal cost/benefit ratio). I only hope that for you, and all those that you interact with (directly or indirectly) throughout the time in your life in which you have weapons, are not injured because of your decision, and that the choice you have made results in "no change" in the global benefit vs detriment of guns. (I say "no change" as I don't believe any benefit can come from owning a gun, my personal opinion).

[xsedrinam]

The Alaskan take (http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ak) on gun laws is interesting. I think some of their laws have been updated, but it's interesting to see the regional, environmental influences on gun law and use.

The mountain lion vs. firearm death argument is, imo, an apples and oranges thing. Close as I can find in a brief search, the average mountain lion related death in the U.S. is somewhere ~0.86% per year 1991-2003. Preventable with protection? Don't know. The average firearm related death in U.S. for all kinds of use from '99-2003 (http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm) was ~10 per 100,000 per year.

[Dont Hurt Me]

whoooo That is a sweet weapon. They have one here in town that is used, and I almost bought it.
Its a sweet little weapon, I had the stainless version 380. very accurate. If you had big hands the slide would get you and you'd get a copy on the top of your hand. Best gun i ever had, guess i just got bored with it.

[krimson]

let me throw out a quick example of how having a gun doesn't mean you use it even if someone did break into your home before i leave work.

my buddy has a shotgun (turkey hunter) and has shells loaded with rock salt. a couple of kids broke into the house. He was upstairs atm, got his shotgun out of the locker. At the top of the stairs he saw the kids, and racked the shotgun. The kids hearing the rack, looked up and saw the shotgun in his hands and bolted dropping a baseball bat they were carrying. Police found one of the kids a few days later.

a non-lethal example

[neocell]

... Close as I can find in a brief search, the average mountain lion related death in the U.S. is somewhere ~0.86% per year 1991-2003....
That has to be for all known cougar attacks, not as a per population number or else there's going to be approximately 2.6 million deaths a year in the U.S do to medium sized kitty cats :eek:
Whereas your quote for firearm deaths (10/100 000) results in an annual incidence of ~30 000, which is amazingly huge anyways.

[xsedrinam]

That has to be for all know cougar attacks, not as a per population number or else there's going to be approximately 2.6 million deaths a year in the U.S do to medium sized kitty cats :eek:
Whereas your quote for firearm deaths (10/100 000) results in an annual incidence of ~30 000, which is amazingly huge anyways.
The first quote was an annual average per total N. American population including Canada Here's the linky (http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html#stats).

[calculus]

from New scientist

Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.

Many people in the US legitimately own firearms, and with no realistic prospect of gun ownership being banned that is unlikely to change. Around half a million guns are stolen from people's homes every year, many of which go on to be used in a crime. Making these weapons childproof, or designing them so that they can only be used by an authorised owner, could help reduce the number of gun-related injuries and deaths, says Teret.

[mactastic]

That has to be for all known cougar attacks, not as a per population number or else there's going to be approximately 2.6 million deaths a year in the U.S do to medium sized kitty cats :eek:
Whereas your quote for firearm deaths (10/100 000) results in an annual incidence of ~30 000, which is amazingly huge anyways.
Not much chance of any one individual facing a natural disaster in any given year, yet it's not considered crazy to have a first aid kit and food/water for 3 days sitting around your house is it?

[latergator116]

Even with the situation in the US, I'm not sure why people are allowed to buy assault rifles and other similar weaponry... but I'm probably misinformed here. Is it easy to get hold of an AK47 or something similar in the US?

It depends where you live, but in some places it is relatively easy (illegaly). I know some states it is much easier than others to get them legally.

[mactastic]

A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.

Many people in the US legitimately own firearms, and with no realistic prospect of gun ownership being banned that is unlikely to change. Around half a million guns are stolen from people's homes every year, many of which go on to be used in a crime. Making these weapons childproof, or designing them so that they can only be used by an authorised owner, could help reduce the number of gun-related injuries and deaths, says Teret.
Locking guns up would also do the same thing.

[blackfox]

So what is the point of owning a gun to protect yourself in your home from buglers and such.

**Special Alert**

Rogue, disgruntled marching band members roaming the streets. Lock your doors. Stay away from windows. Possible Cavalry charges imminent.

***Stay tuned for further updates***

[neocell]

The first quote was an annual average per total N. American population including Canada Here's the linky (http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html#stats).
It's not a percentage of the population, it's the average number of deaths a year in the USA and Canada, so 0.8 people die a year in the two countries due to cougars, and if those out there want to say this is because of all the defense posturing enabled by gun possession, according to the same page xsedrinam linked the total number of attacks is ~6/year.

So bottom line: 6ª deaths vs ~30 000 deaths/year

ª(giving benefit of doubt that every attack is fatal without guns)

[eva01]

**Special Alert**

Rogue, disgruntled marching band members roaming the streets. Lock your doors. Stay away from windows. Possible Cavalry charges imminent.

***Stay tuned for further updates***

maybe they are zombies :P


But wouldn't a taser suffice for a weapon in the home? Or maybe a gun with those beanbags (assuming you don't shoot for the head like Boston Police seem to do)

[scem0]

My take is that statistics show that a high percentage of firearms per capita coupled with lax regulation regarding them leads to higher death rates due to them.

So, I'd prefer to see less guns in the United States (preferably to see them be done away with for good, but I know that'll never happen) and stricter regulations on them.

e

[neocell]

Not much chance of any one individual facing a natural disaster in any given year, yet it's not considered crazy to have a first aid kit and food/water for 3 days sitting around your house is it?
Last time I checked a bandaid and some Ramen noodles weren't all too good at causing bodily harm

[LethalWolfe]

I'm a gun owner and grew up w/guns. Target shooting was a family passtime and I still target shoot today (although not nearly as much as I used to or want to). I've gone skeet/trap/sporting clay shooting a couple of times and loved it.

If you think there is a landslide of accidental shooting deaths I think you need to read up on the numbers and compare them other causes of accidental death.

I'm very pro gun education. I think kids in school should learn gun saftey along w/fire safety and poison safety. A reason, IMO, for many of the accidental shootings amoung children is they are ignorant of firearms. If children were taught not to play w/guns, just like they are taught not to play with fire, I think the number of accidental shootings would go down. I also think gun safety is important for adults too. I'd like too see more PSAs reminding people (both children and adults) about proper firearms safety.

I am also very supportive any reastic, effective gun legislation that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

And no offense to my English friends across the pond, but ya'll aren't really in a position to agrue the benifits<sp?> of banning handguns from the general populace. ;)


Lethal

[Dont Hurt Me]

I'm a gun owner and grew up w/guns. Target shooting was a family passtime and I still target shoot today (although not nearly as much as I used to or want to). I've gone skeet/trap/sporting clay shooting a couple of times and loved it.

If you think there is a landslide of accidental shooting deaths I think you need to read up on the numbers and compare them other causes of accidental death.

I'm very pro gun education. I think kids in school should learn gun saftey along w/fire safety and poison safety. A reason, IMO, for many of the accidental shootings amoung children is they are ignorant of firearms. If children were taught not to play w/guns, just like they are taught not to play with fire, I think the number of accidental shootings would go down. I also think gun safety is important for adults too. I'd like too see more PSAs reminding people (both children and adults) about proper firearms safety.

I am also very supportive any reastic, effective gun legislation that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


LethalNice post, I agree 100%. Getting Govt to do common sense things though is iffy at best. They should be doing just what you say.

[blackfox]

I must admit that I wish somehow we were able to go back to swords and such.

Such an elegant weapon, comparatively-speaking.

You know, late-night after bar-time, alley sword fights. Duels. Drive-by beheadings.

Guns just make things too easy. If you want to kill me, I want you to at least put some time and effort into it.

[Blue Velvet]

And no offense to my English friends across the pond, but ya'll aren't really in a position to agrue the benifits<sp?> of banning handguns from the general populace. ;)

And why not?

[FragTek]

Since several people objected to my thread related to my new secondary occupation as a member of the posse here in my parish, and objected to my having weapons at home, and that my daughter is learning to shoot, I would like to get everyone's take on owning guns, having guns, etc.
Well considering my father is THE director of competitive shooting events for the NRA here at NRA HQ in Fairfax you can guess what my stance on guns is :)

Viva la weaponry!

[Dont Hurt Me]

because they are illegal as in a question:confused: edit in response to blue velvet

[mactastic]

But wouldn't a taser suffice for a weapon in the home? Or maybe a gun with those beanbags (assuming you don't shoot for the head like Boston Police seem to do)
No a taser won't suffice. There are two types of electrical discharge weapons, one that requires you to make physical contact with your target and one that shoots a pair of darts. For the first type, you have to engage with your target at close range - not something you really want to do if you can avoid it. For the second type you only get one chance, as the weapon takes time to reload.

In either case, you are out of luck if your target is wearing something like a leather jacket.

As for a beanbag gun, those are generally powered by 12ga shotgun shells - and if you've never fired one of those, they have a hell of a kick. Not generally suitable for persons of smaller stature.

[mactastic]

Last time I check a bandaid and some Ramen noodles weren't all too good at causing bodily harm
Touche... however, my point was that being prepared for unlikely circumstances isn't necessarily unwise.

Ramen and noodles won't help you much if your house gets broken into either.

[calculus]

And no offense to my English friends across the pond, but ya'll aren't really in a position to agrue the benifits<sp?> of banning handguns from the general populace. ;)


Lethal
What?

[eva01]

No a taser won't suffice. There are two types of electrical discharge weapons, one that requires you to make physical contact with your target and one that shoots a pair of darts. For the first type, you have to engage with your target at close range - not something you really want to do if you can avoid it. For the second type you only get one chance, as the weapon takes time to reload.

In either case, you are out of luck if your target is wearing something like a leather jacket.

As for a beanbag gun, those are generally powered by 12ga shotgun shells - and if you've never fired one of those, they have a hell of a kick. Not generally suitable for persons of smaller stature.


I see, thank-you for the intriguing post

[mactastic]

I see, thank-you for the intriguing post
Just to be clear - I'm not saying a taser is a bad choice for self-defense; for some people it may be perfect. I'm just saying that a taser is not interchangable with a gun in a life-threatening situation.

[eva01]

Just to be clear - I'm not saying a taser is a bad choice for self-defense; for some people it may be perfect. I'm just saying that a taser is not interchangable with a gun in a life-threatening situation.


I will say this however. Do that many people really undergo life-threatening situations? It may just be because where i live which is relatively peaceful compared to most other areas of the country

[neocell]

Touche... however, my point was that being prepared for unlikely circumstances isn't necessarily unwise.

Ramen and noodles won't help you much if your house gets broken into either.
I understand the point you're making, but as I said earlier I don't believe having a gun at home is an advantageous trade-off.

And it's okay to agree that we disagree, as long as we're stopping to think, opening our minds and bending the spoon

[LethalWolfe]

And why not?
Because since England cracked down on handguns gun violence has gone up (while over the same stretch of time gun violence has gone down in the US). Why did this happen might you ask? Well, there are a few reasons.
1. Law abiding citizens aren't the ones holding up gas stations.
2. Criminals already in possesion of a handgun probably aren't going to go, "Oh crap, it's illegal for me to own this. Guess I should turn it in."
3. Criminals not already in possesion of a handgun will just buy one off the black market (most likely a weapon that has been smuggled into the country).
4. Guns don't magically create criminals. Gun crime is a symptom of a larger soci-economic problem.
4a. Much of the gun violence in the US is drug/gang related, and the UK is seeing an increase in gun violence for the same reasons. There is a lot of money to be made selling drugs and dealers will kill to protect their turf.


Lethal

[xsedrinam]

Touche... however, my point was that being prepared for unlikely circumstances isn't necessarily unwise.

Ramen and noodles won't help you much if your house gets broken into either.
I bet there are some in here who could sling a mean, wet noodle. Still, if faced by a wild cougar, I'd like my chances with a Remington rather than a Ronco. :p

[mactastic]

I will say this however. Do that many people really undergo life-threatening situations? It may just be because where i live which is relatively peaceful compared to most other areas of the country
Well, the problem is that if you are confronted with one, you rarely have time to then prepare yourself.

Case in point, my mother went through a situation which wasn't quite life-threatening in and of itself, but which involved a man climbing through the (tiny, but open) window of her bedroom at night. At that point it's too late to prepare yourself. You're either ready, or you're not. (Oh, and she lives in an exceedinly low crime area BTW.)

It's like I was saying before about being prepared for any other type of situation. Here in California there are earthquakes. Your individual odds of being in a bad way after an earthquake are very very low. (Probably in the same range as being attacked by a wild animal.) But when that earthquake hits, it's too late to say "I really should run out and get some canned food and water". Thus, the wise people have enough food and water to take care of themselves (and any assorted pets) for 3 days minimum on hand at all times regardless of the fact that the risk factor is exceedingly low at any given time.

[blackfox]

Still, if faced by a wild cougar, I'd like my chances with a Remington rather than a Ronco. :p
Oh, I don't know.

If faced with a cougar, I would calmly and rationally explain to the cougar why it would be bad to do me bodily-harm and/or eat me. I would explain my reticence about all humanity has done to encroach on cougar habitat and apologize profusely.

I would be armed only with graphs, pie-charts, a powerpoint presentation, hand-puppets and I-can't-believe-it's-not-bacon doggie treats.

All it takes is understanding. Kitties want to be good.

[xsedrinam]

Oh, I don't know.

If faced with a cougar, I would calmly and rationally explain to the cougar why it would be bad to do me bodily-harm and/or eat me. I would explain my reticence about all humanity has done to encroach on cougar habitat and apologize profusely.

I would be armed only with graphs, pie-charts, a powerpoint presentation, hand-puppets and I-can't-believe-it's-not-bacon doggie treats.

All it takes is understanding. Kitties want to be good.
Almost purr-suasive. :D

[Peterkro]

I'm referencing a quote from the other thread, but in response, here's a statistic that I read in Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's book "Freakonomics": "On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than just about any other country, and yet it is one of the safest places in the world. In other words, guns do not cause crime."

The reason they have so many guns is after serving their time in the defence forces they get to keep them at home(in case of invasion etc) unfortunately criminals know this and those guns are a major source of black market weapons in Europe(Italy but also other countries to a lesser degree).There are no studies about this that I know of but I can assure you it's true.

About the topic I should probably stay out of it but hey ho.On the one hand if citizens are not armed they are at the mercy of Governments on the other easy availability means more opportunity for gun crime.A further thing is why is gun crime so much higher in the US than Canada,Oz,NZ etc etc,my personal believe is it's because of the large part religion plays in US society,and the theory of original sin meaning humans are bad therefore they are dangerous so let's get our retaliation in first.Personally if someone breaks into my home and I've got a gun I'm not going to shoot them let them have what they want, I wouldn't expect a burglar to be a rapist/murderer (though it is possible),US thinking seems to be assume they are (I'm not saying all USeans are like that but it's a general impression I get from here).Anyway it's a very complicated discussion and no easy answers.

[XNine]

I think guns are great. Someone breaks into your house? Kill them. Someone in your garage stealing your car? Kill them. Someone shoot at your house while passing by? Kill them.

People need to learn to not touch **** that isn't there's. At the same time, people also need to know gun saftey, and practice it. If a 15 year old kid uses his father's gun to kill himself, it's the father's fault the gun was used, because he didn't properly secure it.

My grandfather fought in WWII and is really into hunting (for food, not trophy) and he has never killed anyone outside of a few nazis on the battlefield. He has nearly 30 guns in his posession, and taught all of his kids (all 5, even the 3 girls) how to fire a gun.

Nothing wrong with guns. In fact, it's the people USING the guns that are the problem. Do guns walk down the street and kill people all by themselves? No.

[stubeeef]

didn't read the entire thread, but some lucid thoughts on the first page. I am not against gun ownership, but would like to require training.

I am against the ownership of certain "assault" weapons. I almost changed my mind on that after SCOTUS pulled there eminent domain ruling, I started thinking it my be good to be armed to the teeth to keep my house from Target or Wally World.

In all seriousness, I would want required training, demonstrated capability, and no assault type weapons.

I do not want a national gun registry.

[FragTek]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Gun control means having a steady aim.

'Nuff said :p

[Backtothemac]

from New scientist

Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.

Many people in the US legitimately own firearms, and with no realistic prospect of gun ownership being banned that is unlikely to change. Around half a million guns are stolen from people's homes every year, many of which go on to be used in a crime. Making these weapons childproof, or designing them so that they can only be used by an authorised owner, could help reduce the number of gun-related injuries and deaths, says Teret.

Here is my arguement, and I agree with Lethal. Proper training will result in far lower numbers. I wish there were numbers on the number of people that were killed by a firearm and did not have one to defend themselves.

Proper training will reduce threats. There are also plenty of other weapons that you have in your home, knives, etc that have just as deadly of killing power as a gun. I too (with Lethal) agree that we need reform in the legislation that would reduce the number of weapons in the wrong peoples hands. Make stealing a gun a federal felony, and having one illegally a federal felony with major jail time.

Or, we just open hunting season on the bad guys :) :p

[mactastic]

Here is my arguement, and I agree with Lethal. Proper training will result in far lower numbers. I wish there were numbers on the number of people that were killed by a firearm and did not have one to defend themselves.
Proper training in addition to properly securing your weapons when you are not around.

Keep your self-defense weapon in a safe under your bed. Keep the rest of them in a safe in your closet or somewhere else. Follow those rules and there will be very few weapons stolen or misued by non-owners.

Problem is, I've known a couple people who've had their guns stolen because they didn't follow these precautions. I've met people who keep loaded weapons in unsecured locations.

[Peterkro]

I think guns are great. Someone breaks into your house? Kill them. Someone in your garage stealing your car? Kill them. Someone shoot at your house while passing by? Kill them.


Hmm maybe your being sarcastic I hope so.If your a burglar and you think there's a good chance you'll be killed if your unarmed even burglars have enough brains to figure go armed to the teeth and kill any body around before they kill you.Does this not all sound a bit familiar to you,possible WMD's invade Iraq,possible Communist take over invade Vietnam,some people in Chile vote in a Socialist government fund a right wing strike and use the CIA and big business to force a crisis then help install a nutty right wing dictator so were this is going? I think this violence is deep rooted in the US psyche from the NRA to nuclear weapons.

[Ugg]

I'm referencing a quote from the other thread, but in response, here's a statistic that I read in Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's book "Freakonomics": "On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than just about any other country, and yet it is one of the safest places in the world. In other words, guns do not cause crime."


That's bs. What prevents crime is not owning a gun, but a society that values the welfare of their citizens.

BTTM, personally I think you're paranoid. What is the crime rate where you live and how many people have been killed by guns within a 50 mile radius of where you live in the last ten years? And what percentage of those people were killed through home invasions/robberies? I'll bet you have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than you do by someone with a gun. Are you also a supporter of MADD (http://www.madd.org/) ?

[mactastic]

If your a burglar and you think there's a good chance you'll be killed if your unarmed even burglars have enough brains to figure go armed to the teeth and kill any body around before they kill you.
Well as long as we're talking potential thoughts that might go through a criminal's mind, if you're a burglar and you think there's a good chance that you'll be faced with the business end of a .45ACP, even burglars have enough brains to think that they just might want to keep said brain inside their skull. That thought is just as likely to occur as wanting to kill all the witnesses.

Besides, let's face it... if someone breaks into my house I'm not stopping to ask if they are planning to hurt me or just take my stuff -- and I certainly won't take the word of someone who just broke into my house that they mean me no harm. If they are capable of robbing me of my stuff, they're certainly capable of lying to my face.

[scem0]

but would you shoot without asking? Saying 'freeze' and getting your spouse/child/room mate to dial 911 is one thing, and shooting without saying anything else is another.

e

[XNine]

Hmm maybe your being sarcastic I hope so.If your a burglar and you think there's a good chance you'll be killed if your unarmed even burglars have enough brains to figure go armed to the teeth and kill any body around before they kill you.Does this not all sound a bit familiar to you,possible WMD's invade Iraq,possible Communist take over invade Vietnam,some people in Chile vote in a Socialist government fund a right wing strike and use the CIA and big business to force a crisis then help install a nutty right wing dictator so were this is going? I think this violence is deep rooted in the US psyche from the NRA to nuclear weapons.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I think if someone wants to break into my place, that I work for, that I pay for, and steal my things, that I have the right to take their life.

That doesn't mean I'd walk down the street and open fire on some innocent bystander. No. That's wrong. But I do believe that people need to learn to respect the things of others. Cars that are stolen likely aren't recovered in tip-top shape, causing the owner to spend another 500 bucks for the insurance to cover it, if they even will. So, if the chance arises that a car thief be killed to prevent this, fine by me.

Sweden has a drastically lower crime rate because people know "hey, every house has a gun and if I walk in I could be dead."

[Peterkro]

Well as long as we're talking potential thoughts that might go through a criminal's mind, if you're a burglar and you think there's a good chance that you'll be faced with the business end of a .45ACP, even burglars have enough brains to think that they just might want to keep said brain inside their skull. That thought is just as likely to occur as wanting to kill all the witnesses.

Besides, let's face it... if someone breaks into my house I'm not stopping to ask if they are planning to hurt me or just take my stuff -- and I certainly won't take the word of someone who just broke into my house that they mean me no harm. If they are capable of robbing me of my stuff, they're certainly capable of lying to my face.
Your definitely paranoid.:confused:

[Ugg]

Because since England cracked down on handguns gun violence has gone up (while over the same stretch of time gun violence has gone down in the US). Why did this happen might you ask? Well, there are a few reasons.
1. Law abiding citizens aren't the ones holding up gas stations.
2. Criminals already in possesion of a handgun probably aren't going to go, "Oh crap, it's illegal for me to own this. Guess I should turn it in."
3. Criminals not already in possesion of a handgun will just buy one off the black market (most likely a weapon that has been smuggled into the country).
4. Guns don't magically create criminals. Gun crime is a symptom of a larger soci-economic problem.
4a. Much of the gun violence in the US is drug/gang related, and the UK is seeing an increase in gun violence for the same reasons. There is a lot of money to be made selling drugs and dealers will kill to protect their turf.


Lethal


There's one reason and one reason only for the uptick in violence in the UK and her last name is Thatcher. By destroying the social fabric of the country she is THE reason why the UK is a much more violent society. If you look at any other country in Europe that has strict controls on guns, you will not find a corresponding increase in gun related crime or killings.

Get your facts straight.

[XNine]

Your definitely paranoid.:confused:

He's not paranoid, he's right. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt that just broke into your house is going to get you and your family killed. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Of course if you have a family you want to make sure it's not one of them fumbling through the house, as I've heard of children being shot by their parents during christmas season for rustling the presents under the tree at 2AM.

It's all about precaution and safety. Your life or theirs.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The fact is people Kill, not inanimate objects. Thats the fact.

[mactastic]

but would you shoot without asking? Saying 'freeze' and getting your spouse/child/room mate to dial 911 is one thing, and shooting without saying anything else is another.

e
No I'd ask the person to identify themselves for sure, and warn them that if they do not comply they will get shot. But that's about as far as my generosity goes towards unauthorized people in my house.

If they comply with orders to lay on the floor face down with their hands on their head I'll gladly wait until the cops arrive and let them handle it. If they flee I won't shoot, but only because I'm not legally protected anymore.

[LethalWolfe]

There's one reason and one reason only for the uptick in violence in the UK and her last name is Thatcher. By destroying the social fabric of the country she is THE reason why the UK is a much more violent society. If you look at any other country in Europe that has strict controls on guns, you will not find a corresponding increase in gun related crime or killings.

Get your facts straight.
You tell me to get my facts straight yet all you offer is poltical hyperbole, and your post supports mine. :confused: I agree w/you. Address the socio-economic problem and you'll reduce crime. Violent crime, gun based or not, is just a symptom.


Lethal

[Mike Teezie]

It sounds odd, because I'm a pretty liberal guy - but I like guns.

They are interesting to me. My dad just got a Walther P99 9mm, my mom has a Glock from back when she was a street cop.

It's a blast to go to the range and shoot targets. It's a fun challenge. And going to the range is definitely a shakeup from my normal day, when the only thing I'm shooting is people.....with my camera. I plan on getting a P99 like my dad's in the next year or so. When my dad bought his pistol, he thinks the place he got it from sent his info to the NRA, because they have been calling every few weeks since he got it. It's great fun to hear my dad tell the guy on the phone he should be ashamed of himself for spreading such blatant disinformation about gun rights, and getting the average Joe Gun-nut all whipped into a frenzy.

Anyway - the only way I could ever shoot anything alive, is if it were an immediate danger to me or my family.

And sorry, but I just don't see the need for a non-military civilian, police or otherwise, to own an M4 assault rifle.

[Ugg]

You tell me to get my facts straight yet all you offer is poltical hyperbole, and your post supports mine. :confused: I agree w/you. Address the socio-economic problem and you'll reduce crime. Violent crime, gun based or not, is just a symptom.


Lethal

Sorry, got so incensed at your weak relationship between crime figures in the US and the UK that I didn't read your fifth point.

However, claiming that stricter gun laws increase gun related crime is pretty lazy and doesn't address the real issue.

It's interesting to note that since Poland joined the EU ~300,000 Poles have moved to the UK and most are working. However, the unemployment rate for minorities already living in the UK and speaking English, is extremely high, hmmmm. I would say that the UK is heading down the same path the US is and due to ingrained racism and poor integration policies, a permanent criminal underclass is in the making.




On another note, Switzerland has for years provided heroin for addicts. The crime rate has dropped along with the mortality rate for drug users and the number of new users has plummeted. If we agree that drug related crime is at the top of the list, then maybe it's time we do something that's constructive and proven to reduce crime instead of arming ourselves to the hilt and allowing our youth to be killed by indiscriminate gun ownership. Of course, the religious right and I would bet, the majority of NRA members, are simply unwilling to lend a hand to those caught in the vicious circle of drug use and would rather spend a fortune on armaments and donations to their congressmen than find a real solution.

It's pretty funny how Switzerland only ever gets credit for gun ownership and never for its substantial reduction of drug usage.

[Backtothemac]

That's bs. What prevents crime is not owning a gun, but a society that values the welfare of their citizens.

BTTM, personally I think you're paranoid. What is the crime rate where you live and how many people have been killed by guns within a 50 mile radius of where you live in the last ten years? And what percentage of those people were killed through home invasions/robberies? I'll bet you have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than you do by someone with a gun. Are you also a supporter of MADD (http://www.madd.org/) ?
Ugg, I am going to serve the state as a member of the posse of Lafayette Parish in state emergency situations. Did you not see the videos from New Orleans last year? When things happen sometime people go nuts, and you have to have order. How do you establish order with a law enforcement agency that has the power to enforce order?

Here are the statisics for the year 2000 in our parish.
Crime Number
Total 10,677
Murder 4
Rape 111
Robbery 213
Aggravated Assault 869
Burglary 1,875
Larceny - theft 6,855
Motor vehicle thefts 717
Population 182,633
Coverage indicator 100%

That is enough reason for me to own a weapon. 213 robberys, 111 rapes, 869 assaults, 1,875 burglarys, 717 vehicle theft, and 4 murders.

Here is 2002 and 2003 for the state of Louisiana.
LOUISIANA INDEX CRIMES
PERCENT CHANGE BY NUMBER OF OFFENSES
OFFENSE 2002 2003 % Change
MURDER 593 586 -1.18
RAPE 1,529 1,849 20.93
ROBBERY 7,123 7,069 -0.76
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 20,445 19,588 -4.19
VIOLENT CRIME TOTAL 29,690 29,062 -2.12
BURGLARY 45,350 44,877 -1.04
LARCENY-THEFT 133,302 130,810 -1.87
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 20,168 19,882 -1.42
NONVIOLENT CRIME
TOTAL 198,838 195,569 -1.64

More disturbing is the following.
Offense 2002 Rank 2003 Rank
Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter 1st 1st
Forcible Rape 25th 12th
Robbery 10th 11th
Aggravated Assault 6th 6th
Violent Crime Ranking 7th 7th
Burglary 9th 8th
Larceny-Theft 10th 10th
Motor Vehicle Theft 15th 16th
Non-Violent Crime Ranking 8th 9th
Total Index Crime Ranking 6th 9th
LOUISIANA'S RANKING IN
INDEX CRIME CATEGORIES
2002—2003

Those are numbers against the other 50 states. So, in Louisiana, we are number 1 in murders, number 6 in assault, 10th in robbery, 7th in violent crime, 9th in burglary.

So, I ask you, so do you still think that I am paranoid?

Here is a link to the document quoted.
http://www.cole.state.la.us/DOCS/CrimeinLa2005_4.pdf

Also notice that in 2003 alone we had 7 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

[Desertrat]

"Assault weapons" are selective fire-control, capable of fully-automatic rate of fire. To buy and own one requires payment of $200 to the BATFE and a signoff from the local police chief or sheriff. There is then a full background check. Fingerprints, mug shot and all that red tape stuff. To date, only two known cases of crimes with full-auto guns have occurred. At least one, if not both, were done by police officers with departmental weapons.

The so-called assault weapons so beloved of conventional wisdom are ugly, but are semi-automatic and function no differently from many other rifles that don't bear the stigma.

If you peruse the website of the Center for Disease Control, you find that accidental deaths via firearm run a total of some 1,000 per year, with around 100 of those involving children age 14 and under.

The U.S. has some 50+ thousand homicides per year. Of those, some 11,000 involve handguns; some 2,000 to 3,000 involve rifles and shotguns. There is an approximately equal number of suicides by use of firearms.

A statistical analysis by Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University concluded that at least 800,000 times a year, a firearm is used to prevent a crime; the total could be as much as 2.5 million such events. During the time of this study, the US official records (Dept of Justice) showed a total of all crimes involving firearms was roughly 600,000.

In the book "Under The Gun" by Wrioght, Rossi and Daly (Univ. of Fla. Press, 1985), the primary conclusion is that no gun control law ever passed in the state of Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crime involving firearms.

The majority of all gun crime in the US involves drugs. Commonly it's some sort of robbery to get the money for purchase, or fights over "turf" from which to sell drugs. This doesn't say much in favor of the way the War On Some Drugs is done.

In over forty years I've not had a major car wreck; no house fire, and nobody has sued me. I carry insurance. To me, a firearm can be used as a form of insurance against violence against my precious body--or against my family.

Both state and federal courts have held that the police have no requirement to protect an individual; only the overall peace of the community, absent actually witnessing a crime in progress. Police mostly function as janitors. I thus have the responsibility for my own safety.

'Rat

[Backtothemac]

Rat, very well said, and I agree with you, but is it really 50,000 murders a year? Or 5,000?

[MACDRIVE]

I think people should be given a psychiatric test before being allowed to own a gun. But not the generic scantron tests that the military and security guard employers use; I ace those everytime. :D

[xsedrinam]

The Cold, Dead Fingers Covenant
And he spoke these words before the NRA:

I - Thou shalt have no other guns better than mine.
II - Thou shalt not make unto me any grave situation.
III - Thou shalt not curse after being shot in the arse.
IV - Thou who dost break in on the Sabbath, shall instantly be made holy.
V - Thou who dost say somethin’ ‘bout my mama shalt be lit up and that right early.
VI - Thou shalt not kill, unadvisedly.
VII -Thou shalt not mess with my partner lest thou be messed with.
VIII -Thou shalt not steal away once I’m done with ya’.
IX - Thou shalt tell the truth or pay the consequences.
X - Thou shalt not want anything I got, you got that?
---may cause mass Exodus

[Peterkro]

He's not paranoid, he's right. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt that just broke into your house is going to get you and your family killed. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Of course if you have a family you want to make sure it's not one of them fumbling through the house, as I've heard of children being shot by their parents during christmas season for rustling the presents under the tree at 2AM.

It's all about precaution and safety. Your life or theirs.

I don't have figures for burglars killing people whilst committing their crime but I'm willing to bet it's very small indeed.It's the deep paranoia of many US citizens fed by decades of propaganda force fed by TV newspapers and hollywood that leads to the shoot first ask questions later kind of thinking.Wether by the president,the generals or householders.What exactly are Americans frightened of leave your car at home walk round the block talk to people it isn't that dangerous,sure crime happens but not that often,do you want to live in a mental prison or be a human, for me it's a no brainer.

To those speaking of rising gun crime in the UK, sure it's rising a bit at the moment but it's still miniscule compared to US rates wether overall or per million population.By the way I live in the centre of the area described as the most dangerous in Europe and having been based here for 30 odd years I've seen all sorts but very little violent crime by locals on other locals.A few riots etc and some drug related killings but almost exclusively drug dealer on drug dealer.

To Ugg,there's quite a longish thread on here somewhere about legal distribution of heroin in Switzerland, Holland and the UK (60's and 70's) in the UK's case the right wing press screamed their head of until the government stopped, cue the big drug problem we have today.In the other thread it's virtually just me arguing for legal distribution the vast majority of people just start foaming at the mouth and repeating all the crap they've swallowed from the media.

[EricNau]

I'm referencing a quote from the other thread, but in response, here's a statistic that I read in Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's book "Freakonomics": "On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than just about any other country, and yet it is one of the safest places in the world. In other words, guns do not cause crime."
In Switzerland, all males from 18 to 40 years old are required to be in the military. They are provided with guns and ammunition that they keep in their possession, and are trained regularly on how to use them. It only makes sense that the Swiss would have the most guns, but through good training, have less accidents. Furthermore, the Swiss are known to be much more strict, self-controled, and orderly than most Americans (and others).

[dejo]

That's bs.

What's BS about this? "On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than just about any other country..." That's a fact. "...and yet it is one of the safest places in the world." Again fact. So the statement that "guns do not cause crime" follows appropriately. What Steven Levitt is trying to show here is that although there may be a correlation between guns and crime, one is not the cause of the other.

What prevents crime is not owning a gun, but a society that values the welfare of their citizens.

And I don't disagree with you on that.

In Switzerland, all males from 18 to 40 years old are required to be in the military. They are provided with guns and ammunition that they keep in their possession, and are trained regularly on how to use them. It only makes sense that the Swiss would have the most guns, but through good training, have less accidents. Furthermore, the Swiss are known to be much more strict, self-controled, and orderly than most Americans (and others).

Yes, I'm aware of this. In fact, the two sentences before the ones I quoted were: "But guns are not the whole story. In Switzerland, every adult male is issued an assault rifle for militia duty and is allowed to keep the gun at home."

Here is more of the section I'm quoting from for fodder:

"There are enough guns in the United States that if you gave one to every adult, you would run out of adults before you ran out of guns. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. homicides involve a gun, a far greater fraction than in other industrialized countries. It would therefore seem likely that our homicide rate is so high because guns are so easily available. Research indeed shows this to be true."

"But guns are not the whole story. In Switzerland, every adult male is issued an assault rifle for militia duty and is allowed to keep the gun at home. On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than just about any other country, and yet it is one of the safest places in the world. In other words, guns do not cause crime. That said, the established U.S. methods of keeping guns away from the people who do cause crime are, at best, feeble. And since a gun--unlike a bag of cocaine or a car or a pair of pants--lasts pretty much forever, even turning off the spigot of new guns still leaves an ocean of available ones."

"Freakonomics" is an interesting read. For example, the authors state that the biggest reason for the significant drop in the rate of violent crime during the '90s in the U.S. was not innovative policing strategies, increased reliance on prisons, changes in crack and other drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun control laws, a strong economy, or increased number of police. The biggest reason? Roe v. Wade

[LethalWolfe]

Sorry, got so incensed at your weak relationship between crime figures in the US and the UK that I didn't read your fifth point.
No problem. But I think you are reading way too much into what I'm saying.

However, claiming that stricter gun laws increase gun related crime is pretty lazy and doesn't address the real issue.
I never said that nor meant to imply it.

In my post that started this exchange all I was trying to do was point out how disarming law abiding citizens is not an effective way to combat gun crime, and that in the US the gun crime rate is going down even though we're all just a bunch of drunk cowboys that use .45's to open our beer cans and turn off light switches. ;)

It wasn't a "Hey, we're better than you" thing it was a "Hey, in reality your solution doesn't work so please stop telling me that I'd be safer if the gov'ment took all my firearms" :)

On another note, Switzerland has for years provided heroin for addicts. The crime rate has dropped along with the mortality rate for drug users and the number of new users has plummeted. If we agree that drug related crime is at the top of the list, then maybe it's time we do something that's constructive and proven to reduce crime instead of arming ourselves to the hilt and allowing our youth to be killed by indiscriminate gun ownership. Of course, the religious right and I would bet, the majority of NRA members, are simply unwilling to lend a hand to those caught in the vicious circle of drug use and would rather spend a fortune on armaments and donations to their congressmen than find a real solution.
Politicians in general in the US aren't interested in finding a real solution, IMO. But the are very interested in backing tough sounding, yet throughly pointless, bills like the Assault Weapons Ban that sunset last year(two years ago?). Starting in the '90s the BATF was instructed to be more "friendly" when dealing w/the gun industry. So, for example, BATF agents must give warning before showing up for surprise inspections. :rolleyes:

It's pretty funny how Switzerland only ever gets credit for gun ownership and never for its substantial reduction of drug usage.
I was never aware of the Swiss reduction of drug usage, but I always gave them credit for solving the kind of soci-ecomic problems that breed violent crimes.


Lethal

[calculus]

I've been wondering if anyone here has found themselves in a situation where they have needed to use a gun to defend themselves?

[LethalWolfe]

I've been wondering if anyone here has found themselves in a situation where they have needed to use a gun to defend themselves?
Almost. Last summer I caught a guy climbing thru a window in my apartment (I live in the 2nd floor). But it turned out to be my new neighbor. He'd locked himself out and thought he was climbing in his roommates bedroom window. I almost went for my gun, but the situation felt more like Monty Python than home invasion so I just politely asked, "Can I help you?" and we went from there.

I've never required the use of my smoke detectors, fire extinguisher, emergency flares, spare tire, or emergency food & water, but I'm not going to ditch those either.


Lethal

[blackfox]

The Cold, Dead Fingers Covenant
And he spoke these words before the NRA:

I - Thou shalt have no other guns better than mine.
II - Thou shalt not make unto me any grave situation.
III - Thou shalt not curse after being shot in the arse.
IV - Thou who dost break in on the Sabbath, shall instantly be made holy.
V - Thou who dost say somethin’ ‘bout my mama shalt be lit up and that right early.
VI - Thou shalt not kill, unadvisedly.
VII -Thou shalt not mess with my partner lest thou be messed with.
VIII -Thou shalt not steal away once I’m done with ya’.
IX - Thou shalt tell the truth or pay the consequences.
X - Thou shalt not want anything I got, you got that?
---may cause mass Exodus
Thou dost maketh my heart glad, and mine nose doth gushest forth with sweet liquid which hast only just entered mine mouth(eth).

Thou are now most assuredly welcome on thy holiest of MR feast days, in the time that cometh in thy future, in a grassy area in the lands of Texas, that dost not be named yet, but will haveth much meats with BBQ and possibly salad from thine potato (or another unrelated potato).

Leaveth thy holy weapons in thy home, however.

[calculus]

Almost. Last summer I caught a guy climbing thru a window in my apartment (I live in the 2nd floor). But it turned out to be my new neighbor. He'd locked himself out and thought he was climbing in his roommates bedroom window. I almost went for my gun, but the situation felt more like Monty Python than home invasion so I just politely asked, "Can I help you?" and we went from there.

I've never required the use of my smoke detectors, fire extinguisher, emergency flares, spare tire, or emergency food & water, but I'm not going to ditch those either.


Lethal
Well done for keeping your cool. Just when I had you down as 'trigger happy' you had to go and do something like that! (that bit is a joke btw in case anybody has any doubts - my I'm getting paranoid!).

[Peterkro]

I remember this case the guy was a Brit tourist who was lost and knocked on a door to ask for directions FFS.It's a short article but there's more out there if you search:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE3DE1538F933A25751C0A962958260

[Backtothemac]

I've been wondering if anyone here has found themselves in a situation where they have needed to use a gun to defend themselves?
I have twice.

Once was when I was a bouncer in New Orleans. We had a guy in the bar that was on some serious drugs and was fighting with the bouncers. He had already stabbed me, and one other bouncer, and was tearing the hell out of the place. I had my 92FS there in my locker that I would carry to work, and then lock up (living in the quarter isn't very safe, so I was always armed). While the guy was wrestling with our other two bouncers, I went to my locker, and got my 92. I pulled it, and used it to intimidate him into submission.

Second time, was when I was in Tuscaloosa after the tornado in 2000. I was working search and rescue, and there were some nice scumbags looting after the storm. I was searching a house (or what was left of one) and two "gentlemen" were helping themselves to what was left of the family's christmas presents. I promptly removed my side arm and let them know that it would be in their best interest to leave what they were taking, and for them to leave. Because the guard would shoot on site any looters.

So, yes, I have drawn a weapon twice, and would not have hesitated to use it. As I have said, I will go home to my family.;)

[krimson]

I've been wondering if anyone here has found themselves in a situation where they have needed to use a gun to defend themselves?


ill admit that when i was younger, i ran with a bad crowd. i've been shot at twice, once was a car to car on the highway. i've shot back once and only once.
the weight and possibilty of killing someone didn't sit well with me, and i reformed my circle of friends shortly after. unfortunately, elements knew roughly where I lived, and so i felt the need to arm myself. Fortunately, i've not had the need to use my firearms in self-defense, and i hope that i never need to.

[calculus]

Thanks for the examples gentlemen.

[takao]

oh yeah the "look at switzerland" thing is coming up again :rolleyes:

well guess what in switzerland the rifle has to be locked in a drawer.. the package of ammunition is actually sealed and the rifle has to be kept unloaded (so protection against robbery/assault)

all that is of course enforced by the (military) police through random inspections .. imagine that for the US ... i guess most would be screaming "OMG police state"

that aside the swiss with assault guns at home also have to come to yearly militia excercises (1-2 weeks) and have to keep a lot of equipment at home aswell

and it's crime rates are far from being better than in the surrounding countries especially in the drug crime scene ...


if "more guns" => "less crimes" would be true then the US prison system would be a lot smaller (despite the fact the the US Police rating on solving murder cases is far away from other countries anyway )

and in more than 70% of all murders the victim knew the killer.. mostly family members close relatives

[LethalWolfe]

oh yeah the "look at switzerland" thing is coming up again :rolleyes:
The Swiss regularly get brought up because many people seem to believe that the mere presence of firearms makes people commit crimes. And if that was the case the Switzerland wouldn't be a very nice place to visit.

if "more guns" => "less crimes" would be true then the US prison system would be a lot smaller (despite the fact the the US Police rating on solving murder cases is far away from other countries anyway )

I'm not saying that "more guns" => "less crimes". I'm saying that removing guns from law abiding citizens has not proven an effective way to reduce gun crime, and places where the general populace can own guns have been able to reduce gun crime, so maybe the problem isn't law abiding citizens owning firearms.

Like I've said in just about all the gun threads that have been started here, I'm all for realistic, effective solutions to the problem, and I'm completely against ineffective, "feel good" legislation.


Lethal

[Ugg]

I'm not saying that "more guns" => "less crimes". I'm saying that removing guns from law abiding citizens has not proven an effective way to reduce gun crime, and places where the general populace can own guns have been able to reduce gun crime, so maybe the problem isn't law abiding citizens owning firearms.


Once again, it's a matter of relativity. In societies where there is a strong social contract, crime is going to be a lot less than in societies where there isn't. The lack of crime has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with how governments treat their citizens. More guns definitely equal more crimes. There's no getting around that fact.

[takao]

The Swiss regularly get brought up because many people seem to believe that the mere presence of firearms makes people commit crimes. And if that was the case the Switzerland wouldn't be a very nice place to visit.

well that's like comparing apples and oranges .. after all what worth is a unloaded rifle with sealed munition in the closet which your aren't allowed to load except on shooting range compared to having a loaded 9 mm under the bed for protection against burglars :rolleyes:

and the law with the guns in switzerland is on the edge of getting overturned since like forever ... each time after something happens with one of those rifles (mostly man kills wife/wife kills husband because later cheated on him/her events)

I'm not saying that "more guns" => "less crimes". I'm saying that removing guns from law abiding citizens has not proven an effective way to reduce gun crime, and places where the general populace can own guns have been able to reduce gun crime, so maybe the problem isn't law abiding citizens owning firearms.

well compared to the past the percentage of gun crimes has been reduced every time the law has became more strict ... before 96 or 97 you could walk into a gun store and buy a pump-gun /shotgun simply when you turn 18 ... guess what the amount of crimes with pump-guns dropped ... to zero

most crimes with guns happen with legal guns or legal guns that got stolen
(guess where the majority of the illegal guns in austria come from ... i give you a hint it's not eastern europe

Like I've said in just about all the gun threads that have been started here, I'm all for realistic, effective solutions to the problem, and I'm completely against ineffective, "feel good" legislation.


well you have most of your legislation already in place.. the problem i nthe US isn't the gun laws but the actual enforcement (how about interpreting the 2nd amendment like it should be for a start.... i guess mandatory being a member of the national guard if you want to own a gun might change the attitude about guns a bit ;) ) and the whole culture of fear

after all you still have bounty hunters ;)


(that aside i think around here if you shoot a burglar coming into your home/property and he isn't armed/threathens you and you didn't shot in self-defense then you can still get charged for murder ...)

[calculus]

It's fewer crimes (or less crime)

[DZ/015]

how about interpreting the 2nd amendment like it should be for a start

At the time of it's writing the militia mentioned in the second amendment referred to all able bodied men in the country. Standing armies were distrusted. Today, in the US, our standing army is not treated with distrust, I'll agree. However, there is still the fact that this amendment can be used as a failsafe. When the courts fail, police fail or society fails (as recently happened in LA), I would rather have the best weaponry available to protect myself and my family. To deny me this right is unconscionable.

[mactastic]

...I would rather have the best weaponry available to protect myself and my family. To deny me this right is unconscionable.
I think there is legitimate room for debate about 'the best weaponry available'. Should all citizens have access to vehicle-mounted weaponry? SAMs? At the extreme, NBC weaponry?

[calculus]

I think there is legitimate room for debate about 'the best weaponry available'. Should all citizens have access to vehicle-mounted weaponry? SAMs? At the extreme, NBC weaponry?
I don't know what any of those are... but I want them!

[LethalWolfe]

Once again, it's a matter of relativity. In societies where there is a strong social contract, crime is going to be a lot less than in societies where there isn't. The lack of crime has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with how governments treat their citizens. More guns definitely equal more crimes. There's no getting around that fact.
If more guns definitely equals more crimes then how do you explain what's going on in England (unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying)? Or do you mean more guns in the hands of criminals means more crime?

I think we both agree that the root of the problem lies in socio-econimic issuses, not in whatever weapon a criminal uses while commiting a crime.


well compared to the past the percentage of gun crimes has been reduced every time the law has became more strict ... before 96 or 97 you could walk into a gun store and buy a pump-gun /shotgun simply when you turn 18 ... guess what the amount of crimes with pump-guns dropped ... to zero
Did the law lower the overall crime rate drop, or did it just reduce the number of crimes commited w/that specific weapon? What I'm getting at is, if the number of crimes commited w/pump shotguns dropped by X, but the number of crimes commited w/rifles (for example) rose by X then the law no effect on the crime rate.
And at least in the US and England restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms has proven ineffective because it does not restrict the ability of a criminal to obtain a firearm.

most crimes with guns happen with legal guns or legal guns that got stolen (guess where the majority of the illegal guns in austria come from ... i give you a hint it's not eastern europe
At least in the US and England that's not true. In the US 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally, and of that 90% less than 10% were stolen from private owners. I don't have specific numbers for England, but last I checked the police were blaming drug/gun runners based out of the Caribbean for bringing large amounts of black market guns into the country.

Also, the US National Guard is NOT a modern day version of the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. The USNG are federal troops that typically serve at the State level, but they can be called away from the State at any time.


Lethal

[count chocula]

guns dont bother me as long as they're used responsibly. however, i dont think it should be so easy to get a gun, (bowling for columbine anybody?). i dont know if anything has changed as far as how easy it is to obtain a gun since then, though i imagine it has gotten harder. i think it would be much easier and a safer world if the only people with guns were the popo.

[Backtothemac]

guns dont bother me as long as they're used responsibly. however, i dont think it should be so easy to get a gun, (bowling for columbine anybody?). i dont know if anything has changed as far as how easy it is to obtain a gun since then, though i imagine it has gotten harder. i think it would be much easier and a safer world if the only people with guns were the popo.
Here in Louisiana, we went to the store, picked out the gun and ammo. They ran a background check on us by social and driver license. If you have ever been arrested and convicted of a felony you can't buy a gun, but since we have not been, we walked out the door with them that day.

[Desertrat]

To an earlier question: Yes, some 50,000 homicides per year, not 5,000. "Homicides" includes both murders and justified killings. The number of homicides has declined in recent years; I recall an article in the Atlanta paper speaking of a bit over 56,000 in the mid-1990s.

What I've long found intriguing is that there is so much emphasis on the apparent evils of handguns, yet they only account for some 22% of all homicides, with long guns accounting for some 6%. The remain 72% of homicides are committed with (mostly) knives, clubs, fists and feet. There is also the rather puzzling amount of emotion about the mis-named "assault weapons", which account for some two percent of guns used in crimes.

As one looks at comparative lethality, one in three victims of a shooting with a handgun dies; with a shotgun or rifle it's two of three who die. Interviews with prisoners in the Raiford Penetentiary in Florida yielded the statements that if handguns were not available, long guns and hacksaws would be the order of the day. Ergo, were handguns totally eliminated (by magic :)), the death rate from violent crime could increase. Be careful of what you wish for.

The "strong social contract" idea about less violence seems sensible to me. It also strikes me that if a minimizing of interpersonal violence is a worthwhile goal for a society, a Beaver Cleaver/Norman Rockwell style would certainly be a model for non-violence.

'Rat

[XNine]

Don't forget though, 'Rat, that the 1990's saw a giant surge in the gang memberships. Gangs were predominant even in small cities and shootings occurred everywhere because of clothing color and Starter jackets.

I had to deal with the Aurora (outside of Denver) Gang Unit quite afew times because this gang kept ****ing with one of my friends, threatening to kill him (these guys were all like 18, 20 years old, and we were 14). Aaaah, the 90's!

Needless to say, should I see any of them again, it won't be my blood that's spilled.

[zflauaus]

I'm alright with guns being purchased by people but I think these requirements should be met:

A)No felonys on record. (already happening).
B)Background checks on family and deceased family.
C)Different lengths of training for different types of guns.

Guns should only be used in defense, everyone agrees on that, for the most part. But everyone's definition of defense is different in their minds. My thought of defense is to prevent something from spreading.

So for example, if your a cop, you get cornered by a criminal, you can either not shoot him or shoot him, lethally only if required. There are consequences of each choice.

If you don't shoot him, he could shoot you, injuring or killing you, and run off and do more damage to society and innocent people. If you shoot him, lethally or not, you have possibly put an end to his violent days, thus saving more people.

It's the same way with homeowners, you can either be injured or killed and have him continue his killing days, or you can injure or kill him in self-defense.

I know I'm only 14 and I know some will think I don't have my facts straight or what not, but this is strictly what I think. My dad has a gun, a shotgun and a BB gun. I have only touched the BB gun once, and that was just light target practice. I have never, and most likely will never touch the shotgun. I will most likely never touch a gun bigger than a BB gun for now, maybe for a long time, unless there is a draft and I absolutely must go.

I hope that made sense, especially from a teen.;)

[Music_Producer]

Well, I moved to the US a few years ago.. before that, I had never ever heard of random people getting shot at. Now its almost daily news to hear of freeway shootings, liquor store shootings, etc. etc. .. oh, and teens with guns in school.

You can't buy a gun in India, unless you have a license from the police station, and that's REALLY hard to get. You either have to be a politician or someone way important. Another factor is, that guns are prohibitively expensive, therefore a gun costing say $400 here, would cost $10,000 out there. That makes it impossible for most people to own a gun.

Does this stop crime? Hell no, crime is always going to exist.. but it does reduce the number of mortalities. For e.g. a burglar will ransack a house and tie up the occupants, or injure them.. but no one gets killed. You never hear of freeway shootings, and there has never been a case of a shootout in a school or college. Out here, I'm a little cautious when I'm driving.. looking out for weird pissed off people :rolleyes:

Yes, gun control would work in reducing mortality due to crime to an extent. I know that everyone argues about the right to self defense, and thus owning a gun. However, there are quite a few nuts out there, who would use a gun just to fulfill their psycho desires.. such as to kill people without a reason, or for trivial reasons.. "Oh yeah? You tailgating me? There you go - bam bam!" or the ridiculous school massacres by teenagers.. thats just repulsive and incomprehensible. These kind of incidents would decline if gun control was stringent.

[Desertrat]

Orizuka, for a given social climate, the amount of violent crimes rises and falls with the numbers of young people in the 16 to 25 age range. This was declining in the late 1990s, and is now beginning to rise. And now we have gangs like the MS-13 to add to the mix.

Music_Producer, you can compare violence in various countries by the rate of homicides per 100,000 of population. FWIW, guns are highly restricted in Mexico, much as you describe for India. Yet, their homicide rate is higher than in the U.S.

If you go through the data of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and of the Department of Justice, you can get the rates per 100,000 for the major US ethnic groups. Interesting data.

I dunno about reducing mortalities. As it is, firearms are involved in only 28% of US homicides.

'Rat

[Music_Producer]

Music_Producer, you can compare violence in various countries by the rate of homicides per 100,000 of population. FWIW, guns are highly restricted in Mexico, much as you describe for India. Yet, their homicide rate is higher than in the U.S.


As I mentioned before, the key factor in addition to gun control, is the cost of guns. Guns are sold cheap in mexico, not in india. Let's not forget how corrupt mexican police are, you can easily bribe them and get away with almost anything. But if a gun is terribly expensive to own in the first place, it acts as a natural deterrent.

[Ugg]

As I mentioned before, the key factor in addition to gun control, is the cost of guns. Guns are sold cheap in mexico, not in india. Let's not forget how corrupt mexican police are, you can easily bribe them and get away with almost anything. But if a gun is terribly expensive to own in the first place, it acts as a natural deterrent.


Are you implying that India isn't rife with corruption?

[.Andy]

I dunno about reducing mortalities. As it is, firearms are involved in only 28% of US homicides.
I think this sums up the whole gun control issue for me. It's that all people are inherently useless at assessing risk. Most would rather own a firearm to give themselves the perception of safety. It's a pro-active move to take their own protection into their hands. However it completely ignores the fact that owning a gun increases your chances of injuring yourself or others in your family - in most cases statistically putting yourself in more danger of injury than you would be by the remote chance you'll be attacked out of the blue and be able to satisfactorally protect yourself.

When it comes down to it you are infinitely more in danger of you friends, family, spouse, or lover killing you than a boogeyman home invading rapist. But who runs that scenario through their head when they purchase a gun for protection?

[Music_Producer]

Are you implying that India isn't rife with corruption?

Oh God, I was implying that guns in India are prohibitively expensive! Why does there always have to be a smart aleck comment about something that was so not the point? If you don't want people to buy guns, make them expensive, thats it. Problem solved.

[Backtothemac]

I think this sums up the whole gun control issue for me. It's that all people are inherently useless at assessing risk. Most would rather own a firearm to give themselves the perception of safety. It's a pro-active move to take their own protection into their hands. However it completely ignores the fact that owning a gun increases your chances of injuring yourself or others in your family - in most cases statistically putting yourself in more danger of injury than you would be by the remote chance you'll be attacked out of the blue and be able to satisfactorally protect yourself.

When it comes down to it you are infinitely more in danger of you friends, family, spouse, or lover killing you than a boogeyman home invading rapist. But who runs that scenario through their head when they purchase a gun for protection?
I have to disagree. I think that the odds of hurting your self, or family memeber do increase with owning a gun, however, you odds of being killed by an attacker decrease much more than the other risk increases.

If there are 50,000 homicides in the US every year, then although you odds are low, you still have to protect yourself, why take the chance of not being able to. As for my house as an example. there is 0 risk to having the gun here. I now have it in a safe next to the bed that has a special access button that I have programed with a sequence. I press the combination buttons and it opens. I can do it in my sleep. My daughter will NEVER touch the guns, and knows that she can't tell her friends about them either. I have a concealed weapons license so that it is now with me 24 hours a day, same with my wife, the only time it isn't on our person it is in the safe. So I have 0 risk of self injury and 100% more chance of protecting myself and my family in the event that it is needed. Remember I am in Louisiana. How would you have like to be in New Orleans last year after Katrina without a firearm to protect yourself?

[xsedrinam]

Oh God, I was implying that guns in India are prohibitively expensive! Why does there always have to be a smart aleck comment about something that was so not the point? If you don't want people to buy guns, make them expensive, thats it. Problem solved.
Help me think your implication through, consistently.

Let's try the "if", "then" approach. We can begin with standard, tired or tried ones like:
If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

continuing along that line...
If guns are made (by whom) too expensive for the poor and middle class, then only the wealthy and/or military will have them?

experiencing some discomfort, but continuing along the same lines...
If only the wealthy and military have and use guns to propagate and protect their interests, then.....

Help me think your implication through, consistently.

[Desertrat]

Andy, given that the total of accidental deaths involving firearms is some 1,000 to 1,100 per year in the US, I gotta disagree with your opinion that guns in the home increase danger. Note that some 40% of all US residences have firearms. That's in the vicinity of some 55 to 60 million homes.

According to records from the BATFE, some five million firearms per year (rifles, pistol, shotguns) are sold in the US each year, going back at least to around 1994 at that rate (A ten-year chart I read at their website in 2004). Given all the other data that's available, there's no correlation beteen the numbers of firearms in private hands and the number of crimes committed by criminals. Can't be, when the crime rate declined at a time that over 50 million firearms entered private ownership.

Intra-family homicides involving firearms are but a fraction of the total of 14,000 such homicides per year. Per law enforcement commentary about these killings, there is commonly a history of family violence preceding the "final event".

As far as danger, the New England Journal of Medicine ran an article wherein it was claimed that medical mistakes kill at least 100,000 per year. And the numbers about car wrecks are well known.

My own life's experience makes me somewhat blase about the whole firearms issue. I'm a third generation shooter/hunter, from personal knowledge of forebears. I started with my grandfather's .22 in 1940. My uncle and father put me into the .30-'06 business, and reloading, in 1950. I've ridden with cops and hunted with numerous people through the years. I've done some of my own gunsmithing. I have a Texas CHL. I've done the gunshow-table thing from around 1970 until recent times.

My take? Most of the worries and fears are right at groundless. Newsies generally appear to know little or nothing about firearms, thus fearing them, and spread their hype through the public at large, making money from inculcating fear. However, judicious caution + responsible behavior = near-zero problems. (Nowhere in life will anybody find zero problems.)

My 2&#162; worth,

'Rat

[FFTT]

When my father passed away, I inherited his Ruger pistol.

With 3 children in my home, the risk of keeping a gun in the house terrified me, so I had a friend disable it until it could be sold.

I do not support handguns for personal protection.

In the event that I had to protect my family, I might consider a rifle, but
with great reluctance.

At this point my only excuse to consider buying a rifle would be in the event of a major catastrophy in the Washington D.C. area where masses of displaced families would be heading for the hills. As resources declined,
I might be forced to protect our home.

I have strong mixed feelings about this.

Several of my neighbors are armed to the teeth, not for hunting, but for survival.

[Backtothemac]

When my father passed away, I inherited his Ruger pistol.

With 3 children in my home, the risk of keeping a gun in the house terrified me, so I had a friend disable it until it could be sold.

I do not support handguns for personal protection.

In the event that I had to protect my family, I might consider a rifle, but
with great reluctance.

At this point my only excuse to consider buying a rifle would be in the event of a major catastrophy in the Washington D.C. area where masses of displaced families would be heading for the hills. As resources declined,
I might be forced to protect our home.

I have strong mixed feelings about this.

Several of my neighbors are armed to the teeth, not for hunting, but for survival.

A rifle! Ok, let me explain something to you. Lets say you have a 270 mag rifle. You shoot at someone that is in your house. That bullet, will go throught them, the wall, the door, the other wall, outside, across the street, into your neighbors living room, and probably stop on the next wall it hits.

My 9mm, if I miss with the hollowpoint rounds, more than likely won't make it through the first wall to the second one. Thus removeing the threat of an accidental killing. A rifle for home protection, is like trying to fly a plane with no fuel. It won't work.

[FFTT]

We're on 20 acres off a private road in the mountains.

The point of a rifle would be to prevent someone from even getting near the house.

I really really hope that we never have to worry about such things happening.

[Desertrat]

"You can't kid-proof a gun, but you can gun-proof a kid."

If you take the Hollywood BS out of the equation, remove the mystique of firearms and the lure of the forbidden, you're well ahead in having kids who are safe around firearms. Ya gotta get rid of the "forbidden fruit" aspect of guns.

I guess my kid was around four or five when I dug out the old Army .45 and showed it to him. I let him feel and fondle it. He discovered that it was way too big for him to handle. That was his judgement, not mine. I assured him that whenever he wanted to shoot it, whenever HE thought he was big enough, we'd go out and shoot. Same for my Ruger Blackhawk .357. He was, thereafter, not particularly interested in guns. But, later on, he showed quite adequate skill in their use although he never has had the interest that I've had. So? No big deal.

I gave him a Daisy Red Ryder at around age seven, just as my mother had done for me. Aside from all the teaching involved with any sort of projectile weapon, he was warned that if he ever broke the rules I'd bend the gun around a tree trunk.

You raise a kid to understand that Hollywood is BS, that guns are merely tools for some given honorable purpose, you don't have a gun-dumb kid. It worked for my grandfather, my father, for me and for my kid. He's 43, now, and hasn't screwed up yet.

:), 'Rat

[Backtothemac]

We're on 20 acres off a private road in the mountains.

The point of a rifle would be to prevent someone from even getting near the house.

I really really hope that we never have to worry about such things happening.
Ah. Good point. But remember. God forbid, once they are in the house, a long gun is not what you would want. But in your case, they probably won't even go to the house.

Kudos.

[.Andy]

I have to disagree. I think that the odds of hurting your self, or family memeber do increase with owning a gun, however, you odds of being killed by an attacker decrease much more than the other risk increases.

If there are 50,000 homicides in the US every year, then although you odds are low, you still have to protect yourself, why take the chance of not being able to. As for my house as an example. there is 0 risk to having the gun here. I now have it in a safe next to the bed that has a special access button that I have programed with a sequence. I press the combination buttons and it opens. I can do it in my sleep. My daughter will NEVER touch the guns, and knows that she can't tell her friends about them either. I have a concealed weapons license so that it is now with me 24 hours a day, same with my wife, the only time it isn't on our person it is in the safe. So I have 0 risk of self injury and 100% more chance of protecting myself and my family in the event that it is needed. Remember I am in Louisiana. How would you have like to be in New Orleans last year after Katrina without a firearm to protect yourself?

So in response to me claiming that people are a bad judge of risk to rebuff you claim that by owning a gun you are at 0% risk of self injury and 100% more chance of protecting yourself? I think you've illustrated my point perfectly. No one is infallible and there are plenty of occasions where pulling a gun is only going to make things worse and put you and your family in more danger. Claiming otherwise smacks of either overconfidence or complacency.

If your family's safety is really at risk in Louisiana why not move somewhere safer? How could removing the root of the risk to your family be less attractive than purchasing a firearm to agressively protect them?

[mischief]

Glad to see you posting again B2TM.

I could go back and research what I've already posted on this over the last few years but the vodka is taking hold so screw it, I'll wing it.:rolleyes:

Guns, like cars, motorcycles, chainsaws, very large combat-bred dogs and the ability to speak without thinking can all cause a great deal of harm.

However Guns and speach are the only two mentioned in the Constitution and as a result are the only two constantly under assault by those who would love for the world to live in Mayberry on the one hand and endorsed (all too loudly) by those who live in anger/fear on the other. As a result, there is very little still middle ground in which to think clearly... I'll try.

The truth of the situation as I see it is as always somewhat more complex than either side likes to think about.

I can write anything I want here in an open forum save a few things my society deems inappropriate to minors. This is regulation by choice, I could set up a blog and include the entire transcript of George Carlin's "7 dirty words" if I felt I needed more freedom to express myself. However, even though the Constitution protects my right to say what I like in an open medium or forum there comes a point where my ramblings can cause real or emotional harm. This is where things get sticky for speach.

Similarly: I can go get a gun license for the state of California. After my waiting period I can either choose to buy a weapon new and register it above board or I can choose to make use of the myriad cracks in the system and get something more... (shall we say: Interesting?) at a gunshow or other grey market venue. Due to odd cracks in the law I can do this quasi-legally. I can in either case be in posession of either a handgun (only really good for shooting people, rats and pigs) or a hunting weapon (great for gastronomical variety but too cumbersome for self defense).

The breakdown is so apparent it's often missed.

From Wikipedia:

"The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."'

Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications."

This brief statement can only read two ways in a modern context. Neither of which would be very popular:

1: In order to maintain a well regulated Millitia any citizen who wants a firearm had damnwell better be prepared to be trained in it's use as a professional and be ready to be called upon as a member of said millitia. THis would mean you can have any firearm you like so long as you're willing to be fully trained, screened, licensed, bonded, fingerprinted and registerred to the same level as anyone who's payed to carry that same firearm full time.

This would mean federally funded basic firearms courses in High School akin to basic DOT regulated Driver Training. This would mean a fully trained and gun-aware populace that's likely well armed and yet conscientious.

2: If you aint in the Millitia you don't get a gun. This is the British approach and it's worked quite well for them.

The british, I might add provided the precident for our own bill of rights (also from Wiki):

"The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:

Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain civil and political rights that could not be taken away. These included:

freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)

freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament

freedom to petition the King

freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament

freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for defence, as allowed by law

freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign

the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)

freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bai
l
freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial"

My personal belief is that a well educated person in the use, responsibility implicit in posession of and safe handling of Firearms can be trusted with nearly anything from a flaregun to a Howitzer. An ignorant fool with a handgun is still an ignorant fool with a handgun.

[.Andy]

Andy, given that the total of accidental deaths involving firearms is some 1,000 to 1,100 per year in the US, I gotta disagree with your opinion that guns in the home increase danger. Note that some 40% of all US residences have firearms. That's in the vicinity of some 55 to 60 million homes.
If you'll re-read my post I said injured not dead. My point stands; no gun in the home = zero chance of being hurt by that gun. Gun in home = chance (albeit low) of being injured with that gun. To properly justify having a gun in the home on the grounds of self-defence the danger of owning a gun has to be less than the danger imposed by to you by intruders where you'll require the force of a firearm for protection. That's an equation I'll grant that very few, if any, of the 5 million people that buy a gun each year in the US do. This is probalby because it's a near impossible equation to resolve.

On one side you've got a definite but small danger to your safety by owning a firearm - this in inarguable. On the other side you've got a possible danger from an aggressor, where you may possibly need a gun, where it might possibly make the situation safer, where it might possibly make the situation worse, where it might not be on you when you need it, where it might escalate a situation. It's impossible to make an educated, informed decision because of so many confounding factors. Instead people buy guns for self-protection based on anecdotes and hypotheticals rather than any hard statistics.

As far as danger, the New England Journal of Medicine ran an article wherein it was claimed that medical mistakes kill at least 100,000 per year. And the numbers about car wrecks are well known.But neither cars nor doctors are solely purchased with the intent of being used for self-defence against an aggressor. It's really irrelevant to the discussion and off-topic.

[Scarlet Fever]

has anyone thought of this:

If guns are made illegal, no one is allowed guns, then the bad people wont have guns so you dont need guns to defend youself...

America has tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of gun deaths annually. I heard somewhere that Canada had 67. I believe Canada also has guns banned, and has a government who isn't gun crazy like Bush. My holiday choice: Canada.

[FFTT]

I think it's extremely important for all of us to prepare in some way,
the means to survive in the event of social breakdown.

Try to imagine, no electricity, no communications, no fuel, no food, no
access to medical care and no shelter along with complete gridlock on most major evacuation routes.

After Katrina it is more than clear that we will be on our own for days,
weeks or months and longer in the event of another natural catastrophe
or a major attack in any highly populated region.

When I speak of a major event, I'm thinking in terms of 100's of thousands
dead or wounded, something we have never faced to this day in the U.S.

The only people who can identify with such a great loss are our friends in other countries, be it from war or major natural catastrophe.

FEMA's primary goal is the continuation of government and the suppression
of anarchy.
We might see some help after the dust settles, but how long can you and your family survive until those measure can be organized.

Once a state of Marshall law is declared, most people are not aware that
ALL your normal constitutional rights are suspended without legal recourse
for at least 6 months.

This includes the right the bear arms.

Under Marshall law, they can seize your property, take away your guns
and drag you kicking and screaming to a FEMA camp if they so choose.

Very few people understand the extent of control that our leadership has signed into law.

We can still hope for the best, but we should be prepared for the worst.

[mischief]

has anyone thought of this:

If guns are made illegal, no one is allowed guns, then the bad people wont have guns so you dont need guns to defend youself...

America has tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of gun deaths annually. I heard somewhere that Canada had 67. I believe Canada also has guns banned, and has a government who isn't gun crazy like Bush. My holiday choice: Canada.

This is a common fallacy. The USA is far too large and chaotic a place to enforce bans on anything that exists in any real quantity before the ban takes effect.

Criminalization has historically served more as the ultimate in de-regulation legislation. Booze, traditional mind altering substances currently labelled taboo, prostitution, slavery and certain firearms are all made more dangerous and oddly, prevalent after they were criminalized.

This society is built on "******* You!" as a central credo... It should really be on the money cuz that's the truth of the matter.

In every case where something has been criminalized it's just gotten more dangerous than it was to begin with because it's less than regulated: It's actively ignored yet driven to higher profitability by percieved venture risk.

Upshot: If you want to reduce the damage caused by guns, drugs, sex and so on in the USA you have to legalize and regulate all facets, not criminalize and prosecute on a selective basis; doing so only encourages active defiance and criminal behaviour.

In every instance of a firearm bill in which a classification of a "bad" gun is hashed out and criminalized the caveats written in has ample room for "grandfathering" pre-existing guns in that category. There is always a surge of interest in those weapons and a surge in poduction after the drop-dead date is established. This means that every gun regulation bill so far has only served to increase the presence of high risk firearms.

Better to legalize and regulate. Are you more likely to buy an M-16 if the cost and red tape involved is on par with getting a Helicopter pilot's license or more likely if it requires simply assembling the parts through grey market channels and effectively zero red tape?

Similarly: Am I more likely to buy pot if it's available in liquor stores next to the Bacardi 151 cheap from Marlboro or if it requires a chic cloak and dagger jaunt to a dealer?

People seek out the forbidden, shun paperwork and hide their vices. This is deeply embedded behaviour.

Educate, regulate and do not pontificate.

BTW: the Canadian model is focussed on regulation, not criminalization. Plus most gun owners are living out in the bush... there's WAY more backwoods in Canada than in the USA. You're far more likely to have to deal with uncooperative wildlife than a larcenous crack-head.

[Desertrat]

Andy, you're trying for a perfect world, and that'll never happen. Lemme put it this way: If you use normal caution and judgement about firearms, the odds of personal injury from the "within the home" thing are insignificant.

The statistics for accidental injury vs. deliberate mal-actions from outside show that there are more of the latter than the former--although the overall probabilities are low for both. 1,000 vs. tens of thousands, nationwide, in a population of near-300 million. (Mal-actions being invasions of a home by armed intruders.)

Scarlet Fever:

"If guns are made illegal, no one is allowed guns, then the bad people wont have guns so you dont need guns to defend youself..."

No. That's already disproven in countries where guns are illegal. And, you don't need a gun to be a deadly threat. Note that there have been serious discussions in England to outlaw sharp-pointed kitchen knives--as though the blade cannot cut.

"America has tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of gun deaths annually."

As I cited before from the Center for Disease Control's data, some 28% of homicides involve firearms. That's approximately 13,000 to 14,000 homicides involving firearms. 72% of homicides DON'T involve firearms.

"I heard somewhere that Canada had 67. I believe Canada also has guns banned, and has a government who isn't gun crazy like Bush."

Again, wrong. Canada has strict controls on handguns, but many fewer controls on rifles and shotguns. The latter are, of course, far more lethal than handguns. The Canadian government has spent over C$1 billion on a registration system which is despised and admittedly doesn't work. And Canada's homicide rate per hundred thousand parallels those of western European countries.

Again, from the CDC, if you break out the homicides per 100K by race, Anglos and Asians are actually involved less than for Canadian and European rates. Got to the site; see for yourself.

And Bush is nowhere near "gun crazy". At best he's neutral; some of his statements indicate his ignorance of the Constitution on the issue--and of firearms themselves.

"My holiday choice: Canada."

Hey, it's a great place. Beautiful country. North of Toronto; Lake Louise; Icefield Parkway; Vancouver; Victoria on Vancouver Island--and neat people. Eh? :)

But I'll bet you can find trouble as easily there as anywhere. I've been all over the world and back again, and I learned that avoidance of certain areas and at certain times of night are more important than any laws or any weaponry. I include the Algerian section of Paris and the Marseilles waterfront in my "areas for caution"; I've enjoyed both. :D

'Rat

[CorvusCamenarum]

has anyone thought of this:

If guns are made illegal, no one is allowed guns, then the bad people wont have guns so you dont need guns to defend youself...

America has tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of gun deaths annually. I heard somewhere that Canada had 67. I believe Canada also has guns banned, and has a government who isn't gun crazy like Bush. My holiday choice: Canada.

More like "if guns are made illegal, no one is allowed guns, then ONLY the bad people will have guns..."

If you really think that a criminal will stop and think "golly gee, I'm about to mug this guy or break into a house, I better not use a gun else I'll get in trouble because that's against the law" then I'd like to sell you a bridge.

[Ugg]

But I'll bet you can find trouble as easily there as anywhere. I've been all over the world and back again, and I learned that avoidance of certain areas and at certain times of night are more important than any laws or any weaponry. I include the Algerian section of Paris and the Marseilles waterfront in my "areas for caution"; I've enjoyed both. :D

'Rat

There are a lot of dangerous places around the world and guns don't necessarily make them so, however, I think that the psychological boost that a potential criminal gets from having a gun in his hands is rarely taken into account. There's been a rash of knifings in the UK, I can only imagine what the carnage would have been had they had guns in their hands. Guns give a sense of omnipotence that knifes rarely do.

[Desertrat]

Ugg, I don't doubt the omnipotence thing. However, a side efffect of the stricter British controls seems to be more smuggling of guns from the Continent. I've read that while the more traditional criminals have shunned firearms because of stiffer penalties for misuse--and gone to knives and clubs, there are some who are now using smuggled firearms at a higher rate than in the past.

Based on discussions with a British cop on another board, changes in the methods of record keeping, and changes in definitions of crimes has made comparative analysis of before-and-after more difficult. (Around 1999, I believe)

The sad thing in England is the rise in home invasions with owners present. That's always been higher than in the US, but now is much greater. Interviews with felons in the US indicate that they prefer daylight burglaries; with nobody at home there is less liklihood of getting shot.

Similarly, it is known that after the CHL law was passed in Florida, there were fewer robberies of locals and more focus on tourists and those in rental cars from airports. Tourists are pretty much guaranteed to be unarmed and can't resist. (That's from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement--FDLE--and based on interviews with arrestees.)

'Rat

[Ugg]

Ugg, I don't doubt the omnipotence thing. However, a side efffect of the stricter British controls seems to be more smuggling of guns from the Continent. I've read that while the more traditional criminals have shunned firearms because of stiffer penalties for misuse--and gone to knives and clubs, there are some who are now using smuggled firearms at a higher rate than in the past.



So, we're agreed then that Thatcherism led to the current breakdown in society which led to greater gun use?!?!

The argument needs to focus less on guns and knee jerk reactions and more on the causes of violence. It's not hard to see that Thatcher's policies are the direct cause for the uptick in violence in the UK, France's inability and unwillingness to integrate its large immigrant population and the US' continued tearing down of social safety nets.


Maybe though, those who have benefitted the most from reaganomics and its successors are simply willing to pay the price in terms of security and guns and threats to their own wellbeing. Somehow, the tradeoff seems awfully expensive to me.

[mischief]

There are a lot of dangerous places around the world and guns don't necessarily make them so, however, I think that the psychological boost that a potential criminal gets from having a gun in his hands is rarely taken into account. There's been a rash of knifings in the UK, I can only imagine what the carnage would have been had they had guns in their hands. Guns give a sense of omnipotence that knifes rarely do.

Sense of omnipotence, sure but who's more likely to have practiced?

Most people who own handguns either for use in nefarious activities or for self defence can't hit jack because they never practice. However the homeowner in this hypothetical is far more likely to have practiced at the local range and is likely the statistical "winner" of such a confrontation.

If you never use the thing your likelihood of hitting anything farther away than three feet is about 50%. If you don't practice a baseball bat works better.

[Music_Producer]

Help me think your implication through, consistently.

Let's try the "if", "then" approach. We can begin with standard, tired or tried ones like:
If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

continuing along that line...
If guns are made (by whom) too expensive for the poor and middle class, then only the wealthy and/or military will have them?

experiencing some discomfort, but continuing along the same lines...
If only the wealthy and military have and use guns to propagate and protect their interests, then.....

Help me think your implication through, consistently.


1. Yeah, only outlaws will have guns. Isn't that the same right now? Outlaws will always have guns, thats why they're 'outlaws'.. and btw, its better than nuts getting easy access to guns and doing crazy stuff.

2. Its usually the poor who perpetrate crimes right? You don't see an investment banker holding up a liquor store clerk with a gun, do you? Uh, yeah, and what about the military having guns?

You're trying to say that if you have a gun, you can defend yourself against the military? Say the military takes over and the soldiers go berserk, you're going to defend your family with a little gun, while they come into your house with a barrage of assault rifles?

Btw, in India I feel absolutely safe to walk at nights, absolutely safe when I'm driving. I don't fear guns out there like I do out here. This is not an experiment, this is just simple friggin common sense. Make guns ultra expensive so no one can afford them, and society becomes a safer place.

For all those who argue and defend their basic right to have a gun, etc etc.. let me know how you feel when a family member/friend gets shot by an idiot who bought a gun for 300 bucks (without having any iota of responsibility for that gun). Ok?

[leekohler]

"You can't kid-proof a gun, but you can gun-proof a kid."

If you take the Hollywood BS out of the equation, remove the mystique of firearms and the lure of the forbidden, you're well ahead in having kids who are safe around firearms. Ya gotta get rid of the "forbidden fruit" aspect of guns.

I guess my kid was around four or five when I dug out the old Army .45 and showed it to him. I let him feel and fondle it. He discovered that it was way too big for him to handle. That was his judgement, not mine. I assured him that whenever he wanted to shoot it, whenever HE thought he was big enough, we'd go out and shoot. Same for my Ruger Blackhawk .357. He was, thereafter, not particularly interested in guns. But, later on, he showed quite adequate skill in their use although he never has had the interest that I've had. So? No big deal.

I gave him a Daisy Red Ryder at around age seven, just as my mother had done for me. Aside from all the teaching involved with any sort of projectile weapon, he was warned that if he ever broke the rules I'd bend the gun around a tree trunk.

You raise a kid to understand that Hollywood is BS, that guns are merely tools for some given honorable purpose, you don't have a gun-dumb kid. It worked for my grandfather, my father, for me and for my kid. He's 43, now, and hasn't screwed up yet.

:), 'Rat

I have to agree. That's how I was raised. My Dad saw it a s a responsibility that I learn about firearms. But my favorite was archery. I LOVED that.

[xsedrinam]

1. Yeah, only outlaws will have guns. Isn't that the same right now?
No, not really. I'd like to see where you get that?

2. Its usually the poor who perpetrate crimes right?
No, not really. I'd like to see where you get that.

You don't see an investment banker holding up a liquor store clerk with a gun, do you?
Many have resorted to paper shredding and cooking books. I don't know if they owned guns or not. It's immaterial.
Uh, yeah, and what about the military having guns?

You're trying to say that if you have a gun, you can defend yourself against the military? Say the military takes over and the soldiers go berserk, you're going to defend your family with a little gun, while they come into your house with a barrage of assault rifles?
I believe you've made my point.

Btw, in India I feel absolutely safe to walk at nights, absolutely safe when I'm driving. I don't fear guns out there like I do out here. This is not an experiment, this is just simple friggin common sense. Make guns ultra expensive so no one can afford them, and society becomes a safer place.
And you've yet to clarify your point and back it up with anything but anecdotal evidence.

For all those who argue and defend their basic right to have a gun, etc etc.. let me know how you feel when a family member/friend gets shot by an idiot who bought a gun for 300 bucks (without having any iota of responsibility for that gun). Ok?
I doubt anyone will.

[Backtothemac]

So in response to me claiming that people are a bad judge of risk to rebuff you claim that by owning a gun you are at 0% risk of self injury and 100% more chance of protecting yourself? I think you've illustrated my point perfectly. No one is infallible and there are plenty of occasions where pulling a gun is only going to make things worse and put you and your family in more danger. Claiming otherwise smacks of either overconfidence or complacency.

If your family's safety is really at risk in Louisiana why not move somewhere safer? How could removing the root of the risk to your family be less attractive than purchasing a firearm to agressively protect them?
Andy, let me put it this way.

First, I will be required to carry a weapon while serving the state. Second. If you think of your own thought process. If you have a gun in the home, you have an albiet low chance of hurting yourself or your family. Very low, if you have proper training, and knowledge of the weapon. Very Very low, when you are a former instructor, law enforcement officer, and have been shooting for roughly 29 years. Would you agree that the risk is very very very low when the gun is in a safe? Secured?

Now, with those low chances, say somewhere between 0 and 2 or 3% would you say? If someone came into my home with the intent to do harm to my family, and had a firearm, my chance of stoping them without a gun of my own would be what? Maybe 1%? If I have a weapon in my home, with my training, and knowledge, and experience, I would have a least a 50/50 chance. So it is a weight issue for me. The odds are better for me and my family if I have one.

I can't just move from louisiana, because it is everywhere in this country. Crime is everywhere, and you have to be safe, because you don't know what anyone is capable of.

I respect those that don't like, or won't own a gun. However, I cannot imagine my house without one. Neither can my wife.

[Desertrat]

I've always figured that ownership does not convey competency of use. Just because somebody can drive a car doesn't mean they'd be competitive at Daytona.

Owning deadly force--be it car or gun--means learning more than the rudiments of use. For guns, it's not difficult at all. I can teach somebody to be danged good in about three hours, but it's up to that person to maintain or improve proficiency and to make the skills reflexive. And, it's that person's responsibility to learn the pertinent laws and to develop the mindset for responsible use.

Court decisions say I'm on my own for self-defense. Our local LEOs figure that any response time much under a half-hour is about as good as it gets. I'll just live with another LEO's comment: "God created all men equal. Sam Colt made them all the same size."

:), 'Rat