Gun Facts

[Netheralian]

So, unless you are prepared to meet with the ramifications of having killed someone, then why would anyone carry a gun for self protection when it's only your wallet at sake?

You're assuming that it's only your wallet at stake. Your life could be on the line too.

I still think this is a very simplistic view of the situation.
1. At what point to you know your life is on the line?
2. Do you have time to retrieve your gun? (is it cocked and loaded?)
3. Can it be that your life is on the line because you are wielding a gun?
4. Could you have been a little more careful in the first place and not gotten yourself into a situation where you life is on the line?

Sure - there are circumstances that I agree carring a gun is a good idea and I'm certainly not against outright banning them for everyone, but neither do I think the excuses used for people carrying guns in public places or in a home are remotely valid when everything is considered.

Edit: I meant to say I'm not for outright banning them for everyone.

 

[Giliell]

Unfortunately taser guns are illegal in this state (go figure :roll: ), so that really only leaves one practicable option. Of course, I don't own a gun, don't approve of their possession, and would never want other people in my situation to have a one, but I can understand the temptation.

I'd suggest getting a dog. No, seriously, I'm not kidding. Most muggers don't go for people with dogs, even no matter what size the dog is. Women with dogs are remarkably safe walking them. Because, in the end, a dog is a stupid beast. They don't know or care about guns. If master or mistress are threatened, the attacker is history, in the eyes of the dog. They bark, they bite, they draw attention.
Of course, the attacker might go for the dog first, but with that kind of criminal you're lost anyway, because that kind of criminal would shoot you first and then go and search you for a gun they could steal, too.

I think it's a bad idea starting an arms race with criminals.
In our hypothetical situation there are several ways this might go:

1. The mugger runs as soon as they see the gun
2. The mugger shoots you as soon as they suspect you carry a gun
3. You are prepared to shoot the mugger. You have trained and carry your gun so you can reach and fire quickly. Which is not only asking for nasty accidents, but also means that you might shoot too quickly and shoot somebody who kindly picked up the hankie you droped and wanted to give it back

The ordinary criminal isn't all irrational. They make pretty rational decisions based on a set of values that disagrees with the rest of society. They don't have an interest in killing you, because they know that this will make the police look for them very hard. But they also don't want to be shot by you. So if they think that's going to happen they might not want to take chances. This may mean they will not pick you as their victim, but it may also mean that they will shoot you first.

And that's only the scenario of the legendary "brave upstanding citizen vs. mean criminal"
It doesn't even touch the subject of madmen and people who snap and go postal.

 

[SpaceCDT]

Unfortunately taser guns are illegal in this state (go figure :roll: ), so that really only leaves one practicable option. Of course, I don't own a gun, don't approve of their possession, and would never want other people in my situation to have a one, but I can understand the temptation.

I'd suggest getting a dog. No, seriously, I'm not kidding. Most muggers don't go for people with dogs, even no matter what size the dog is. Women with dogs are remarkably safe walking them. Because, in the end, a dog is a stupid beast. They don't know or care about guns. If master or mistress are threatened, the attacker is history, in the eyes of the dog. They bark, they bite, they draw attention.
Of course, the attacker might go for the dog first, but with that kind of criminal you're lost anyway, because that kind of criminal would shoot you first and then go and search you for a gun they could steal, too.

I think it's a bad idea starting an arms race with criminals.
In our hypothetical situation there are several ways this might go:

1. The mugger runs as soon as they see the gun
2. The mugger shoots you as soon as they suspect you carry a gun
3. You are prepared to shoot the mugger. You have trained and carry your gun so you can reach and fire quickly. Which is not only asking for nasty accidents, but also means that you might shoot too quickly and shoot somebody who kindly picked up the hankie you droped and wanted to give it back

The ordinary criminal isn't all irrational. They make pretty rational decisions based on a set of values that disagrees with the rest of society. They don't have an interest in killing you, because they know that this will make the police look for them very hard. But they also don't want to be shot by you. So if they think that's going to happen they might not want to take chances. This may mean they will not pick you as their victim, but it may also mean that they will shoot you first.

And that's only the scenario of the legendary "brave upstanding citizen vs. mean criminal"
It doesn't even touch the subject of madmen and people who snap and go postal.

All reasons why "Self Defence" is not a legal reason to own a firearm here in Australia. So instead people join gun clubs and own them for "sporting."
There are a few people at my club who joined for that reason - I'm sure there are many more I haven't talked too, judging from the huge number of members who only turn up for the minimum required number of shoots and can't shoot for shit anyway.

 

[BrainBlow]

What I'm wondering about is that if the statistics are unaffected by how restrictive or liberal gun ownership is, then why try to have guns banned in the first place?
Guns, in most places, are like drugs. You won't get rid of them from the black market.
So banning them from citizens is pointless.
Accidents involving children getting their hands on a gun is something that depends on the responsibility of the parents and the ones owning the gun.
Hell, if you do own a gun, you should teach your kid about them, how to use them and how they work. Kids who knows how it works and the dangers won't screw around with em(as much).

I will again draw attention to Switzerland.
Lots of guns, minimal amount of gun related killings.

 

[RichardMNixon]

But you know what country has a lot of guns for civilians, yet have low crime-rates?
Switzerland.

Better than the US? Sure. Better than the rest of western Europe with stricter gun control? No.

What I'm wondering about is that if the statistics are unaffected by how restrictive or liberal gun ownership is, then why try to have guns banned in the first place?

The statistics are affected, see above. Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.

 

[Giliell]

Guns, in most places, are like drugs. You won't get rid of them from the black market.

I agree. If somebody is determined to get a gun and commit a crime, you won't stop them.
But there's the huge number of accidents, of family dramas, of people going mad that wouldn't happen that way if people weren't in possesion of legal guns in the first place.
Most school-shootings, or (ex)-employees shooting people at their workplace aren't the result of a long standing plan which would involve getting an illegal gun.

Accidents involving children getting their hands on a gun is something that depends on the responsibility of the parents and the ones owning the gun.
Hell, if you do own a gun, you should teach your kid about them, how to use them and how they work. Kids who knows how it works and the dangers won't screw around with em(as much).

Bullshit
For 3 reasons
1. It's not the fault of the kid that their parents aren't handling the thing responsibly. But they might be the ones who end up dead. Society has to protect kids from irresponsible parents.

2. Younger kids may understand the technical stuff, but they don't really understand the danger.

3. The kid might be the one who uses the gun willingly. In fact, the last terrible school shooting in Germany was like the: The father, a legal gun own didn't lock away his guns propperly (as required by law after some shooting before). The son took them, took the amunition and killed quite a lot of people. Now, tell me, is your reasoning giving any comfort to those who lost their sons, daughters, husbands and wives in that shooting?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Most school-shootings, or (ex)-employees shooting people at their workplace aren't the result of a long standing plan which would involve getting an illegal gun.

The Columbine shooters actually used illegal guns. I think it might actually be surprising how many incidents like that actually involved illegally acquired guns.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

Most school-shootings, or (ex)-employees shooting people at their workplace aren't the result of a long standing plan which would involve getting an illegal gun.

The Columbine shooters actually used illegal guns. I think it might actually be surprising how many incidents like that actually involved illegally acquired guns.

Columbine comes up every time gun restrictions come up in conversation with a coworker of mine. He says that while we heard a lot about guns in the news of this tragedy, the media did not cover the fact that they had propane tanks set to exploded as well.

His opinion is that if guns were restricted, people like these shooters would still get them, and even if we were to rid the world of guns (impossible, obviously) then they would still find other ways to kill, including bombs.

The fact of the matter is that we need stronger restrictions to keep the guns out of the hands of those with mental issues, and people need to keep the guns that they do own, out of the reach of minors (gunsafes or gunlocks).

In Pennsylvania there is a form you have to fill out to purchase a firearm. On this form, it has a checkbox that asks you whether or not you have or have had mental issues... yeah... no joke.

 

[MRaverz]

Solution 1. Guns are legal and found everywhere.
Solution 2. Guns are illegal and hard to find.

I'm pretty sure we all know which solution is going to lead to more people misusing guns.

 

[BrainBlow]

But you know what country has a lot of guns for civilians, yet have low crime-rates?
Switzerland.

Better than the US? Sure. Better than the rest of western Europe with stricter gun control? No.

What I'm wondering about is that if the statistics are unaffected by how restrictive or liberal gun ownership is, then why try to have guns banned in the first place?

The statistics are affected, see above. Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.

Japan has some of the strictest control?
Yes. And they live on an island, which is incredibly convenient for restricting smuggling. So you pretty much just wind up with the "top" criminals, like the Yakuza, who get most of the guns.
But Japan doesn't have a lot of murders even overall. You have like 600 murders a year in a country with over 100 million citizens.
Though I'd love to see how restrictive gun laws also lowers all other forms of murder too. :roll:
But it also has a lot to do with the culture and how the society work.
I'll also point to that Japan has some incredible suicide statistics. Up to 30 000 a year. No, I am not saying that the gun laws are the reason. Please don't wind up believing I said that.

Solution 1. Guns are legal and found everywhere.
Solution 2. Guns are illegal and hard to find.

I'm pretty sure we all know which solution is going to lead to more people misusing guns.

Problem is, they aren't hard to find illegally. At all. It is about as much harder as getting drugs is. (not hard)

And on the whole Columbine thing?
People love to talk about how stricter gun laws would have "prevented" it and other massacres. Ignoring how Columbine was in fact a gun free zone and that the weapons use were acquired illegally.
I may sound slightly like one of those gun hicks now, but all that the "gun free zone" thing did was to disarm the other students.(not that I think a lot of them would carry weapons if they were allowed to).

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Unfortunately taser guns are illegal in this state (go figure :roll: ), so that really only leaves one practicable option. Of course, I don't own a gun, don't approve of their possession, and would never want other people in my situation to have a one, but I can understand the temptation.

I'd suggest getting a dog. No, seriously, I'm not kidding. Most muggers don't go for people with dogs, even no matter what size the dog is. Women with dogs are remarkably safe walking them. Because, in the end, a dog is a stupid beast. They don't know or care about guns. If master or mistress are threatened, the attacker is history, in the eyes of the dog. They bark, they bite, they draw attention.
Of course, the attacker might go for the dog first, but with that kind of criminal you're lost anyway, because that kind of criminal would shoot you first and then go and search you for a gun they could steal, too.

I have considered this actually.

Unfortunately, as I am going to be moving across half the country at least three times over the next year, it seems to great a price to pay just to satisfy my paranoia. Though I have sometimes considered adopting the bobcat that sometimes wanders around a local trail.

Probably the better move would be to purchase a taser in another state and bring it back with me. Since they don't seem to be illegal to own, just to sell. Again, I feel the need to point out how goddamned stupid this is:
"No, you can't have a taser because they can sometimes result in serious injury, and death in rare cases."

"Oh you want a gun? Sure thing. Can I interest you in a silencer while you're here?"

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Columbine comes up every time gun restrictions come up in conversation with a coworker of mine. He says that while we heard a lot about guns in the news of this tragedy, the media did not cover the fact that they had propane tanks set to exploded as well.

His opinion is that if guns were restricted, people like these shooters would still get them, and even if we were to rid the world of guns (impossible, obviously) then they would still find other ways to kill, including bombs.

The fact of the matter is that we need stronger restrictions to keep the guns out of the hands of those with mental issues, and people need to keep the guns that they do own, out of the reach of minors (gunsafes or gunlocks).

In Pennsylvania there is a form you have to fill out to purchase a firearm. On this form, it has a checkbox that asks you whether or not you have or have had mental issues... yeah... no joke.

The shear amount of illegal weapons make it impractical to have really strict gun laws. I would say restricting guns to exclude those with mental issues is a good idea. But this should also go one step further and those who have mental issues and may turn violent should be periodically be searched for illegal weapons. And we should be a little more aware if someone has the potential to turn violent because they can get help.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Anecdotes about Japan.

Smuggling is impossible over water? The first picture for smuggling on wikipedia shows people on a boat. People have been smuggling over water for centuries.

And what of Germany, France, Poland, Finland, Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands? Are they all islands with vastly different culture from ours? It's too bad Canada isn't in North America where smuggling is possible, then we could get some nice comparative statistics.

 

[SpaceCDT]

Accidents involving children getting their hands on a gun is something that depends on the responsibility of the parents and the ones owning the gun.
Hell, if you do own a gun, you should teach your kid about them, how to use them and how they work. Kids who knows how it works and the dangers won't screw around with em(as much).

Bullshit
For 3 reasons
1. It's not the fault of the kid that their parents aren't handling the thing responsibly. But they might be the ones who end up dead. Society has to protect kids from irresponsible parents.

2. Younger kids may understand the technical stuff, but they don't really understand the danger.

3. The kid might be the one who uses the gun willingly. In fact, the last terrible school shooting in Germany was like the: The father, a legal gun own didn't lock away his guns propperly (as required by law after some shooting before). The son took them, took the amunition and killed quite a lot of people. Now, tell me, is your reasoning giving any comfort to those who lost their sons, daughters, husbands and wives in that shooting?

I first fired a gun not long after my 3rd birthday - I don't remember it, of course, but there are photographs of me shooting the Ruger T22 benchrested down at the club. For as long as I can remember, I was taught gun safety by principle and drill. I can remember being quite frustrated as a 7 or 8 year old, being told by my parents to "always assume the weapon is loaded" and "the first action on picking up a weapon is to unload it immediately" because I already knew that enough to recite it in my sleep.
Any household that owns firearms should be the same.

As to your third point, we were talking about accidents involving firearms, not firearm homicides. But as you rightly point out, the man was breaking the law and should have had his gun cabinet locked.
Here in Australia the Sporting Shooters Association have been running a highly succesful campaign, "Secure your gun, Secure your sport." The Police make random checks to ensure that firearm owners are complying with legislation. Problem solvered.

Now, tell me, is your reasoning giving any comfort to those who lost their sons, daughters, husbands and wives in that shooting?

I really laugh quite hard when people here on LoR will smash creotards for all the logical fallacies they employ - and then go on ahead and use the same tactics in their debates. I'm not going to bother responding to this emotional farce.

 

[BrainBlow]

Anecdotes about Japan.

Smuggling is impossible over water? The first picture for smuggling on wikipedia shows people on a boat. People have been smuggling over water for centuries.

Don't go putting words in my mouth. I implied that it is harder; not impossible.

Bullshit
For 3 reasons
1. It's not the fault of the kid that their parents aren't handling the thing responsibly. But they might be the ones who end up dead. Society has to protect kids from irresponsible parents.

2. Younger kids may understand the technical stuff, but they don't really understand the danger.

3. The kid might be the one who uses the gun willingly. In fact, the last terrible school shooting in Germany was like the: The father, a legal gun own didn't lock away his guns propperly (as required by law after some shooting before). The son took them, took the amunition and killed quite a lot of people. Now, tell me, is your reasoning giving any comfort to those who lost their sons, daughters, husbands and wives in that shooting?

1. "Society" is to fuck off. "We can't have you *insert minority* raising kids!"
2. Bull-fucking-shit. First of all, the little story that SpaceCDT is a good example of what I mean.
Second, I myself understood the dangers of firearms since I was little due to being taught about them.
It was actually like that with ANYTHING that was quite dangerous. I went around my entire life having high-awareness of manned vehicles and I have always treated them like "mindless" trains that it is my responsibility to dodge.
Why?
Because I had it drilled into me when I was young about how seriously dangerous it is to hang around a tractor while someone is driving it. (I was partially raised on a farm) I was three years old, yet understood very well the dangers.
I continued to be wary, even after forgetting about the lectures!

 

[MRaverz]

Solution 1. Guns are legal and found everywhere.
Solution 2. Guns are illegal and hard to find.

I'm pretty sure we all know which solution is going to lead to more people misusing guns.

Problem is, they aren't hard to find illegally. At all. It is about as much harder as getting drugs is. (not hard)

There's a big difference between one in every home and one if you have the right connections. Relatively speaking, it's much harder to get something if it's not found everywhere.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Well one would think that most illegally owned guns were at some point legally produced and sold firearms that somehow managed to find their way onto the black market. Guns don't just magically appear, after all; and they are no where near as easy to produce as most drugs.

So the fact is, shut down the supply of the firearms altogether, and render their possession illegal, and you would expect a steady decline in the number and availability of said weapons; provided, of course, that law enforcement is competent at blocking the import of guns from other sources (which may not be a safe assumption.)

For what its worth, I don't see guns being prohibited in the US happening in any case. Debating how effective such a thing might be is probably a waste of time.

 

[BrainBlow]

[
There's a big difference between one in every home and one if you have the right connections. Relatively speaking, it's much harder to get something if it's not found everywhere.

And as we saw with shit like columbine, it doesn't become hard enough even for teenagers.
There isn't a problem with "a gun in every home" if everyone is a law abiding citizen, but some aren't and the ones shooting people now would still be shooting people in the scenario where it is illegal to have firearms.

Well one would think that most illegally owned guns were at some point legally produced and sold firearms that somehow managed to find their way onto the black market. Guns don't just magically appear, after all; and they are no where near as easy to produce as most drugs.

So the fact is, shut down the supply of the firearms altogether, and render their possession illegal, and you would expect a steady decline in the number and availability of said weapons; provided, of course, that law enforcement is competent at blocking the import of guns from other sources (which may not be a safe assumption.)

For what its worth, I don't see guns being prohibited in the US happening in any case. Debating how effective such a thing might be is probably a waste of time.

Before you can "cut off the access to guns", you'll have to create world peace and a completely stable political climate.
Good luck.

I must say, I found the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit on gun laws to be quite swaying.

 

[Netheralian]

Before you can "cut off the access to guns", you'll have to create world peace and a completely stable political climate.
Good luck.

What? The US isn't politically stable and there is war within it's borders? The rest of us feel safe and sound in our homes without the need of resorting to guns - why not the US?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Before you can "cut off the access to guns", you'll have to create world peace and a completely stable political climate.

Why?