Why are guns made to kill?

[Rolfe]

I am curious if you have ever had anything stolen from your home, particularly something irreplaceable such as a family heirloom.

Yes. I had a silver locket stolen in a burglary. It was a legacy from an elderly uncle, and it had inside it a photograph of his only son, my cousin, in his RAF uniform. He was shot down over the English channel in the last days of the war. I never knew him.

There is no way that locket or any other of my possessions could be worth any human life. I remember the locket, and I remember the cousin in other ways.

No property is worth taking the life of someone's son, or father, or husband. Someone who might be a complete waste of oxygen now, but who might otherwise have undreamed-of potential in the future.

Rolfe.

 

[Autolite]

A significant difference here appears to be that Americans feel they should use deadly force to protect property. I wonder if that's a big part of it. Materialism.

Well suppose we look at this "deadly force to protect property" from another perspective. Lets assume that I have my legally acquired and owned firearms properly secured IAW with all the applicable laws, perhaps in a gun safe. I wake up in the middle of the night to find two burly gentleman attempting to relieve me of my possessions (eg. the gun safe).

Now let's assume that these fellows are unarmed, but they have assured me in no uncertain terms that I will be wearing my azz for a hat should I decide to intervene on their plans. What should I do?

Perhaps they are only stealing the guns as a lark, a rather innocent prank as they know that Canadian law prohibits me for employing deadly force to stop them. After all, it's just a property crime isn't it? OTOH, perhaps they intend to use the firearms as weapons, or sell them to someone else who might use them as weapons in a more serious criminal endeavour.

Here we have a "catch 22" under the Canadian firearms laws. The gun-control advocates scream about the preponderance of stolen firearms in the hands of criminals, yet they are appalled at the concept of the legitimate gun owner employing deadly force to prevent their theft. A rather curious twist of logic that might be amusing if it wasn't in fact the case. The folks crying about the criminals with guns have facilitated the criminal's access to same...

 

[gumboot]

It's no different than a nail gun, chainsaw, or any other tool you can hurt yourself with. If you are going to use one, you better make sure you're trained to do so.

I don't think it's similar at all. Nail guns (at least here in New Zealand) only fire if the muzzle is forced against something hard - you can't accidentally discharge one by pointing it across the room at someone. Nail guns, even if they do injure someone, are far less likely to actually kill them. Chainsaws are much harder to use than a firearm. A child playing with a firearm can easily kill themself. A child playing with a chainsaw is unlikely to be able to start it.

Finally, people do not carry nail guns or chainsaws on their person or have them sitting under their pillow for the purpose of using them against a threat. I have no problem with people owning firearms at all. It's having them ready to use and easily accessible that I don't find sensible.

I have exactly as much sympathy for someone shooting themselves with their own gun as I do for someone getting shot because they broke into the home of a gun owner... none. It takes about two days of proper training to never pick up a gun in a way that will make it go off before you want it to.

So if your three year old child got hold of your readily accessible firearm and shot themself, they deserved it right?

A drunk or untrained driver behind the wheel of a car is a danger to himself and everyone around him. A drunk or untrained gun owner playing with his firearm is in the exact same situation. That doesn't mean we should all go back to riding horses or give up our guns.

This is back to the same "we should ban cars too" fallacy. I do not advocate the banning of firearms. Absolutely not. Motor vehicles are controlled and motor vehicle users are controlled. They are controlled by registration, licensing, and rules. Failure to meet the standards of these results in a loss of right to operate or own a motor vehicle.

In contrasts the same level of control is not universally adopted for firearms and firearms users. However if we look at the statistics:

About 44,900 people are killed every year in the USA by motor vehicles (this includes all types of motor vehicles including trains, boats, aircraft, etc). About 19,000 occupants of cars, pickups, and vans are killed every year.
About 28,000 people are killed every year in the USA by firearms. 16,000 are killed by self harm using a firearm, 11,000 by assault using a firearm, 300 by legal intervention with a firearm, 200 by discharge of a firearm of unknown cause, and 600 by accidental discharge of a firearm.

There's about 240 million registered land passenger motor vehicles in the USA (this does not include things like motorbikes or air and water motor vehicles) and about 200 million licensed drivers. The overwhelming majority of US households own at least one car, with an average of 2.6 per household.

In contrast, only 1/4 of American adults (about 54 million people) own firearms (total numbers of firearms are not known but thought to be around 200 million) and of those about 50% are not stored locked up, and about 16% are stored unlocked and loaded. (This is important because I have no issue with gun ownership in itself, only how they are stored and used).

The average American also spends a far, far greater percentage of their time in a motor vehicle than they do in possession of a firearm.

So from that we can conclude that firearms are at least comparably as dangerous as motor vehicles (and far, far less useful a tool). So why are motor vehicles so rigorously controlled, and firearms are not? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Drudgewire]

So from that we can conclude that firearms are at least comparably as dangerous as motor vehicles (and far, far less useful a tool). So why are motor vehicles so rigorously controlled, and firearms are not? It makes no sense to me.

-Felons can still drive. They can't own a firearm.
-You can drive at 16. You have to be 21 to own a handgun.
-You automatically have more years added to any sentence if you were in possession of a firearm at the time of your crime.

What more do you want?

 

[gumboot]

The reason I asked is that I have stated in the past on various forums that I would defend myself (possibly with deadly force) if a burglar I interrupted attacked me. Some people have interpreted this to mean that I would use deadly force to protect my property. It is obvious to me when I type those words that I am claiming to use deadly force to protect myself, but some people seem to be so prejudiced, that any form of self defense for any reason is wrong.

So, I would like to ask again, what posters here have claimed that they would use deadly force to protect property.

Ranb

This thread discusses the matter in some detail. I believe the relevant law is the "Castle Doctrine". In some states the law states that it is acceptable to use deadly force to protect property (even property of a third party in some cases). That these laws exist indicates that the majority of the population in that jurisdiction supports it.

I do not consider your scenario above as an example of using deadly force to protect property. You are clearly using it to protect yourself, and I have absolutely no qualms about self defense. Were my life or that of my loved ones threatened, and were I in possession of a firearm, I would not hesitate to use it.

 

[Drudgewire]

So if your three year old child got hold of your readily accessible firearm and shot themself, they deserved it right?

MY three year old child never would get ahold of it because I wouldn't leave it where he or any of his friends would so much as know I had one, much less where it was.

And as to whether a child deserved to die? That's sick. But then so is a parent who leaves drain cleaner under the sink. It's sad and tragic, but it's not Drain-o's fault that there are terrible parents in the world.

 

[gumboot]

-Felons can still drive. They can't own a firearm.
-You can drive at 16. You have to be 21 to own a handgun.
-You automatically have more years added to any sentence if you were in possession of a firearm at the time of your crime.

What more do you want?

I don't want anything. I'm perfectly happy with gun control laws in my country, and have no interest in trying to dictate how another country does things.

I'm discussing gun control purely from an academic point of view, because I find it to be an interesting topic to discuss.

The first two points above are certainly examples of gun control, and I would never argue that there is no gun control in the USA. I'm also aware that the USA is made up of fifty states, and gun control laws in those states vary.

(By the way point two above is not strictly true - you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed firearms dealer (only 18 for rifles and shotguns) but whether you can privately buy a handgun or rifle, and whether you have to be licensed to buy one, is governed by state law.)

Meanwhile the laws for driver licensing vary a great deal from state to state as well, and of course being licensed to drive a motor vehicle in accordance with strict road rules is not really comparable with being able to buy a firearm.

My simple arguments:

-Both firearms and motor vehicles are useful tools in the USA.
-Both firearms and motor vehicles are also very dangerous tools in the USA.
-Both firearms and motor vehicles are widespread in the USA.
-The use and possession of motor vehicles in the USA is more strongly controlled than the use and possession of firearms in the USA.
-Motor vehicles are much more useful a tool than a firearm to the average American.
-The lack of controls on firearms offer no significant benefits.
Firearms are at least of comparable harm to motor vehicles in the USA.

From this I draw the conclusion that it more stringent gun control laws are sensible.

If you don't agree with all of the above points, it's really no use discussing the subject.

 

[Drudgewire]

If you don't agree with all of the above points, it's really no use discussing the subject.

Other than your last point we're pretty much in agreement. It's one of the great things about debate, you can get passionate enough about a topic to start arguing about a point you're both making.

BUT:

-The lack of controls on firearms offer no significant benefits.

Sorry, but that's where my 2nd Amendment passion takes over. I don't want the government to know just how well-armed I am JUST IN CASE we ever have to rise up against them.... which is what our founding fathers decided was the second most important right for us to have for that very reason.

ETA: But that's probably just the South Carolinian in me talking. We get a little uppity about yankee lawmakers trying to tell us what to do.

 

[gumboot]

Sorry, but that's where my 2nd Amendment passion takes over. I don't want the government to know just how well-armed I am JUST IN CASE we ever have to rise up against them.... which is what our founding fathers decided was the second most important right for us to have for that very reason.

ETA: But that's probably just the South Carolinian in me talking. We get a little uppity about yankee lawmakers trying to tell us what to do.

I think this might be the most fundamental difference. For me it's not so much about "America is dumb with their dumb laws they should change so they're not dumb". It's more a case of "Hey that's interesting, the USA has a different attitude to us. I can't work out why they don't see it the way they do. I should talk about it with them and try work out why those differences exist."

For me that's what a "gun control" debate is about. Understanding differences.

The 2nd amendment thing is the interesting one for me. I suppose I find it interesting in two ways. Firstly I find the concept of fearing one's government interesting. By fearing one's government I mean fearing what one's government could potentially turn into. What I find especially interesting about that is I feel the US system, more so than most other systems in the world, is effectively insulated from the sort of circumstance that might require armed resistance.

I mean, people make a big deal about what Bush and his friends are doing, but you need only compare it to any historic oppressive government to immediately realise that it's simply not even in the same ball park.

So there's a big difference there. You could argue that New Zealand's system - with our absent monarch who demands the allegiance of our armed forces and police and no actual ties to the country of her own - is far more susceptible to establishment of an oppressive regime. Yet I don't think any large body of New Zealanders actually considers that a serious threat.

The other side of this 2nd amendment argument is the idea that assuming military overthrow of the government is necessary, gun control laws would hinder that. I don't even own a gun, but it wouldn't stop me joining in if I felt my government needed a revolution. The fact that my car is registered and I'm a licensed driver wouldn't stop me utilising my car for the good of the cause. If the intention is to dissolve the government, I fail too see how what the government knows can be useful. Now some information could be used by the government to help them prevent a revolution, certainly. There's talk of tracking chips in cars that can be used to limit maximum speeds, and that would prove a useful tool in controlling a population. But simply having a list of people who own guns doesn't seem overly useful to me - except maybe to convince the government not to try anything.

(If you know you have an army of 2 million, and you know there's 50 million civilian gun owners in the country, you might think twice about trying to implement military control, especially given you probably can't count on the support of most of those soldiers).

 

[Drudgewire]

It's funny, even as I get older and my views get more overall conservative and less paranoid... I still find both the concept of chips in cars to monitor speed and registration of guns absolutely horrifying.

 

[JoeEllison]

It's funny, even as I get older and my views get more overall conservative and less paranoid...

You used to be MORE paranoid?!?!?!

 

[brodski]

Sorry, but that's where my 2nd Amendment passion takes over. I don't want the government to know just how well-armed I am JUST IN CASE we ever have to rise up against them.... which is what our founding fathers decided was the second most important right for us to have for that very reason.

In that case you you support private citizens being able to stockpile military weapons? Artillery? Nukes?

If the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the Government does not outgun its citizenry so that violent revolution is possible when deemed necessary, the logical conclusion is that citizens should have similar access to weapons as the military.

 

[Drudgewire]

In that case you you support private citizens being able to stockpile military weapons? Artillery? Nukes?

If the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the Government does not outgun its citizenry so that violent revolution is possible when deemed necessary, the logical conclusion is that citizens should have similar access to weapons as the military.

You're making this point on the wrong guy. I want a nuke SOOO bad.

 

[~enigma~]

In that case you you support private citizens being able to stockpile military weapons? Artillery? Nukes?

If the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the Government does not outgun its citizenry so that violent revolution is possible when deemed necessary, the logical conclusion is that citizens should have similar access to weapons as the military.

And you are under the impression that a private citizen in the USA can't get military weapons?

 

[Drudgewire]

You used to be MORE paranoid?!?!?!

Yeah, I was a CT nut and the whole 9 yards (film student. We're all goofballs). Finally got a real job and little grounded and life was good... until Virginia Tech. Not the fact there were nuts out there with guns, but that it took the media about two minutes to get it totally wrong and start spouting their gun control idiocy. That's when I decided I should get a gun while I still could.

Then I liked shooting it a lot, and started reading a lot to make sure I didn't wind up a cowboy who blows his manhood off because he was trying to be cool.

Then I noticed how many practical needs guns have that my big-ass FNP-9 wasn't suited for so I bought a revolver that was bead-blasted to prevent light reflection when I have to reach into the nightstand and fire in pitch blackness.

Then I got more immersed in the culture, and right about then two people close to me were victims of violent crimes. That's when I decided to try for a carry license. Then I got my awesome Glock subbie but realized a pocket gun woud be more practical for everyday carrying which led to the Airweight 642.

Then of course I had to get at least one rifle and one pump-action shotgun because what kind of gun enthusiast doesn't have any long-arms?

And until I put down the first payment for the shack in Montana, I'm pretty content with the way things are for now (although I stll should probably have a .45 just in case the zombies come and laugh at 9mm/.38 +p).

 

[Tricky]

You're making this point on the wrong guy. I want a nuke SOOO bad.

You'd better get a delivery system too, or you're going to verify the urban legend about a redneck's last words being, "Hey guys, watch this!"

 

[volatile]

In that case you you support private citizens being able to stockpile military weapons? Artillery? Nukes?

If the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the Government does not outgun its citizenry so that violent revolution is possible when deemed necessary, the logical conclusion is that citizens should have similar access to weapons as the military.

Following on from that: Can I ask again, if an armed millitia took against the US government, would your average gun-owning, patriotic NRA member be for or against them? It seems to me that those who harp on about the second amendment so loudly are also the most blindly patriotic of citizens and thus the least likely ever to take up arms against the American government.

Drudge - in all seriousness, can you really ever imagine an armed resistance against the American government ever taking place? Any armed resistance movement would immediately be brandished "terrorists", and the NRA would be the ones fighting the government's side, not the other way around...

 

[Drudgewire]

Drudge - in all seriousness, can you really ever imagine an armed resistance against the American government ever taking place? Any armed resistance movement would immediately be brandished "terrorists", and the NRA would be the ones fighting the government's side, not the other way around...

If getting old has taught me anything, it's "never try to guess how different the world might be six months from now."

I'll take the Homer stance. I don't need an anti-helicopter attachment on my gun...









...yet.

 

[gumboot]

You'd better get a delivery system too, or you're going to verify the urban legend about a redneck's last words being, "Hey guys, watch this!"

Someone did mention recently that targeting shooting with ICBMs could be a sport, and I have to admit I found that kinda appealing...

 

[Mobyseven]

Someone did mention recently that targeting shooting with ICBMs could be a sport, and I have to admit I found that kinda appealing...

Mmmmm...it did sort of grab my attention, in a strange sort of way.

Finding a place willing to be a target is, of course another matter...