Gun Control is ridiculous

[baron]

Is this the bulk of your concern?

As I was addressing a specific situation, yes.

Then I might suggest mandatory training classes for firearm ownership as opposed to banning.

Serious classes, not the paperwork drills most states require for concealed carry.

That is indeed one option. However, as it has been proven again and again that if approached by armed criminals the best option is to surrender, your suggestion is always going to come off second best.

 

[Skibum]

As an Army man I would have expected you to see the foolishness of your words. Perhaps you are trained in the use of guns, and perhaps you would use a gun wisely and accurately. If I walk down the street with Average Joe, who is carrying a gun, and we are attacked, he's much more likely to shoot me, or himself, or have the gun taken off him and rammed up his a55 than to save the day.

Evidence?

 

[Skibum]

However, as it has been proven again and again that if approached by armed criminals the best option is to surrender, your suggestion is always going to come off second best.

So....... prove it.

 

[Azure]

I guess a gun in your temple and "give me your guns" would do the trick.

People who keep guns in the house are more likely to be victims of gun crime than those that do not. The idea that most murders are committed by outsiders breaking in armed with guns is pure fantasy.

And rich houses are more likely to be broken into then houses located in the slum of the city.

Plus, my apartment has an alarm system, and is locked when I'm at home or away. Oh, it is also monitored 24 hours a day.

I don't get this - can you explain.

I'm all for being empowered to protect me and my family, but I know that tooling up with weaponry isn't the way to do it.

You go to the local butcher mart and buy deer meat. Where does it come from? Assuming that you eat meat...

 

[Garrette]

As I was addressing a specific situation, yes.

Fair enough.

That is indeed one option. However, as it has been proven again and again that if approached by armed criminals the best option is to surrender,

I'm unaware of such proof.

your suggestion is always going to come off second best.

Even if I grant that your contention is correct (that surrender to an armed criminal is best), such information could be incorporated into the training. But, Ah! you say. Some will still resist and bloodshed will result.

(Now that I've put words into your mouth, I'll put some into mine):

Yes? So? How far are you willing to go to protect people from themselves?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Reminds me of an old joke:

Patient: Hey, Doc it hurts when I do this (flapping his right arm wildly up and down).

Doctor: Well don't do that.

Gun control like abortion is one of those timeless and heated debates, and you're absolutely right - if you don't want to discuss it don't. The same is true of abortions - if you don't believe in abortion - don't have one.

It is also just an argument about ideology, as I don't buy any studies as they are all intended to show one side or the other as being right.

That means it is not a topic where you can look at data and really say "this is the best solution". So it is basically like theological debate not solvable.

 

[Skibum]

Plus, my apartment has an alarm system, and is locked when I'm at home or away. Oh, it is also monitored 24 hours a day.

If someone really want in those wouldn't stop them. Cut the phone line and the power (accessible from outside) and bump the lock. Might take an extra minute or two to get in. Chances are if your system is one of the cheap ones installed by apartment complexes thats all that would be needed to get in.

Locks and alarms only keep the honest people out.

 

[Alt+F4]

Then I might suggest mandatory training classes for firearm ownership as opposed to banning.

Serious classes, not the paperwork drills most states require for concealed carry.

In the United States, the National Rifle Association would never agree to that.

 

[CFLarsen]

And rich houses are more likely to be broken into then houses located in the slum of the city.

Evidence?

 

[fuelair]

I was being sarcastic.

Thats one of the biggest problems I have with gun control advocates. Instead of taking the protection of your own life, into YOUR hands, they want you to put that burden on the criminal approaching you.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing that.

Cool Beans to phrase a coin!!

 

[Garrette]

In the United States, the National Rifle Association would never agree to that.

If they got a piece of the action I bet they would, and it is likely they would get by far the biggest piece.

In my experience, states that require any sort of training (usually for concealed carry permits) accept NRA training. It's not hard to get licensed as an NRA-approved instructor; they get money from you for that. They also get the mark-up on training materials for every person you certify. More thorough training requirements means another opportunity to charge and collect.

 

[baron]

I'm unaware of such proof.

Just off out but I'll just address this (and related requests); I may have to partially back down on my statement. Certainly my stated case (resistance = greater risk) is true in the UK, where I live, when talking of a robbery situation, but looking more closely into US statistics there seems to be evidence that the opposite can be true. I'll investigate this more when I get a minute.

 

[Orangutan]

I don't mind gun control. As long as I can keep buying guns, go to the range whenever I like and keep them in my possession, I will fill out paperwork and go through waiting periods if it makes my fellow non-gun-owning citizens feel assured.

It's too bad I can't buy M80s anymore because of stupid people blowing themselves or other people up. Any one who disagrees has no business watching 'Myth Busters', you know explosions for recreational purposes are fun!

 

[Garrette]

Just off out but I'll just address this (and related requests); I may have to partially back down on my statement. Certainly my stated case (resistance = greater risk) is true in the UK, where I live, when talking of a robbery situation, but looking more closely into US statistics there seems to be evidence that the opposite can be true. I'll investigate this more when I get a minute.

Take your time. I may be off for a while, too.

For what it's worth, my memory tells me that in the US the numbers indicate that non-resistance is the best course (meaning least likely to result in injury or death) when confronted with someone whose sole intent is to rob you, but I don't recall distinctions between resisting when armed and resisting when not armed.

Conversely, the best course switched to active resistance when assault or kidnapping was the intent.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think everyone can agree that there are irresponsible gun owners who allow their guns to fall in the wrong hands, mainly children, and as a result innocent people die.

I understand the argument that guns shouldn't be taken away from the responsible owers just because other owners are stupid.

So responsible gun owners, what should be done to stop the estimated 20,000 American handgun deaths a year? The gun owners want to keep their guns, they should provide the solution.

 

[Garrette]

I think everyone can agree that there are irresponsible gun owners who allow their guns to fall in the wrong hands, mainly children, and as a result innocent people die.

I understand the argument that guns shouldn't be taken away from the responsible owers just because other owners are stupid.

So responsible gun owners, what should be done to stop the estimated 20,000 American handgun deaths a year? The gun owners want to keep their guns, they should provide the solution.

I agree with this sentiment but have to disagree with the practical implication (i.e., that no responsible gun owner would allow guns to fall into the hands of children).

It is not uncommon for country families (in Kentucky, anyway) comprising several hunting generations to have lots of hunting rifles. Frequently they are left leaning behind the back door, accessible to everyone including the young children. But the young children are also made aware of the rifles and their dangers from an early age. Tragic accidents are not unheard of, but they are, to my knowledge, rare in such families.

 

[Orangutan]

I think everyone can agree that there are irresponsible gun owners who allow their guns to fall in the wrong hands, mainly children, and as a result innocent people die.

I understand the argument that guns shouldn't be taken away from the responsible owers just because other owners are stupid.

So responsible gun owners, what should be done to stop the estimated 20,000 American handgun deaths a year? The gun owners want to keep their guns, they should provide the solution.

But our society says that guns shouldn't be taken away from the stupid owners either, until there are actions resulting in their stupidity.

Where did you get your figures from 20,000 accidental shooting deaths seems high to me. I got these figures from

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323;

So it looks like 802 accidental deaths. for 60 million personal firearms owners.

EDIT: Sorry I just re-read your post you weren't saying that it 20,000 accidents, but 20,000 handgun deaths total including murder, suicide and accident. sorry.

Double Edit. here is a list of murder rates per capita.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Yes I'm about 3 times more likely to get murdered than my English cousins.

 

[Ranb]

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084

I read the link. It seems they were looking for a certain conclusion. They ended with;

Conclusions The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Maybe the last sentence should have been; .....guns kept in the homes of violent persons and illicit drug users are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Maybe it is the drugs and violent tendancies of the people involved more than it is the guns.

Ranb

 

[Thanz]

Are you under the impression that bad things only happen in bad neighborhoods?

I am not implying that at all - I am just trying to get to the basis for his fear. If you feel safe, why do you still think you need a gun?

 

[CFLarsen]

So it looks like 802 accidental deaths. for 60 million personal firearms owners.

I take it you think this is acceptable?

If so, where do you draw the line? Would 8,000 make you reconsider?