I enjoy shooting guns and I'm a decent shot but I don't own one they are too dangerous. For home defense I have a taser and I think that's more than enough. Why do you need to risk killing the intruder? A taser is a much more sane method.
Gun Control is ridiculous
- Thread starter Quad4_72
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun control
Once they get done with guns, the pro-gun control crowd will move to Tasers next. Better stock up, and hide them in numerous places around LA, because I'm sure they'll want to confiscate them.
Skibum
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,659
Thats great, if they are in range and you don't miss.
Also, just because there is an intruder in your house doesn't mean you have to shoot him.
Honestly, the only time I would shoot is if I or my family was in danger. As long as he poses no threat, he has two options be there when the police arrive or to leave.
I'm not some trigger happy yahoo.
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,575
Sane? That seems a tad judgmental.
I brandished my handgun in a dark parking lot to a group of thugs who had followed me through the store and out to an aisle where no one else was parked. Do you think I could have kept more than one of them at bay with a taser? I mean, c'mon. That's positively insane. Just seeing the grip caused them to turn tail and run.
I had no intention of killing them. But more importantly, I had no intention of letting them kill me. Or my infant, who was in the shopping cart I was pushing when they thought I was an easy mark.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,534
Absolute crap...as clearly explained in the link that you use to support the idea..
Statistics are used by many people wanting to push thier agenda...I suggest you stick to counting bullet holes in people.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,534
I prefer the anecdote about the group of young men walking back to thier car and the person in front of them turning and brandishing a gun...of course they had to shoot quickly because they had a gun pointed at them.....they only realised it was an infant in the arms of the person after the shooting....sad story.
anecdote competitions may be fun but they are no basis for debate. But to add another factor...do you think your gun increases or decreases your chances of suffering a gunshot wound in your lifetime?
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Where I grew up, there were NO guns. The most violent place I've ever been so far, and I've seen MANY ghetto bars at closing time thru my career.
If you thought the police would protect you you were smoking crack
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
Some idiot said:
So is birth control. The question isn't whether it's ridiculous, it's whether it works.
Correct. The plural of anecdote is not "data."The Fool said:
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,575
This isn't a fun anecdotal game. This is my life we're talking about, and defensive uses are not marginal in number by any stretch of the imagination.
Since I'm a responsible and educated gun owner, there is little chance of an accidental shooting in my home. Since your car is more likely to kill than my gun, this argument doesn't impress me. Since five gallon buckets are more likely to cause an accidental death in my home, this argument doesn't impress me.
You can play fast and loose and call the story of how my gun did prevent a crime against me a fun little game, but it doesn't change the fact that there is very little chance I can defend myself against any man larger than me in a struggle. There is very little chance that when I am an elderly woman that any other weapon might be able to save my life.
I grew up on what the police at the time called the most gang infested block in the San Fernando Valley. I went through puberty as a slight girl on Willis Ave in Panorama city in the early 80's, where gang members shot at police out of their apartment windows. I know perfectly well the harm that guns can do. I can also safely say that few of those guns were purchased legally, and most people in Southern California who are NOT criminals cannot have a gun to protect themselves.
Luckily I was in WA when I needed my handgun, which I am legally licensed to carry. Nice little suburbs, at that.
It isn't all black and all white. I'm not one of the "you'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands" types of thinkers. I'm not in the NRA, I'm not a right wing gun nut. The fact is, the US is a country full of guns. You may sleep better at night thinking you can eradicate crime by banning guns. I can sleep better at night knowing how to safely and quickly access mine.
There is no way to disarm criminals! What are you going to do about that?
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,534
a nice grab bag of slogans here....and its nice to know that you are an educated and responsible gun owner. I've actually never come across a gun owner that doesn't believe that....wonder where all the irresponsible ones come from?
You also include the (seemingly compulsory) claim that I want to ban something....
You are simply a gun control advocate belittling other gun control advocates with little or no backup (besides an anecdote) for the superiority of your prefered level of gun control..
But back to the question...do you think your gun makes you safer? Do you think your gun makes your family safer? Also...why would you stay somewhere that you are so fearfull that you have to carry weapons?
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
Miss Anthrope, I see your point- I really do. But I have one to make in return, and it's why I said, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
Insurance companies did a set of actuarial studies; in case you don't know about that, it's how insurance companies make money. In other words, they don't have any agenda but to get a realistic idea of how much they are likely to have to pay, and how they should judge the risk of having to pay it. What they found is that people who own guns are more likely to get shot.
The way not to get into a situation where you need a gun is to pay attention. If you have a gun, you don't think you need to.
Think about it. That's all I ask.
Insurance companies did a set of actuarial studies; in case you don't know about that, it's how insurance companies make money. In other words, they don't have any agenda but to get a realistic idea of how much they are likely to have to pay, and how they should judge the risk of having to pay it. What they found is that people who own guns are more likely to get shot.
The way not to get into a situation where you need a gun is to pay attention. If you have a gun, you don't think you need to.
Think about it. That's all I ask.
Precisely. For some reason, it doesn't occur to gun proponents that nice people sometimes do nasty things.
A criminal is a nice guy who, at some point, turned bad. If that nice guy had a gun when he turned bad, he turned really bad.
It doesn't matter how well you are "trained" to "handle" guns, if you fly into a rage. Training might result in a reduced number of accidents, but that number is far lower than the number of gun homicides.
If you fly into a rage, you don't consider that your actions is going to cost you a long stretch in the slammer. Crimes of passion happen, we are a passionate species. But if you fly into a rage with a gun, you are far more apt to create serious damage around you. That is what a gun is really good for.
Gun proponents have an ambivalent approach to guns. On one hand, they point to "training" as a reason why guns are safe for them, so they themselves know how to shoot at the right target, at the right moment.
On the other, they point to guns being inherently dangerous in the hands of criminals. But don't criminals get "training"?
Apparently, this is not the case. In the Utopian world of gun proponents, we are instead presented with an overly simplistic scenario of a criminal with a gun (possibly a drug addict, but certainly someone who is not to be trusted with a gun) coming at a law-abiding citizen. This law-abiding citizen is supposedly capable of taking out the criminal (or at least defend himself). This, after getting the gun from its locker, where it is safely tucked away, so your kids won't get to it.
Utopian indeed.
As for the "evidence": Unfortunately, it seems symptomatic of gun proponents that, in the rare case of them not merely resorting to a disturbing display of uncontrolled emotion, they take a quick glance at a graph, but ignore the explanations behind. Let me just bring up this link, previously introduced as "evidence" that violent crime is higher in the UK/Australia than in the US.
First, there is this little gem that luchog left out:
So, the rise is not due to tighter gun control laws, but due to the fact that more types of crimes were included. Even alleged ones.
Second, "violent crime" does not equal "gun crime". Violent crime includes a whole range of crimes that do not involve guns. Brawling, bar/pub fights, domestic violence, rape, etc. If we want to compare the effect guns have on crime rates, we have to compare gun-related crimes. And then, it doesn't look good for gun proponents.
But what about being able to defend yourself? If I heard someone in my home, would I grab a gun? No, I'd turn the lights on and scream my head off. I'd make such a ruckus, everyone would think it was Judgment Day. If I felt I lived in a bad neighborhood, I'd have a nice alarm at my bedside - you can get them with a positively deafening force. Heck, it is a good idea anyway, no matter where you live. Have the alarms in several rooms, too.
What would the benefits be? Many.
The biggest benefit would be that I wouldn't accidentally shoot a member of my family who just chose to get up in the middle of the night for a bathroom visit, or a midnight snack. What are the chances of a family member doing that, compared to someone breaking in? Yeah. Yet, this has no effect on gun proponents.
If it were a burglar, he would get the hell out. The last thing a burglar needs is people being present when he tries to steal stuff. And a ear-splitting alarm going off kinda takes the wind out of what he wants to do.
If it were someone who wanted to murder me, he would also get out. His cover is blown, people will appear, he will be seen.
If it were someone crazy who wanted to murder me, or someone high on dope, it wouldn't make any difference whether I had a gun or not. People like that don't think rationally, they'd go against a raving herd of elephants. Lock your doors, get an alarm.
If it was the government coming for me, I wouldn't stand a chance anyway. Only if I wanted to go down in a hail'o'bullets (just like in the movies!)...
I'm sorry, chaps: There are no rational or sane reasons why people should own guns for self protection. The evidence certainly doesn't support the contention that guns make a society safer. Quite the opposite.
The only new argument I have seen so far, is this:
I would very much like to see evidence that guns are being used no less than 8 million times per year to "prevent" crimes.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
There have been numerous gun threads, and we have agreed to disagree, I think. It comes down to what you believe culturally is right. Australia has gun laws and a lower homicide rate than the states.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
Which laws do you agree with?
The person you are putting words ins mouth did not say first sentence or imply it. Said they do it. No argument they have that right - so perhaps if I am going by and see someone shooting people in a store/business with that sign posted I should not drop in and remove the head of the shooter since I would be taking a gun in against their wishes.
Unfortunately, my inate belief that good guys need protection from bad guys would force me to go in anyway -but...... Everyone has the right to have the delusion of safety - and that delusion is maintained until the first time something is stolen, they are assaulted, their living or work space is the scene of a violent, or other, major crime (etc.). I have no delusion of safety.
That does not mean I walk/hide in fear but it does mean that at best, I am prepared to kill, at worst, I take my attacker with me.
Also, I would like to see regulation properly done - but very limited as long as the person covered/allowed weapon possession is highly trained
) ), no criminal record) ), evaluated by professional psychologist and all weapons licensed are required to be high quality, well designed etc. (ergo, expensive enough that Sat. night specials and related are illegal- completely)(yes, I am saying specific weapons are licensed, not simply classes or by carry method - I would also change carry laws to owners choice for concealed or open. I tend to prefer open since what I carry makes a point-which makes it unlikely it would ever need to be used,)
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'm sure you meant AK-47 - just as I'm sure your other data (not counting opinion) is equally accurate.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Would you shoot a man dead if he was robbing your house? If he was stealing your wallet? Do you advocate the death penalty for pick-pocketing?
I hear all this talk of "self-defence", but all that really means is the establishment of a vigilante culture where the gun-owning individual is free to dispense summary execution at the moment of his or her choosing. Say someone robs you in a dark alley - he doesn't want to kill you, just steal your mobile phone. Would you pull the gun on that guy? Is street robbery a capital crime?
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
I'm sure you meant AK-47 - just as I'm sure your other data (not counting opinion) is equally accurate.
Thanks for picking on the typo and not the substantive points of the argument. It certainly adds credibility to your opinion.
Shaun from Scotland
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 864
In England and Wales, firearms are involved in about 3% of violent crime. In Scotland its miniscule:
"In 2005-06 the Scottish police recorded 1,068 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used, a decrease of 6 per cent from the total of 1,136 recorded in 2004-05, and 28 per cent lower than the 1996-97 figure of 1,481. ( Table 1)
The use of firearms in criminal activity constituted only a small proportion of all offences recorded by the police in 2005-06; 8 per cent of recorded homicides (8 offences), 5 per cent of recorded attempted murders (35 offences), and 2 per cent of recorded robberies (74 offences). Less than 0.5 per cent of other offences involved the alleged use of a firearm"
Since gun crime in Scotland is substantively down since peaking in the early 90's I would be careful about saying the UK's gun crime rates are up since the gun ban. It had NOTHING to do with it. There are other factors at play here.
Oh and incidentally, I'd be careful telling someone they don't know much about their own country when its manifestly obvious you dont know anything about the UK political system. There quite simply, is no such thing as "the UK crime rate" violent or otherwise.
Last edited: