Gun Control is ridiculous

[Garrette]

A sidearm is insufficient for home defense.

Depends on the home, the sidearm, the owner, the intruder, and the intruder's weapons.

A person on the offense and a person on defense are in two different positions and have two different goals.

Yes.

The basic condition of defense is one of imperfect knowledge, confusion and surprise. The attacker knows the time, place and method of attack. He knows his goals and how much risk he is willing to tolerate. The defender has none of this knowledge. The defender does not know when or even if the attack is coming. He may not even be certain when the attack commences, thinking it might be a false alarm or a misunderstanding. He does not know what the attacker's goals are or even if the attacker's goals are really inconsistent with his defensive goals. (After all, how hard will I fight to defend my roommate's stuff from his ex-girlfriend?) He has no idea what type of force the attacker has at his disposal or even how many attackers there are.

If you're going to couch it as a military analysis, then be consistent about it. The only disadvantage in your list that does not also apply to the burglar is that of surprise, and even that is no guarantee (the military definition of surprise is a very useful one), and the balance of knowledge is heavily in favor of the homeowner. I know my house, the burglar does not.

And is it really an attacker or just your teenage son sneeking back in after a night of drinking?

He'll never sneak again...

If your point is that there are dangers to having a firearm, particularly for use in home defense, I won't disagree, but your post is less an argument than it is stream of thought.

In a defensive situation, one must discount the force one would use to protect oneself or property by the chance that no such protection is necessary and the chance that one has simply misunderstood the situation.

That applies whether a weapon is used or not. Are you suggesting that resistance, with or without a weapon, is never the wisest course?

A defensive weapon should be one that slows the attacker, scares him off, or disables him until more information can be gathered.

You are wrongly assuming at least three things:

1. I have no other weapons (see below)
2. Using the firearm means discharging the firearm
3. I cannot gain sufficient knowledge prior to discharging the firearm

It should also be low intensity and widespread.

You can conceive of no circumstances in which this is the wrong approach?

The widespread nature allows for the fact that one does not know exactly where the attacker is.

Who says?

The low intensity allows for the fact that the defender might just be wrong.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I have waited to gather enough information before discharging my firearm.

A good defensive weapon might be an alarm system or even a dog. The lock on a door is a defensive weapon. So is a floodlight.

So is the fence. So is the sticker on the window that says "This Home Monitored by OverPriced Security Systems."

I have a security background; you're springing nothing new on me, but your thoughts aren't leading to the conclusion you think they do.

A gun is a very poor choice for a defensive weapon.

You haven't demonstrated that.

It is not designed to slow an attack while the defender analyzes the situation.

Not when discharged. Brandishing it can do that, though.

It is not designed to call for help.

Which of course means that no one with a gun has ever thought to call for help in addition to firing it.

And it is not designed to minimize harm in case the defender has made a mistake.

True.

It is designed to kill a single person whose position and intent are known to the user.

Or for hunting. Or for target shooting.

Being unsuited for defense, it cannot be sufficient at any price.

You'll need to do a lot better than that.

 

[volatile]

You speak too much in absolutes. It is possible that a home defender can be aware of an aggressor outside of his home. Just ask anyone who has lived through a riot outside of their house/apartment.

So you don't need a gun for a burglary - you could stop a burglar without one. Now it turns out you need one (in fact, more than one?) in case there's a riot on your doorstep.

The paranoid situations you're positing as the need for your gun ownership are becoming a little tenuous. Could it be you don't really need one at all?

 

[CFLarsen]

"Target shooting"? Why is that relevant?

Is it a right? Is it for self-defense?

 

[Quad4_72]

Well then, let's ask Quad.

Quad, did you mean "all threats" or "some threats" when you used the phrase "any threat"?

Are we really arguing this? A threat as in someone trying to do bodily harm towards myself or others.

 

[baron]

There are several ways to do this. I can yell for help, run away, brandish a firearm, shoot the firearm, shoot and wound the criminal, kill the criminal, or do something else.

The first two you can do without a weapon.

The 3rd and 4th you could do with an imitation weapon or a gun firing blanks.

The 6th is the one we would like to avoid.

Which leaves us with the 5th - shoot and wound. Well, you must be the most incredible marksman in the world if you can shoot someone in the heat of the moment (or indeed in any situation) and be sure of wounding them rather than killing them.

Because I have little sympathy for people who purposely ruin their own lives by taking dangerous drugs...

What, you give them a questionnaire to fill in? Otherwise, how would you know your assumption is correct?

 

[Garrette]

"Target shooting"? Why is that relevant?

He made a claim about what pistols are made for. He was wrong.

As an example, I'll mention the .45 caliber Colt Gold Cup Revolver. A more beautiful weapon would be hard to find. It would work quite nicely to kill people, but it isn't made for that.

I suspect (but do not know) that the rifles used in the Olympica biathlon are manufactured specifically for target shooting, though they would work well enough to shoot a man.

Conversely, the two sidearms I have owned personally (discounting those issued to me in the military) were most definitely not made for target shooting but specifically for shooting (and killing) people. No shoot-to-wound nonsense. (Nonsense because of its highly impractical nature, not because killing is better than wounding).

Is it a right?

Target shooting? I don't know. I know it hasn't been outlawed.

Is it for self-defense?

It could be used that way.

 

[Quad4_72]

It seems that everyone in this thread is guilty of citing scenarios in which guns can and cannot be used in self defense. Fair enough. My point IS, and this is something that CANNOT be argued, there ARE scenarios in which it is possible (This is speaking from hundreds of true accounts) that an intruder will break into a home, and if witnesses are discovered, he will kill them with some sort of weapon. It has happened before, so DO NOT try to argue it. I know volatile thinks that he lives in a safe little bubble where nothing will ever get to him but the facts show that there are chances of horrible situations arising. A gun, if used correctly will GREATLY increase your chances of survival in this specific type of situation.

Anyone care to bring up a RELEVANT argument that a gun would not be useful against a home invader that has intent to kill you?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's relevant because you can produce crystal meth just about anywhere. You don't have to build a huge factory, you can use a garage or a basement somewhere.

It is quite different with guns. You have to have a factory of some size before you can possibly produce even a smidgen of the guns sold each year in the US.

You may be able to build such a factory outside the US, but inside? Arh......

I am not suggesting that if legal production of firearms in the US is halted that garage shops are going to produce them.

My analogy was chosen because "mom and pop" meth labs had a similar area of effect and distribution as a black market arms deal has. Now, the "mom and pop" labs were producing their own product and distributing it, rather than purchasing their product and distributing it; however, the key point is when those distribution points were no longer able to meet demand, new distribution points with a new source did.

 

[Garrette]

It wasn't my intention to suggest that, which is why I mentioned "necessity" in my quoted post,

Sorry I missed it.

and I certainly don't believe you personally would take any pleasure in using a gun, based on your input here.

I have fortunately never had to find out, even in the military, though I've come close.

However, now you mention it, I would suggest that a not insignificant number of US gun owners, in their heart of hearts, yearn for the day when they can legally whop out their weapon and start a-blastin' away at a human target. I have no proof, it's just the feeling I get.

I'm sure they exist, too. I know a few I suspect of it. But I probably think the number is less significant than you do.

There are always exceptions to the rule (although I don't think this is a particularly convincing one). I'm certain there are cases where carrying a gun has saved someone's life but, in the grand scheme of things, they are outweighed by the perils of gun ownership.

You and volatile seem to have similar positions, then, and I can respect them both. It seems we draw the line in different places based on at least a couple of differing perceptions, but that merely makes it a matter of degree.

 

[Garrette]

The 3rd and 4th you could do with an imitation weapon or a gun firing blanks.

AAAAAGH! MY first real disagreement with you. (Ignoring the fact that blanks are deadly at close range)

That is the worst of all possible actions. If the person I am pointing my fake gun at has a real gun and feels he can use it better than I can use my supposedly real one, I have simply goaded him into a higher level of force while denying myself the means to respond to it.

Which leaves us with the 5th - shoot and wound. Well, you must be the most incredible marksman in the world if you can shoot someone in the heat of the moment (or indeed in any situation) and be sure of wounding them rather than killing them.

Hear hear!

 

[shanek]

There is an old axiom that "hard cases make bad law". However, if the husband is that dangerous, I don't see a problem with the wife obtaining an order at the same time as the restraining order allowing her to obtain a gun immediately provided that she undertake the training course within X days.

Fair enough. Now how about a real-life scenario: the LA riots. A lot of shopkeepers wanted to get a gun to protect themselves from the looters and vandals who didn't limit themselves to inanimate objects. They were shocked that they couldn't get a gun to protect themselves because of a waiting period. Should they have been allowed to do so? Or do you agree with making them wait, which is what really happened?

Some scientists are now saying that fire extinguishers and guns are radically different devices.

It's a comparison. As I said, you get both in the hopes that neither would ever need to be used.

Guns are inherently dangerous.

Any more than, say, cars? Bathtubs?

No one (outside of possibly a military use) needs an Uzi.

Again, some of the shopkeepers during the LA riots might disagree with that.

 

[varwoche]

You will be surprised to find out that the supreme court has ruled that the police have no duty or responsibilty to protect you.

Indeed I would, and I invite you to surprise me with evidence.

(Did this claim actually avoid challenge?)

 

[volatile]

It seems that everyone in this thread is guilty of citing scenarios in which guns can and cannot be used in self defense. Fair enough. My point IS, and this is something that CANNOT be argued, there ARE scenarios in which it is possible (This is speaking from hundreds of true accounts) that an intruder will break into a home, and if witnesses are discovered, he will kill them with some sort of weapon. It has happened before, so DO NOT try to argue it. I know volatile thinks that he lives in a safe little bubble where nothing will ever get to him but the facts show that there are chances of horrible situations arising. A gun, if used correctly will GREATLY increase your chances of survival in this specific type of situation.

Anyone care to bring up a RELEVANT argument that a gun would not be useful against a home invader that has intent to kill you?

Well then - if that's the case, let's postulate probabilities.

Is it more probable that this situation will occur and that, just once, a gun will save your life, or that the gun will fall into criminal hands, cause an accidental death or wounding, backfire, break or just plain fail to work.

We're not talking absolutes, but your reason for owning a gun works in only a vanishingly rare case, whereas, as we know, guns falling into the wrong hands, or causing accidents, or being used in anger rather than defence is far more frequent.

I'll come back to something I mentioned earlier - are you, as an individual, generally more or less safe if guns are easily available to everyone? Extrapolating that idea, are societies more or less safe if guns are easily available to everyone?

The downsides of widespread gun ownership is increased criminal gun ownership and increased accidental deaths from firearms, amongst others. The upsides are protection for the individual in a very rare and unlikely set or circumstances in which no other tactic would be as effective as a personal firearm.

Do you want a society where we all work together to be safer, or so you want one where it's each to his own, and the one with the biggest arsenal wins?

I know which one I'd pick.

 

[volatile]

Any more than, say, cars? Bathtubs?

I'm gonna get all incredulous again, if you're not careful.

A bathtub is as dangerous as a gun, inherently?!

 

[shanek]

According to Wikipedia, they were obtained through a "straw purchase", meaning they were bought legally.

Straw purchases are illegal.

Until they picked up the guns to use them, until Robyn Anderson gave them the weapons, the weapons were legal.

And do you really think that if that option were not open to them that they wouldn't have simply got them on the black market? What about the explosives? Were they obtained legally?

So to prevent future massacres in the future, do we control guns, thus making legal and black-market ones rarer and harder to get, or just make it easier for people to get legal ones? Is "gun control ridiculous"? What would have prevented Columbine - More gun control, or less?

Did you ever look up Joel Myrick?

 

[Garrette]

Anyone care to bring up a RELEVANT argument that a gun would not be useful against a home invader that has intent to kill you?

I don't think even volatile has used that argument. His argument is more one of degree, i.e. (and I won't be offended if he corrects me here):

X thousand burglaries occur.

Only .0x% of burglaries are committed with an active intent to kill.

Only .0y% of burglaries are committed by someone who will kill if caught.

Z% of burglaries are commited by someone who will, if interrupted by a gun-wielding homeowner, react in such a way as to result in a death which would otherwise have been avoided.

Only A% of interrupted burglaries (by a homeowner with a gun) result in either no deaths or only the death of a person who would have otherwise killed the homeowner.


Whatever the actual numbers are, X, x, y, and A are so small and Z is so large that the net value of gun ownership is less than the net value of gun banning.

 

[shanek]

Are you aware of what types of weapons in reference to guns cause the most deaths? Which do you think it is...assualt rifles or handguns? Handguns are WAY more restricted for a reason. The can be concealed very easily. Rarely do you see places being robbed with AKs...The reason I have an AK-47 is because it is a blast to shoot.

Also, what about the fact that you can buy a perfectly legal rifle, change the stock from wood to black plastic, NOT change the firing mechanism, ammo, barrel, etc. in any way at all, and all of a sudden it's an assault weapon? Does that make sense to anybody?

 

[baron]

AAAAAGH! MY first real disagreement with you. (Ignoring the fact that blanks are deadly at close range)

That is the worst of all possible actions. If the person I am pointing my fake gun at has a real gun and feels he can use it better than I can use my supposedly real one, I have simply goaded him into a higher level of force while denying myself the means to respond to it.

I agree, very inadvisable!

And certainly, blanks can be deadly at close range, I assumed the OP was referring to the noise deterrent.

 

[Ranb]

So you don't need a gun for a burglary - you could stop a burglar without one. Now it turns out you need one (in fact, more than one?) in case there's a riot on your doorstep.

The paranoid situations you're positing as the need for your gun ownership are becoming a little tenuous. Could it be you don't really need one at all?

I said a gun was an option. I also never said I needed one in case there was a riot on my doorstep. You should stick to responding to statements made by me, not ones you imagine were made by me. Correcting your child-like mistakes is getting tedious.

Take a look at my answer above on why I have guns.

Why are you avoiding answering my questions? You really believe what you say about shotguns and pistols?

Ranb

 

[Garrette]

Indeed I would, and I invite you to surprise me with evidence.

(Did this claim actually avoid challenge?)

DeShaney vs. Winnebago.

There are others. Google: Supreme Court police duty to protect