Gun Control is ridiculous

[Quad4_72]

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.

You seem to have avoided the question. Very sly, but I will ask it again and hopefully you will answer it this time. In the situation I described, if you were well trained with a handgun, heard an attacker come into your home and this attacker has the intent to kill, do you or do you not think that a gun would be useful? REMEMBER, this is not one of those British criminals that are all polite and ask kindly if they can rob you. This is someone who WILL kill you if he can.

 

[Loss Leader]

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?

Simply multiply the usefulness of a gun in that scenario by the likelihood of encountering those exact sets of facts.

Then consider the likelihood that lawfully owned gun will be used to shoot a relative.

Then consider the likelihood that the lawfully owned gun will be used to aid the commission of a crime and not to prevent crime.

Then weigh all the possible harm against all the possible good.

How many innocent people have to die by lawfully owned guns in order to justify the use of the gun to deter a home invader?

What guns can and cannot be used for is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the total social good outweighs the total harm. In the case of lawfully owned guns, the harm is somewhere around ten times as great as the good. That, to me, ends the argument.

[You can talk all you want about how well-trained you are in the use of your gun, how careful you are in its storage and how moral you are in its application, the fact is that you are ten times more likely to kill your brother in a fight over football than to kill a crack addict in a fight over your football trophy. And when you do it, you will probably be drunk.]

 

[volatile]

Straw purchases are illegal.

Surely the purchase itself is not illegal (otherwise it wouldn't be a straw purchase), just the transfer. The gun is legal, the gun posessor is the illegal one, which is where your gun laws run headlong into trouble.

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?

If you crack down on guns sufficiently, you also crack down on the black market. Gun control is about attempting to control all guns, and if there were fewer guns in circulation, they are by definition harder to get hold of.

What's your alternative? Yes, with sufficient will anyone can get a firearm whatever their locality's laws. But you're advocating less gun control. More guns, thus making them easier to get hold of, and cheaper.

Did you ever look up Joel Myrick?

Yep. I note that he had to use his private gun against, guess what, some kid with a gun.

Stop the kid getting the gun, and the teacher doesn't need one. Your idea is to routinely arm all teachers, mine is to stop the kids getting the guns in the first place.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Did you mean "all threats" or "some threats" when you used the phrase "any threat"?

"All threats"?

or

"Some threats"?

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).

So, it's irrelevant here.

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

But irrelevant.

It could be used that way.

But is it?

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?

Why do you refuse to educate yourself, e.g. by reading just a couple of the old gun threads?

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.

But that would be close to impossible within the US, when it comes to guns.

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

(Did this claim actually avoid challenge?)

Mission

The Mission of the New York City Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in our City by working in partnership with the community and in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment.
Values

In partnership with the community, we pledge to:

• Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and impartially enforce the law.
• Fight crime both by preventing it and by aggressively pursuing violators of the law.
• Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally expected of others because so much is expected of us.
• Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual and render our services with courtesy and civility.

Source

Let's see anyone make a liar out of New York's finest.

 

[shanek]

Very good point. That is what I want to know. Then on top of that, what percentage of people who own handguns have ever commited a crime with them?

And then divide it out by people who got guns legally vs. people who got them illegally.

 

[volatile]

You seem to have avoided the question. Very sly, but I will ask it again and hopefully you will answer it this time. In the situation I described, if you were well trained with a handgun, heard an attacker come into your home and this attacker has the intent to kill, do you or do you not think that a gun would be useful? REMEMBER, this is not one of those British criminals that are all polite and ask kindly if they can rob you. This is someone who WILL kill you if he can.

Right, this is sounding more and more like a 911 thread. We can all invent magically proficient perfect shots and perfect situations in which, hypothetically, the gun might be the best.

But what's more likely? That, or someone injuring themselves, or the gun being stolen, or the attacker shooting you first?

Stop being silly and think.

 

[Thanz]

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?

In asking your questions in this manner, you are looking at only one side of the issue. You are assuming, it seems, that there are no other costs or risks associated with having the gun. Your argument seems to be: "unless you can bring up a relevant argument that a gun would not be useful against a home invader, you should have a gun".

When was the last time you wore a parachute on a commercial airliner? 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 airliner will develop problems in the air and crash, killing the passengers. It has happened before, so DO NOT try to argue it. I know you may think that you lives in a safe little bubble where nothing will ever get to you but the facts show that there are chances of horrible situations arising. A parachute, if used correctly will GREATLY increase your chances of survival in this specific type of situation.

See the problem?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
But that would be close to impossible within the US, when it comes to guns.
<snip>

On what grounds can you make that claim? I've already provided one example of how an illegal distribution moved from an internal source to an external one. A similar example would be cocaine. It is not produced in the US at all, yet is readily available from outside sources. What makes the smuggling of guns different from the smuggling of narcotics, people, booze (during prohibition), etc?

 

[Garrette]

Then weigh all the possible harm against all the possible good.

Have you done that?

How many innocent people have to die by lawfully owned guns in order to justify the use of the gun to deter a home invader?

I think you mean "negate" instead of justify?

That depends on how you did the weighing of all the possible harm and all the possible good, I suppose.

From an individual perspective, I could argue that no loss of innocent life would be sufficient for me to abandon what I perceive to be the best method of assuring I am not among them.

From a common good perspective, I could argue that you haven't weighed all the possible good yet.

In the case of lawfully owned guns, the harm is somewhere around ten times as great as the good.

Could you tell me how you codified this, please?

That, to me, ends the argument.

It might for me, too, if I were convinced you had weighed all the possible harms and goods.

the fact is that you are ten times more likely to kill your brother in a fight over football than to kill a crack addict in a fight over your football trophy.

Hardly. My brother's a better shot...

And when you do it, you will probably be drunk.

So you're not only basing your outlook on a common good argument, you are ascribing to me and Quad and ranb a common vice?

Haven't been drunk in years, thank you very much.

 

[volatile]

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.

Sorry, did I misread the bit where you said:

"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."

That sounds to me like you think that the possibility of a riot breaking out on your doorstep is a justification for owning a firearm.

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

Wasn't it something like "I have guns because I enjoy them"? Is the social harm of "enjoying guns" OK by you?

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

Where I come from, people don't hunt with pistols. I stand corrected that some of your countrymen might. I also maintain that the primary purpose of a handgun is killing and wounding.

 

[Thanz]

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?

I think that adding more guns in the hands of frightened, inexperienced and probably pi$$ed off people to the L.A. riots would have been like throwing jet fuel onto a forest fire.

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

Not that many accidental fire extinguisher deaths, I'd wager.

Any more than, say, cars? Bathtubs?

Given that guns are dangerous when used for their intended purpose, I'd say yes. Are there more accidents with cars and bathtubs? Probably. Are there also many more interactions with cars and bathtubs on a daily basis? Undoubtedly so.

 

[Garrette]

So, it's irrelevant here.

But irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevant to an argument you think you're having with me. It was relevant to the point I was discussing with someone else.

But is it?

Sometimes.

 

[Garrette]

In asking your questions in this manner, you are looking at only one side of the issue. You are assuming, it seems, that there are no other costs or risks associated with having the gun. Your argument seems to be: "unless you can bring up a relevant argument that a gun would not be useful against a home invader, you should have a gun".

When was the last time you wore a parachute on a commercial airliner? 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 airliner will develop problems in the air and crash, killing the passengers. It has happened before, so DO NOT try to argue it. I know you may think that you lives in a safe little bubble where nothing will ever get to you but the facts show that there are chances of horrible situations arising. A parachute, if used correctly will GREATLY increase your chances of survival in this specific type of situation.

See the problem?

Yes. We should put guns in parachute packs.

 

[Quad4_72]

Simply multiply the usefulness of a gun in that scenario by the likelihood of encountering those exact sets of facts.

Then consider the likelihood that lawfully owned gun will be used to shoot a relative.

Then consider the likelihood that the lawfully owned gun will be used to aid the commission of a crime and not to prevent crime.

Then weigh all the possible harm against all the possible good.

How many innocent people have to die by lawfully owned guns in order to justify the use of the gun to deter a home invader?

What guns can and cannot be used for is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the total social good outweighs the total harm. In the case of lawfully owned guns, the harm is somewhere around ten times as great as the good. That, to me, ends the argument.

[You can talk all you want about how well-trained you are in the use of your gun, how careful you are in its storage and how moral you are in its application, the fact is that you are ten times more likely to kill your brother in a fight over football than to kill a crack addict in a fight over your football trophy. And when you do it, you will probably be drunk.]

First of all, my point is that a gun can be used to successfully deter a home invader and in self defense. I am glad that you acknowledge that.

Second, you applied national statistics towards an individual. This is improper use of statistics. For example, there is no way that I will kill a family member because they all live many miles away from me.

 

[volatile]

First of all, my point is that a gun can be used to successfully deter a home invader and in self defense. I am glad that you acknowledge that.

Second, you applied national statistics towards an individual. This is improper use of statistics. For example, there is no way that I will kill a family member because they all live many miles away from me.

So we only give guns to people who don't live near their nuclear family! Brilliant.

Either that, or that was a silly thing to say.

 

[Quad4_72]

Right, this is sounding more and more like a 911 thread. We can all invent magically proficient perfect shots and perfect situations in which, hypothetically, the gun might be the best.

But what's more likely? That, or someone injuring themselves, or the gun being stolen, or the attacker shooting you first?

Stop being silly and think.

Do you have statistics to prove that it is more likely that the attacker is going to shoot me first? Or that it will be stolen?

 

[shanek]

Well then, let's ask Quad.

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

I think Quad has made it clear that he didn't mean "all." Besides, "any" means "at least one," which could arguably mean "some," but I don't see any justification for claiming that it means "all."

 

[Quad4_72]

In asking your questions in this manner, you are looking at only one side of the issue. You are assuming, it seems, that there are no other costs or risks associated with having the gun. Your argument seems to be: "unless you can bring up a relevant argument that a gun would not be useful against a home invader, you should have a gun".

When was the last time you wore a parachute on a commercial airliner? 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 airliner will develop problems in the air and crash, killing the passengers. It has happened before, so DO NOT try to argue it. I know you may think that you lives in a safe little bubble where nothing will ever get to you but the facts show that there are chances of horrible situations arising. A parachute, if used correctly will GREATLY increase your chances of survival in this specific type of situation.

See the problem?

I do not see your scenario applying towards guns...sorry. Hell, you're right! If everyone was educated on planes how to use parachutes and there were proper methods of ejection from airplanes, a lot of lives would be saved.

 

[Quad4_72]

So we only give guns to people who don't live near their nuclear family! Brilliant.

Either that, or that was a silly thing to say.

What are you going on about now? I was simply saying that you cannot apply a national statistic towards an individual in this case. In other words, I am not as likely to shoot a family member because they live hundreds of miles away. Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[Quad4_72]

Did you mean "all threats" or "some threats" when you used the phrase "any threat"?

"All threats"?

or

"Some threats"?

What's wrong with you? I told you what I meant by threats. Someone who is willing to do bodily harm to me or another innocent person around me. I also said that I did not mean all threats, as in, I don't think a gun will help me if I get hit by a drunk driver. AGAIN, I ask you to bring up a point or stop asking the same damn thing.