Gun Control is ridiculous

[shanek]

Sorry but that is completely and utterly irrelevant to what happened at Dunblane

Well, then all we have are duelling anecdotes. But consider this: if Myrick had not inadvertently left his gun in his car, and the kid's friends had continued the carnage as they had planned, would gun control people not be saying EXACTLY the same thing that you are? "Hey, if they didn't get guns, how could they have done that?" and completely dismissing the possibility of one armed person stopping it (as is what actually happened).

I also suggest that had Luke Woodham NOT had a gun, the death toll that day would have been lower.

And I suggest that no amount of gun control would have stopped him from getting a gun if he really wanted one.

 

[HarryKeogh]

So after 19 pages and 900 posts and over 5,000 views has anyone changed their position on any aspect of gun control?

 

[Ranb]

"Suitable"? Can you hunt with all that is legal? Not just guns, but whatever is at hand?

Don't turn the tables: Who do you think is trustworthy and why?

I am pointing to the nukes comparison to emphasize how silly the car comparison is.

Wow. It is simply incomprehensible to you that I could have misunderstood you.

I already answered your question several times. Just because you are not satisfied or want several different versions does not mean I will keep on providing more answers. What answer are you looking for anyway?

Those eligible persons who truthfully fill out form 4473 are good examples of trustworthy people.

These nukes/cars/guns comparisons make you look silly.

You really do not want to admit you made a mistake either. Why should I think you are telling the truth if you can not admit to making a mistake?

Getting a straight answer out of you is like getting teeth pulled, it can be a long and tedious process.

Ranb

 

[Lonewulf]

Precisely. You saved me from much typing.

Gun proponents are effectively asking the question, "Wouldn't you want a gun if you were in a situation where a gun was the only item that could save your life?" Well sure I'd want a gun in that case, but what does that prove? If I was in a situation that demanded a hand-grenade I'd want a hand-grenade. If I was in a situation that demanded a ball of string, two tent pegs and a bucket of gerbils I'd want these too.

What gun proponents need to understand is that guns may provide conclusion to a situation, but it's almost never the right one.

And yet, I have friends that have been in those situations.

A woman posted within this thread that was in one of those situations.

It's so unlikely, yet some people find themselves within them. I guess they don't exist.

 

[shanek]

It's just that it's not going to happen. I've tried to bet my friends 100 that they won't win the 100 million powerball. Yes, theoretically it could happen but it actualy will not. In the same sense I know the 40 ninjas scenarios that the gun owner proposes are so unlikely that while theoretically possible that I can point to shanek, lonewulf, and quad and say that none of the three of you will ever be awakened in the middle of the night by a person you are sure is a burgler where the best possible action is armed confrontation, retrieve your guns and ammo, get the drop of him, identify him as a deadly threat, and emerge victorious in a gunfight. It simply won't happen.

You have been shown the statistics of how often armed citizens stop a crime, usually without even firing a shot. The low end is 700,000 a year, just the reported incidents. The reality, the data show, is over 1 million, maybe as much as 2 million or even more.

That's a lot! Your claim that "it simply won't happen" is bogus and flies in the face of all the available data. Women do get jumped in dark alleys for the purpose of being raped, for example. Look at the stats. And that doesn't have the first damned thing to do with her somehow wanting to pick a fight.

 

[Lonewulf]

In the same sense I know the 40 ninjas scenarios that the gun owner proposes are so unlikely that while theoretically possible that I can point to shanek, lonewulf, and quad and say that none of the three of you will ever be awakened in the middle of the night by a person you are sure is a burgler where the best possible action is armed confrontation, retrieve your guns and ammo, get the drop of him, identify him as a deadly threat, and emerge victorious in a gunfight. It simply won't happen.

Yet, people have.

As mentioned before, you don't have to fire your firearm, and part of the arguments here has been "concealed carry". If you're going to tell me that some people I know haven't been able to disarm opponents ready to mug, attack, or RAPE them by threatening with a gun or warning the assailant that they had a firearm, then I'll call you a liar. If you're going to tell me that there isn't a significant number of these people, I'd either call you a liar, or demand you provide some evidence.

There are so many specifics that have to come together perfectly to create a scenario where you have a need for self-defense requiring specifically a gun, that it's a lottery/lightning strike/40 ninjas scenario when compared to the possibilty that somewhere along the line you or someone in the house with get careless and someone will get hurt.

Alright, Quixote, you like odds.

1) Give me statistics that show how often people get hurt by firearms over being able to defend themselves with guns. Actual statistics, not "guesses" or the "40 ninjas" bull, something actual quantifiable and not just, "It seems unlikely to me".

2)What are the chances that a total gun ban would be accepted within the U.S., especially in the southern states?

3) What are the chances that extreme tightening of guns regulations will go over well, with either the state governments or the individuals under them?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well, then all we have are duelling anecdotes. But consider this: if Myrick had not inadvertently left his gun in his car, and the kid's friends had continued the carnage as they had planned, would gun control people not be saying EXACTLY the same thing that you are? "Hey, if they didn't get guns, how could they have done that?" and completely dismissing the possibility of one armed person stopping it (as is what actually happened).

He didn't stop him entering the school and he didn't stop him shooting 2 dead and injuring others. He put a gun to his head AFTER he had crashed a car trying to drive away.

You still appear unwilling to address what YOU think would have happened at Dunblane if the teachers were armed. If this is because you think that in those particular circumstances it would have made little difference let me know and I will drop the subject.

And I suggest that no amount of gun control would have stopped him from getting a gun if he really wanted one.

Then we come down to a different view on practicalities rather than a disagreement about fundamentals. Fair enough.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So after 19 pages and 900 posts and over 5,000 views has anyone changed their position on any aspect of gun control?

To some extent, yes.

I think I am clearer on why Shanek and I disagree - part of it is down to whether it is feasible to restrict access to guns to such an extent that it materially interferes with the ability of a determined person to obtain them.

While I do not think it is impossible in the UK, I think it is sufficiently difficult that it has a genuinely preventative impact. It appears that, based on his different experience in the US, Shane does not agree that the preventative effect outweighs the self defense aspect. It may well be that we are both correct in certain contexts.

 

[shanek]

What gun proponents need to understand is that guns may provide conclusion to a situation, but it's almost never the right one.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17814/article_detail.asp

In the middle of a long drive through rural Texas in the early 1960s, Evelyn Logan pulled over at a rest stop at 5:30 a.m. to take a break. As she emerged from the public bathroom, a man ambushed her, grabbed her by the hair, and dragged her toward the nearby woods. All Evelyn could do at first was scream for help-as she had five years earlier when she was raped in an airport parking garage.

But then she reached into her purse for the .22 handgun she kept there. She shot at the ground in front of her. The shock of the explosion allowed her to free herself from her attacker's grasp and take control of the situation. She forced him to lie prostrate on the ground next to the main road and then waited for someone to stop and help. Eventually, some policemen, who were patrolling the area for a serial rapist, pulled into the rest stop and arrested their man.

Sounds like the right conclusion to me. You would prefer that he actually raped her, perhaps?

Multiply that by at a bare minimum 700,000 and that's the number of times every year such a thing happens.

 

[Darat]

Lonewulf & Shane are you saying that at least part of your argument is that you need the guns you can currently legally own to keep the crime level down to a "reasonable" level?

 

[shanek]

He didn't stop him entering the school

Why should he? He was a student!

and he didn't stop him shooting 2 dead and injuring others.

Because it took time for him to go to his car and get the gun. Besides, no one could have known anything was wrong until the shooting began.

And you're completely ignoring his armed friends, planning to continue the carnage after he left, whom Myrick stopped completely.

 

[shanek]

Lonewulf & Shane are you saying that at least part of your argument is that you need the guns you can currently legally own to keep the crime level down to a "reasonable" level?

I don't think they have that much of an effect on overall crime levels. But they do obviously protect a lot of people from violent crime. It just turns "rape" into "attempted rape."

 

[Darat]

I don't think they have that much of an effect on overall crime levels. But they do obviously protect a lot of people from violent crime. It just turns "rape" into "attempted rape."

Thanks - do you agree that there are a lot of accidental deaths and injury every year with legally owned firearms?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Besides, no one could have known anything was wrong until the shooting began.

Indeed, and the bad guys are almost always going to have this advantage. Having guns on both sides in that scenario strikes me as a worse situation than neither side having them, from the point of view of the attacked.

And you're completely ignoring his armed friends, planning to continue the carnage after he left, whom Myrick stopped completely.

I confess to only doing a quick google and not looking in depth.

 

[Lonewulf]

Thanks - do you agree that there are a lot of accidental deaths and injury every year with legally owned firearms?

I keep hearing this.

"A lot"

"A bunch"

"Lots of"

Yes, there are accidental deaths with a firearm, but no one is able to, or willing to, provide any hard figures. If they're so blatantly common compared to self defense, why aren't people parading around with these numbers for all to see?

 

[Lonewulf]

Indeed, and the bad guys are almost always going to have this advantage. Having guns on both sides in that scenario strikes me as a worse situation than neither side having them, from the point of view of the attacked.

Why is that?

If a rapist comes up to a woman and he's armed and she's not, that's better? Even though there is a significant chance that he may not only rape her, but also kill her?

I don't get your logic here.

Earlier in this thread, a woman told about her ability to avoid a rape thanks to threatening with her firearm. Are you saying that she shouldn't have had one altogether, and not only been raped, and possibly killed, but her child also have been killed? That's "not a worse situation"?

 

[Darat]

I keep hearing this.

"A lot"

"A bunch"

"Lots of"

Yes, there are accidental deaths with a firearm, but no one is able to, or willing to, provide any hard figures. If they're so blatantly common compared to self defense, why aren't people parading around with these numbers for all to see?

So you don't agree?

 

[Lonewulf]

So you don't agree?

I don't think that the numbers are grossly larger than incidents of successful self defense, no.

 

[Darat]

From this page you can get mortality figures for firearm accidents: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html and from this one injuries: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

 

[Darat]

I don't think that the numbers are grossly larger than incidents of successful self defense, no.

That is not the question I asked, I asked: "..do you agree that there are a lot of accidental deaths and injury every year with legally owned firearms?"