I'm all for gun control

[Drewbot]

Why not something as simple as, legal gun owners joining the NRA? Then they have not only insurance, but also legal counsel. Why legislate a deterrent to legal gun-owners?

 

[Francesca R]

Why legislate a deterrent to legal gun-owners?

I don't agree that re-internalising an externality is a "deterrent". At least, not an unethical or unfair one.

 

[GStan]

My concern with the idea is that some people may have to resort to armed hold ups to raise the money for the insurance premium.

For real? Do people resort to armed hold ups to pay their car insurance premium? No. They just drive without insurance. No reason to believe they won't just shoot without insurance as well.

 

[Francesca R]

^^ No I don't think that was "for real".

 

[Lothian]

I don't think it would (should) in any sense insure criminal damage from firearm shooting, but cover the increased accidental liability of insured (and legal) gun owners.

Hi Hank, Good news and bad news.

Ok the bad first.

I accidently shot and killed your son.

What? Yes, there is good news as well, I'm insured.

 

[Lothian]

^^ No I don't think that was "for real".

Sometimes I get tempted to stick in a smilie but then again I do enjoy it when people take silly posts seriously.

 

[Francesca R]

Hi Hank, Good news and bad news.

Ok the bad first.

I accidently shot and killed your son.

What? Yes, there is good news as well, I'm insured.

It's all relative. How much better is that than "And there's no good news, you're screwed"? If not at all, I've got a paypal address for any cash you're indifferent to see the back of.

 

[Lothian]

It's all relative. How much better is that than "And there's no good news, you're screwed"? If not at all, I've got a paypal address for any cash you're indifferent to see the back of.

If we are looking at relatives, is it worth considering the "Hi Hank, No Wilber's fine I just wanted to know what time to bring him back home." option?

 

[Francesca R]

Well the thing is, since kids are often a crap shot, I see nothing amiss about the notion that leaving them alone in the home with a loaded weapon would be a "crap shoot"

 

[Polaris]

I think everyone who wants to get a gun should have to watch a half-hour film on what guns do to people, and I mean up close, including the big exit holes, the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

And anyone who salivates excessively or has their plesmethogram show a strong reaction should not get a gun.

No need. I already know what guns do to people. That's why I want one that will do what guns do as severely and numeritively as possible. That means the biggest bullets in the biggest magazine with the lowest risk for malfunction/operator error (because life or death situations are kinda hectic, to say the least).

I don't think I'm alone in saying that if someone is threatening my life or the lives of someone I love, and I have a weapon handy, I will kill this person and not lose a second's sleep over it. The best way to do this is with a weapon that deposits bullets/shot into this person that turn his innards into soup and do not come out the other side. Organs will be ruptured, bones broken, flesh possibly burned by muzzle flash if at close range, and blood will pump out all over the place. If he does not die instantly, he'll probably shriek in pain and cry, and convulse possibly before he finally dies, leaving the world a better place. The family that raised the said scum will never be the same, and there's a chance my actions will have left children orphans, parents without a child, and siblings and significant others without siblings and significant others.

Is this horrible? Of course it is. Is it a bad thing? Not to my thinking, because I'm alive, and so are my loved ones, who the now dead man put in jeopardy for a cowardly, weak reason.

Are some people blissfully unaware of wound ballistics and repurcussions of having to shoot someone in self-defense? I'm sure some are. But aware or not, no video/training is going to prevent a person who wants a weapon to defend him/herself from doing so. People who are serious enough to take this step usually already know the gravity of their decision - even if they're somewhat uneducated about the type of firearm that's right for them. Basically what you're suggesting is a roundabout way of trying to scare people away from purchasing arms for self-defense by showing sensationalist videos and images out of context. And a similar approach hasn't worked wonders for the ONDCP, so I fail to see why it would here. Showing an exit wound isn't going to prevent someone who lives in a bad neighborhood from buying a pistol in case some slime who doesn't want to work decides he wants her wallet for himself.

And there's also that pesky little Constitutional right about this as well. It doesn't mentions drool or heart rates as qualifiers.

 

[jj]

No need. I already know what guns do to people.

Good on you, then you'd have no problems, would you?

Btw, who mentioned heart rate?

 

[Lothian]

No need. I already know what guns do to people. That's why I want one that will do what guns do as severely and numeritively as possible. That means the biggest bullets in the biggest magazine with the lowest risk for malfunction/operator error (because life or death situations are kinda hectic, to say the least).

I don't think I'm alone in saying that if someone is threatening my life or the lives of someone I love, and I have a weapon handy, I will kill this person and not lose a second's sleep over it. The best way to do this is with a weapon that deposits bullets/shot into this person that turn his innards into soup and do not come out the other side. Organs will be ruptured, bones broken, flesh possibly burned by muzzle flash if at close range, and blood will pump out all over the place. If he does not die instantly, he'll probably shriek in pain and cry, and convulse possibly before he finally dies, leaving the world a better place. The family that raised the said scum will never be the same, and there's a chance my actions will have left children orphans, parents without a child, and siblings and significant others without siblings and significant others.

I suggest that you visualise that image each and every morning and evening. Once you have dehumanised your natural instincts, you will find it far easier to pull the trigger.

 

[gumboot]

With all due respect to gun owners, I would thoroughly recommend reading a book called "On Killing" by Lt Col Dave Grossman. After having read that book, I honestly cannot see how anyone would want to have a firearm for protection.

The basic fact is, psychologically, unless you have been through a military-style conditioning process, you will most likely be unable to pull the trigger in that crucial moment. And if you do pull the trigger and shoot the petty thief who broke into your house, you're almost certain to lose boat-loads of sleep over it.

It is easy, in an act of gun-slinging bravado or protectionist courage, to claim you could do the act and wouldn't be harmed by it. But the simple fact is you're wrong, because as a human you have a very powerful hard-wired resistance to killing other human beings, and the consequences of breaching that safe guard can be brutal indeed.

Personally I don't think the almost certain psychological consequences of trying to shoot someone are worth preventing someone from stealing a bunch of my stuff.

 

[gtc]

I suggest that you visualise that image each and every morning and evening. Once you have dehumanised your natural instincts, you will find it far easier to pull the trigger.

I would have thought the natural instinct was to protect yourself and your loved ones.

 

[Polaris]

With all due respect to gun owners, I would thoroughly recommend reading a book called "On Killing" by Lt Col Dave Grossman. After having read that book, I honestly cannot see how anyone would want to have a firearm for protection.

The basic fact is, psychologically, unless you have been through a military-style conditioning process, you will most likely be unable to pull the trigger in that crucial moment. And if you do pull the trigger and shoot the petty thief who broke into your house, you're almost certain to lose boat-loads of sleep over it.

It is easy, in an act of gun-slinging bravado or protectionist courage, to claim you could do the act and wouldn't be harmed by it. But the simple fact is you're wrong, because as a human you have a very powerful hard-wired resistance to killing other human beings, and the consequences of breaching that safe guard can be brutal indeed.

Personally I don't think the almost certain psychological consequences of trying to shoot someone are worth preventing someone from stealing a bunch of my stuff.

Good book, Grossman's.

For me though, the thought that some petty thief is willing to steal a bunch of my stuff, things I have worked hard to buy, makes me very angry. I've been robbed, several times. I see these people as less than human, and that they are essentially stealing hours, days, weeks and even months of my life because they're too worthless to be productive. I strongly dislike people as it is and begrudgingly tolerate them, and if I catch one in my home, my home, where I live and sleep, stealing things I worked for (or with worse intentions if I have loved ones home), I will kill him. Doing so keeps tax money from supporting him in jail where he'd simply learn to be a better thief or worse, and more important prevents him from doing the same thing to more people.

I suggest that you visualise that image each and every morning and evening. Once you have dehumanised your natural instincts, you will find it far easier to pull the trigger.

As I just mentioned to Gumboot, I no longer consider a thief human when he's broken into my home to commit crimes against me. He lost his chance when he put the crowbar to the doorframe, and actions have consequences. He is garbage with no conscience, and deserves to die. The only discomfort I'd feel is that I'd have to clean up the mess.

The thought of these barbarian scum dying painfully does make me happy. If someone has to shoot one when he breaks into a home, I'd prefer it be me than someone who might have severe psychological trauma by shooting him.

A burglar's life means less than nothing to me. To me my loved ones are worth killing every burglar on earth with my bare hands.

Good on you, then you'd have no problems, would you?

You posted a ridiculous idea as the OP. I suspect you didn't really want to debate, but only to get some banter going and have a lot of validation from the like-minded.

I also suspected that you might be disturbed by thoughts such as the ones I have on this subject, and I figured you ought to hear them.

 

[gumboot]

Good book, Grossman's.

For me though, the thought that some petty thief is willing to steal a bunch of my stuff, things I have worked hard to buy, makes me very angry. I've been robbed, several times. I see these people as less than human, and that they are essentially stealing hours, days, weeks and even months of my life because they're too worthless to be productive. I strongly dislike people as it is and begrudgingly tolerate them, and if I catch one in my home, my home, where I live and sleep, stealing things I worked for (or with worse intentions if I have loved ones home), I will kill him. Doing so keeps tax money from supporting him in jail where he'd simply learn to be a better thief or worse, and more important prevents him from doing the same thing to more people.

The problem you, and generations of soldiers, have to face is that after you'd shot the guy you've got to watch him die, and in that moment, much as you might want to reason and argue that this thief is less than human, still the fact is he is a human being, and as he lies dying on your lounge floor it will become horrifically clear just how human he is. Much as you might want, nay need to deny his humanity, you won't be able to. And that will cause you severe psychological trauma for the rest of you life.

Is killing this thief really worth a life time of trauma? Is protecting a few material possessions - things you can easily replace - worth a life time of trauma?

Now I'd be willing to face that damnation to save another life, particularly someone I love and care about. Perhaps I'll be traumatised for life. But it's a small price to pay to keep someone alive.

But for mere possessions? The only things I care that much about are things like photographs and creative works of mine - digital data that can easily be backed up.

It's not about weighing the value of the thief's life against the value of my possessions. I couldn't care less if the thief dropped dead. It's about weighing my future psychological health against the value of my possessions. And nothing I own even comes close.

That's my major concern about the use of firearms. People only ever talk about the consequences of the weapon on the person that gets shot, and in that case it's easy to argue that there's no problem with sensible gun owners. But they're ignoring a huge aspect of the situation - the consequences on the person who uses the weapon. They too, can be life destroying. And no amount of sensible gun discipline, or training, or any amount of care can protect you from those consequences. In fact, your only protection against those consequences is to lose all empathy with your fellow man, and who wants that?

 

[gtc]

Now I'd be willing to face that damnation to save another life, particularly someone I love and care about. Perhaps I'll be traumatised for life. But it's a small price to pay to keep someone alive.

I agree with that, although I've never had to face a such a situation.

 

[Bikewer]

As with a previous and similar thread, it's necessary to consider just what you are defending against.
As I said in the other thread, burglars (that is, property criminals who will make every effort to see that they do not enter an occupied dwelling) are unlikely to want any contact whatever.
Usually, the mere announcement that someone is there (and armed...) is quite sufficient to motivate such individuals to leave.
However, should the criminals ignore such warnings and continue to try to enter the dwelling, the crime has escalated. It is now a "burglary in the first degree", and likely a "home invasion"; an armed robbery of a dwelling.
In this case, it would be presumptive that the intruders mean the occupants harm, and are willing to inflict violence upon them to accomplish their goals.
Deadly force is certainly justified from a legal standpoint.
In most states, it is definitely illegal to use deadly force against someone committing a property crime.
However, should the citizen reasonably feel that they are in danger from the criminal, then the situation changes.

In regards to the armed citizen shooting or wounding himself......I can't say that I have ever heard of such a case; though certainly it's possible. Why is it that you might presume the citizen to be entirely incompetent, while at the same time assuming that the criminal involved is highly trained?
We have many instances of criminals shooting themselves, often while attempting to wrestle their pistol from a waistband or pocket, or attempting to return it there after committing a robbery.

 

[Polaris]

The problem you, and generations of soldiers, have to face is that after you'd shot the guy you've got to watch him die, and in that moment, much as you might want to reason and argue that this thief is less than human, still the fact is he is a human being, and as he lies dying on your lounge floor it will become horrifically clear just how human he is. Much as you might want, nay need to deny his humanity, you won't be able to. And that will cause you severe psychological trauma for the rest of you life.

Even if he is human, I don't care. Human life is not sacred to me as it is. So trauma is not an issue. And neither is any notion that a burglar is human. He ceased to be remotely human to me when he broke into my home. If millions of Mexican can swim the Rio Grande and find work, he can find a goddamn job. I'm being charitable by not suggesting after his untimely death at my hands that his parents have their heads knocked together.

With a soldier it's a different story. Sure lots of dehumanization training and propaganda - and some cases a very compelling external motivating factor such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 - can help lower the trauma. However soldiers also have to deal with the fact that they have been ordered someplace by screw-ups in high office to kill people they have never met and have most likely done them no personal ill. Even if done from an airplane and not face to face, that has to be at least a little traumatizing, though that seems to be less of a problem when you're talking enemies of another culture, especially if they've done their country wrong.

Is killing this thief really worth a life time of trauma? Is protecting a few material possessions - things you can easily replace - worth a life time of trauma?

Sitting next to my laptop is a Jameson Irish whiskey aluminum coaster. It is worth more than the lives of every burglar now and in history. I'd feel worse losing the coaster.

Now I'd be willing to face that damnation to save another life, particularly someone I love and care about. Perhaps I'll be traumatised for life. But it's a small price to pay to keep someone alive.

Who's talking damnation? There is no God, Satan or Hell, so that's not an issue. If you're talking psychological trauma, I'm not concerned. For others who may feel guilt at ending the lives of trash, it's a shame. If the law would allow it, I'd accept pay to execute the criminals personally. Frankly I wish I would have caught the burglars who robbed me so I could have killed them.

It's not about weighing the value of the thief's life against the value of my possessions. I couldn't care less if the thief dropped dead. It's about weighing my future psychological health against the value of my possessions. And nothing I own even comes close.

What's the difference between killing him or him having a well-earned spontaneous cranial burst? I'm not being facetious. If you don't care about the thief being alive or dead, and if your killing him preserves your possessions, the health and well being of you and your loved ones, and doesn't put you in danger of jail, then why would killing him cause you psychological harm?

TIn fact, your only protection against those consequences is to lose all empathy with your fellow man, and who wants that?

I do. That's why I killed my empathy for most people years ago. While I still love individuals on an individual level, when I say I'm a misanthropist, I'm not joking. I literally loathe people (there is a difference). Just as I have a stance in which I treat people like ladies and gentlemen until they give me a reason not to, I believe that when a person decides to rob me of my possessions (at the least) and therefore the time of my life I spent working to pay for said possessions, they have forfeit any chance of me seeing them as individuals worth allowing to remain alive.

 

[jj]

If someone has already broken into a house with people (who belong there) in it, exactly what is the one who belongs there to do? Guess if they are harmful or not? I mean, they did commit a felony when they broke in. Guess if they want to take property or hurt someone? Come on, you're supposed to read the crook's mind?

Sorry, a stranger breaking into an occupied house (in the normal scheme of things) has to be regarded to a threat to life, limb, and privacy. Self defense is an obligation, I think.