Gun Control
Offline
I don't like guns, but I understand their purpose.
The problem with total gun control/gun restriction/outlawing is that if you tell people they can't own guns legally, people will STILL own them illegally, thus putting the "good" citizens at risk.
Let's say you live in a bad neighborhood in Detroit where this is plenty of gang activity and robberies. You know that many people have guns, legally or illegally, and will use them to their liking. If someone breaks into your house and you do not have a gun to defend yourself with, you're pretty much screwed.
It's like drugs: the more you outlaw something, the more CRIME becomes of it as people try to illegally traffic, sell and consume.
I don't like guns, but I'm not going to say that we live in a perfect, smiley happy world where people never need them for defense.
The thing is, if guns were gone, we'd find other ways to kill each other. If you want to kill someone, you will, gun or no gun.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
- Login to post comments
I agree to a certain extent. But I also think that guns are so easy to kill with compared to any other method that they are a significant problem. They're so impersonal, and require no skill at all. You could kill a hundred people and never once look any of them in the eye. Not even be close enough to look them in the eye. I have no respect for anyone who uses a gun to hunt or kill unless in self defense. Yet you are right, illegalizing something that the people want is foolish. All you do is feed crime.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
We don't need gun control, we need people control. Thought I do agree with you Vastet, guns sure are an easy way to do it. If we did make them illegal it would just enlarge the black market for it, just like prohibition. I think we need to focus on education and quality of life. Happy people don't kill people.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
The value of a gun is best understood by a woman against a 200 lb would be rapist. Guns are supposed to be easy to use and deadly. They would be worthless if they were not. The point is to give the rapist a choice between running away and dying. It is a legitimate choice.
Depriving a woman of effective self defense in such cases is a crime itself. Sam Colt made the tiniest and frailest woman the equal of the teenage rapist.
When guns are outlawed, violent crime increases. In every state where concealed carry laws have passed violent crime has gone down. Concealed carry does not make saints. Non-violent crime increases. Frankly I would rather deal with a forger than a mugger. I certainly prefer a 9mm to pepper spray. And I prefer a .45 to a 9mm. Never initiate the use of force but be prepared to kill to use it against those who do.
I actually mostly agree with you on this. There is a point where it becomes far to easy and deadly though. Like the mini-gun, or the newly developed "metal storm." Humans will probably always be a violent species, but do we really need a gun that fires a million rounds per minute?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
An armed society is a polite society.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Sam Colt made them equal, made us all equal, 150 years ago more or less. Disaster has yet to strike. BEFORE there were gun bans there was less crime. Gun bans come after an increase in violent crime. They have NEVER reversed the trend of increasing crime.
Ban traffic deaths by banning cars. Problem is more people per capita died from the actions of stupid horses than drivers. And that is not counting diseases spread by flies on horse manure in the streets. The only factor worth mentioning in reducing crime at night is street lights. London discovered it with gaslights.
Frankly I do not give a damn about dead criminals. All of my adult life I have had a gun at home. I have had all the usual spats with neighbors and whatever else one experiences in 60+ years. I have NEVER thought about resorting to a gun in any but very strange noise in the night cases of which there have been two, both false alarms. I assume I am average.
Honestly, I don't care about dead people in general. They don't know there dead anyway. I do think the proliferation of weapons is getting out of hand.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Per capita gun ownership is much lower than it was 200 years ago. Per capita it is less than it was 100 years ago. In fact gun ownership has not increased from the good old days when guns were needed as a tool like a knife.
So we are left with considering per capita guns in cities as the tools were needed on the farm and the frontier and before the industrial revolution 90% of the population were farmers -- thus the per capita trap. And farmers had several rifes and handguns so per capita is a double trap. My grandmother owned two. One was her dead husband's single barrel shotgun and the other was a revolver so badly rusted it could not be fired.
So lets talk today here and now. Fact is we do not know a real per capita gun ownership. My grandmother would have and did in fact report two guns. I have four including that shotgun which I would not risk with a modern shotgun shell. Another is well over a century old and uses very expensive cartridges. Then there is the .30 carbine and the .45 and the investment, rare .25 model. Do I count as five or two? Again I assume I am average.
Every few years something prompts people to buy guns. I have never seen an indiation that it makes up for the years in between when gun sales were normal. By normal I mean replacement of a hopelessly outmoded weapon like a .38 with lots of rust.
Good enough preamble?
Lets look at the facts. Watch your local news. I have lived in three major news areas and when "home owners shoots burglar" happens it is newsworthy. I have not noticed any significant increase in these reports. Still the majority are of burglary, murder and rape of the homeowners. The dead home invader is still a man-bite-dog story. When a successful home invasion for whatever reason becomes the exceptional story I may conclude we have enough guns.
There are 2 major errors with your reasoning. First, there's nothing stopping the 200 lb rapist from having a gun, reducing or eliminating the use of one in the hands of the helpless victim. Second, a great many people simply cannot bring themselves to kill. If any of these people are holding a gun, it is blatantly obvious that they won't be willing to pull the trigger. Disarming them is simplistic.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Any sort of strict gun control in the United States is no longer possible, as there are simply too many guns out in the population.
I do think law enforcement should, however, put a lot of effort into getting illegal guns off the street, making it more difficult to get a weapon (i.e. a several-day waiting period in order to complete an extensive background check) and making it impossible for people who shouldn't have guns to acquire one (i.e. people who have sought treatment for or been diagnosed with a mental illness...see Virginia Tech).
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
This wil be my one and only post on this thread, because I know this forum is populated mostlly by Americans, and America has a strange gun fetish that I'm not really motivated to spend time arguing against. I don't have as much time these days, so I have to pick my fights more carefully.
But I want to say this, since no one else has said it yet: The above post(s) conform to this strange myth that more guns equals less crime. In whatever form it is spoken (and I acknowledge there are different forms, just as there are different forms of theism), it completely ignores the reality of the world: Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. Pretty much wherever you have gun restrictions, you have less violent crime.
The claim that "if we restrict guns, only the criminals will have them" is equivalent to "if you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from killing babies". There are dumb and naive ways to restrict gun ownership. None of which are what I'm advocating. It's a straw man argument. There are intelligent and effective ways to restrict gun ownership and gun-related crime. To argue against gun restrictions because 'it will lead to more crime' is to lack imagination on the subject.
Also, guns are not like drugs. The 'the war on drugs' fails because drugs are physically and/or psychologically addictive. Guns are not. (Well, maybe America's gun fetish is a counterexample, a true gun addiction.)
That's it. That's all I'm willing to post on this kind of emotional topic. Look at the evidence of the world around you and stop listening to your country's endemic propaganda. Fewer guns floating around equals a safer society.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Restrictive laws or the lack thereof are not the end all and be all of addressing problems with crime. Countries with less gun crime may not merely be an expression of legal restrictions but be a reflection of cultural conditioning.
With or without firearms, for some nations extremely high levels of violence are the norm ( ie, post aparthied South Africa ) while other nations ( ie, Switzerland ) are awash in civilian-owned military rifles and experience little if any of the sensless violence that some say they should be experiencing...
But, like natural whose post preceded mine, I do not wish to engage in some evangelistic attempt to persuade others to agree with me. I have nothing else to say about this subject.
Fewer legally held guns in the US would not necessarily create a safer society (in some isolated instances and places it might, but definitely not in the big urban conurbations by any realistic stretch of the imagination).
"A bad workman blames his tools" is an expression which springs to mind. The tool in question here is a mechanical device for punching rather dramatic holes in things. The workmen in question however are not in my view the firearms owners (who are generally satisfied with the product), but instead those who require their presence to distract attention away from other issues which are actually more pertinent and which would reveal their bad workmanship if analysed.
Both "sides" of the gun debate are as guilty as each other in this respect. By focusing on the hardware they divert attention from the nebulous software programming by which the society they inhabit functions, and which leads to the tacit acceptance by a critical mass of its members that life is cheap (this, by the way, is not and never has been a notion peculiar to the US, though it has been a source of worry to many as to why this has persisted in the US for so long).
The reason the bad workmen do this is because they are often the ones enabling the software - be it intentionally through commercially motivated tactics ("bad" as in amoral or immoral), or unintentiontally through inept and blinkered politics ("bad" as in crap). Again I stress that I include both sides of the "debate" in both of those categories.
Strictly limiting access to guns in the US may lead to fall in the homicide statistics overall. It would definitely lead to an eventual fall in homicides from shooting, despite what some people say. But homicide stats for stabbing, beating, strangulation etc - for which the USA also shows a consistently depressing lead over other western societies - would not magically diminish. There are more serious questions to be asked of US society than "who has a gun?".
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Have you heard, "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns?" That would include me. I enjoy hunting, almost everything from grouse and squirrel to deer. I have yet to hunt elk or almost every other large game, but I would enjoy that. I own several rifles and one hand gun. I will never give them up to any government ruling against them.
I'm afraid you are somewhat incorrect. Not all drugs are in fact addictive. Worse, the most commonly used illicit drugs aren't the slightest bit addictive. I agree with you that most countries with gun control have less violent crime, but things are different with the US. It's within their constitution to carry one. It always has been. It's a part of their culture. The vast majority of the population owns at least one firearm. Criminalizing a product when there is mass demand for a product WILL lead to higher crime rates. You have to reduce the desire for firearms before you can criminalize them and expect a positive effect.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Very well put. I may not like it, but the reality is that the gun culture in rural and small town America is huge. Since the majority of these gun owners are both responsible in their use of firearms and cherish the right to own them, you can't just ignore this sector of society. There are a lot of issues that need attention in this country and the left alienates a large portion of society with their gun restriction rhetoric. It truly is a matter of the left shooting themselves in the foot and letting the religious right control this portion of our citizenry.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
I am unaware of any law which has ever kept guns out of the hands of criminals including all gun control laws. For decades DC had both the strictest gun ban and among the highest violent crime rates in the US, some years the highest in the country. The city of Deadwood objected when people started calling DC Deadwood. I am aware of several states, Florida included, which to prevent guns from being used in crimes. 5 years mandatory minimum just for possessing a gun during the commission of a crime even concealed. This is in addition to all other penalties. 10 years for brandishing during the crime. LIFE for firing it during a crime even if accidenentally into the ceiling. That and concealed carry have done wonders to lower the violent crime rate.
If there are people who cannot bring themselves to kill then what does it matter whether or not they have guns? What possible purpose is there in disarming them? The sight of a gun is often a sufficient bluff. A study back in the 80s found a gun was actually fired barely 10% of the times a gun was shown. The mere sight of a gun is 90% of its effectiveness.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You ought to know better than that. This site isn't populated with average Americans. It's precisely that were are not average that most of us are here. The "rednecks" and "gangstas" in the country may very well have a gun fetish, but I think you'll find a disproportionate amount of them posting here.
I think you should be required to have a psyche test and training before being allowed to own. I think assault rifles, grenades, and other weapons of war should be illegal to own. They are made specifically to kill humans and that is all they're good for.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Yeah, we have a thing with guns in the US. I'm not particularly a fan, etc, etc.... BUT,
In the context of history, I can totally understand that the 2nd Amendment is meant to prevent the government from having a monopoly on force. I highly doubt that the framers were worried about violent crime in particular, but were more focused on tyrrany.
That being said, do I think this means that private citizens should be allowed to own artillery and fighter jets? I dunno. I'm still pondering that one.
Call me a left-wing gun nut, but I don't think passive resistance will do much if/when Blackwat- excuse me, "Xe" troops come marching down the street taking orders from the highest bidder.
-Triften
I agree sadly that guns will always be with us. Even if guns were suddenly made illegal to own, it would take generations before the violence and murders would decrease. Perhaps I live in a dream world but I think over time if gun ownership was made illegal then over time their value would increase because they would be harder to obtain, you know, supply and demand, supply decreases while demand remains the same therefore the price increases. Again, over time, while guns become less plentiful and their price skyrockets, fewer people would be able to afford them and eventually violence and murders would decrease. I don't see how continuing our present course where anyone can own a gun is the answer. This has been a long term problem, it will take a long term answer.
Your also right that if guns were not available people would simply find some other means to kill. But the thing about guns is that their ease of use, it's soo impersonal whereas say using a knife takes a bit more effort, more personal, more bloody, more up close.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan
1: If the criminal has a gun whether it's legal or not, giving the future victim one as well merely compounds the damage. It makes the criminal more likely to kill or injure the victim, and increases the likelyhood of collateral damage. Hardly a solution.
2: You haven't spent much time looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws.
All of these instances are in the US, which is a special location that I already covered in a previous post. I am not going to repeat myself.
Are you seriously going to attempt to claim that there has never been an accident with a gun? That noone has ever had the gun they were holding taken from them and turned against them? If so, let me laugh now. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HA.
Reducing collateral damage alone is more than enough of a reason. Even one person being killed by a stray bullet that wasn't even intended for them is enough to outlaw guns. Provided the conditions are right, though as I have mentioned in a previous post, the States do not have the right conditions at this time.
But not for some. Not for me. I recall an incident when I was about 15 or so, and visiting with a friend in Calgary. We'd gone out to one of his friends' places. I knew noone there but my friend. At one point, someone pulled out a hand gun and pointed it at my friend. It was not loaded and he was kidding around(and my friend knew it), but I didn't know this. Within 5 seconds of me seeing the gun, there was a knife at his throat. Fortunately things calmed down quickly, but this is a good example of the kinds of things that can happen with guns.
I can agree with that. But having just finished a college course in psychology, I am painfully aware that it is not even remotely an effective stunt in a number of various situations. 10% of the times a gun is shown is still a shitload of instances of a gun being fired. Also, there isn't sufficient information given from your study to determine the willingness to fire being incorporated into it. It could very well be that only 10% of the people who showed a gun were willing to fire it in the first place, negating the study into irrelevance.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That idea of "defense" is actually a lot different from the constitutional reason for the right to bear arms, though. The idea would be to put them to use on an oppressive government. In this case, you're shooting at someone who has almost/just shot at you.
Tactically, you don't solve any problem introducing a second firearm. You have escalated the situation. If you actually hit the person (unlikely for someone who doesn't practice all the time under simulated stress) then you have wounded someone, and you have to deal with that. If you've killed them, then you have just killed someone, and you get to be sad about that forever. Not having a firearm gives you the advantage of not being a threatening target.
I'm just giving the other side of the tactical coin, here. Many Americans consider it natural that someone might want to shoot at someone who shot at them. The idea that shooting back is somehow defensive may come from watching too many war movies, where the combatants might provide cover fire for each other. One person with one handgun is not cover fire, it's an instant target for someone who is already keyed up. Consider having no handgun and being shot at. The situation is just as dangerous as if you had a handgun, except that the likelihood that you would be able to endanger any innocent bystanders is reduced to zero. Two guns is a more dangerous situation than just one.
If you're simply being threatened with a gun, another gun won't solve the problem, either. In fact, it's guaranteed to escalate the situation. Add to that the risk of being harmed accidentally while carrying around a firearm all the time is fairly significant, if not to yourself, then to your family. Children fall prey to a lot of handgun mishaps in the states.
So I would argue that people do not need them for defense, and that they do not help a defensive situation in the least.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yah, the historical context is important to understand why we are the way that we are.
Back in the 1790's everyone was able to kill at a moment. If you tried to mess with a farmer carrying an ax, you would just get an ax in your forehead. Also, guns were everywhere. Really, they were seen as just another tool. However, the British had a standing rule that only very special people could carry swords. So part of what they were trying to establish was the idea that there were no special people who could carry special weapons.
In fact, we were a nation for about half a century before we even had any established police forces. Then it would be another half a century before most police officers were allowed to carry guns, as they were perceived as a potential army of occupation. In addition, we were a nation for nearly 120 years before the National Guard was established, so right there, it can be seen that the founders simply did not intent the second amendment to refer to the well regulated militia first and formost.
Well, of course both have happened. What that has to do with anything is beyond me. Are you going to claim that because someone once cut themselves in the kitchen that we should outlaw eating? Don't bother to answer, that is obviously rhetorical.
As far as someone having taken a gun away from someone else, that too can be for both good and ill. It all depends on the situation. One case of which I am aware was some dude who was so unaware of the law that he decided to use a gun as a threat to force a bicyclist to ride on the sidewalk (which is illegal down here BTW). The driver was close enough that the cyclist was able to engage him physically and take the gun from him. Eventually, the court ruled that the drive had used the gun in a criminal attempt to threaten and he lost his carry permit and could not have the gun back.
You must be from Canada or something [/rimshot]
Seriously, that makes about as much sense as anything that Ray Comfort has ever said. The holy grail of defensive shooting is the one shot drop. With the right gun and a few hours of range time, that is not a hard thing to do.
In any case, you are assuming way too much. Who ever said that the other person always has a gun or even that there is another person involved? For that matter, you as a gun owner don't even need to be seen as a combatant to take a legal shot at someone. What do you do if you are being attacked by an angry pit bull? Saying “nice doggie” is not going to help. Dropping a round of .357 sig into it will. What about if you walk into a store and find that the owner is being robbed? Should you not involve yourself and hope that the situation does not end up with the owner dead or should you cap the robber's ass fatally? I could give you more scenarios but I think that you get the point.
=
Did you just imply that it's easy to kill someone? And that doing so is completely sensible? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never been responsible for someone's death. I'm also going to imagine that you've never fired a pistol while rattled. I've never heard that kind of "easy as pie" talk from someone who has actually shot at people before.
I'm sorry, what? You're shooting at unarmed people and animals now?
I often love that I don't live in the United States, but sometimes I find a brand new reason why.
Choke it out. I've done it - you should hear my ex-girlfriend tell the story. So, incidentally, has this 9-year-old kid:
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/37069754.html?video=YHI&t=a
Potentially raising the death toll to two or three? Really? "Cap"? You have to be joking - I thought you were a grown-up.
The point I get is that you've only learned one way to deal with a tactical dilemma. Were you ever a police officer? Is that where this comes from?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
My point is that guns will always be around, and making them illegal does not solve the problem. It just causes more gun-related crime, and people will still own them and go to greater lengths to get them.
If they're illegal, the "bad guys" will still own them, and the people that need to protect themselves won't have access to them.
If someone came at me with a gun, I'd rather have one in my hand than none at all. Fuck the situation escalating...forced rape with a gun to my head IS escalating the situation, know what I'm saying? Really though, I live near Baltimore, and I wouldn't be caught dead in some of those areas without a guard dog or a weapon.
On the subject of gun EDUCATION, now I think that's important.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Reading comprehension failure? I was answering a question. You said nothing to invalidate my response.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It took you five seconds to put a knife to him? Firing a handgun slowly is firing one shot per second. Since it was just some idiot kid fooling around you were not killed. If I ever use my gun on someone I will empty the magazine into them in about 5 seconds.
Anyone here like the War on Drugs? Do you want to make a black market as large and profitable as the drug market? If so, outlaw guns in America.
Any American women here, please consider getting a CCW. It could prevent some unpleasant things from happening to you someday. And if preventing rape requires you to escalate the situation by shooting someone, then do it. I don't know about other states or countries, but the state of Califonia accepts prevention of rape as a legitimate excuse for lethal force. I highly recommend taking a class or going to a range with a friend. As horrible as it sounds, you some day may want to use lethal force to protect yourself. Go armed and stay safe.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Looks like I might have been wrong. I guess I owe you an apology Natural. I didn't expect this kind of turnout...
I always answer that way and I always get the same stupid look in response. It works, I know because I have also done it. Dogs don't have the strength or range of motion to do anything about it. A single dog is no match for a full grown human. Or even a 9 year-old apparently...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
*leaps into the fray*
Of course it's easy to kill someone with a gun. Almost any person with absolutely zero experience has the ability to pick up a pistol, aim, and shoot someone in the head. Additionally, it takes, at most, a few minutes to learn how to cock and load.
Yes, I have fired a gun before.
It depends on the situation.
The other person could be about to attack you with a knife. The animal could be attacking you as well.
Huh? What are you saying?
Haha.
If you had a gun on you, would you simply shoot the pit bull or would you, "try to choke it out?" What about two pit bulls?
I wouldn't shoot the robber unless he actually started attacking the owner. Then, I would wait until they were apart to make sure that I didn't hit the owner.
Sounds you have an itchy trigger finger.
Key word, potentially, because, again, it all depends on the situation. For example, if the robber only has a knife and is standing a good distance away from the owner of the store, how can we end up with a death toll of three? On the other hand, if there are several men robbing the store holding sawed-off shotguns, it might be better to stay silent.
I'm pretty sure he's purposefully creating scenarios where it would be wise to use force. After all, he's supporting the position that firearms are useful in self-defense. So am I.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
People who think that guns are a good way to defend yourself against people with guns, are very naive.
Yes, because all swords trump guns... and katana trumps all other swords... or some shit like that
What Would Kharn Do?
I'm starting to think all these "gun debates" come down to...
People desiring the capability to kill another person, if needed.
How about we discuss the merits of that, first?
What Would Kharn Do?
I think it's more you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun. If you don't have a gun thier is no need for the crimanal breaking into your house to shoot you. As you are already under control.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I think this is where "Game Theory" and its flaws come into play
What Would Kharn Do?
OK, that is confusing. Are you saying that there are vast legions of criminals with guns running around breaking into houses for the specific purpose of shooting people who own guns? And that they choose not to break into the houses of people who are not able to defend themselves with lethal force because they can't hurt said criminals?
=
Nah, not really, it's more like this:
-You walk through a creepy alley. Suddenly a robber is near you, gun drawn. The crook demands your wallet. You give your wallet, crook leaves.
or
-You walk through a creepy alley. Suddenly a robber is near you, gun drawn. The crook demands your wallet. You draw your gun, crook shoots, you drop. Crook takes your wallet and your gun; crook leaves.
Guns may be protection when the robber has a dagger instead of a gun. But in countries where it is legal to own a gun, which robber in his right mind will just carry a dagger?
This is what I was trying to say, I was just doing a bad job of it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Give wallet, not get shot, equals out
Give wallet, get shot, lose
Fight back, not get shot, win
Fight back, get shot, lose (or... equals out if your me )
bare-bones, but its really a 1 in 4 chance at initial odds...
Which i would take...
What Would Kharn Do?
Within 5 seconds does not equal 5 seconds. And I'll add that I just grabbed a number. Even if it hadn't been more than ten years ago, I'd still have to contend with the fact that adrenaline screws with your perceptions. It could have been a fraction of a second for all I know.
The first shot you fired would have resulted in your neck being cut wide open, and your slow and bloody death in less than a minute as I held you and followed you to the ground, controlling your arms on the way, getting your gun in the process, and turning it on your friends to ensure their cooperation. I was behind him. He didn't even know I was there until he felt cold steel at his neck. You might want to rethink your belief in this light.
I've said this multiple times in this topic.
And get shot in the head(if you're lucky, but chances are it'll be a gut shot) because you have a gun, making you a primary target for anyone else with or without a gun. Have fun.
Noone should even look at a firearm unless they are willing, able, and prepared to use it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I collect guns. I collect edged weapons. I have some skill with each. I can assure you that even your purple ninja dragon katana is no match for someone with a good handgun. All weapons are tools. They have no will of their own, thus cannot be good nor evil. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. They also have a duty to protect their loved ones. Would anyone really want only the bad guys to be better armed? I live way out in the country in Western Montana. I raise livestock. I have had bears, mountain lions, wolves, raccons, and skunks on my land. Having firearms is the only practical solution.
You need a gun to take care of a raccoon and a skunk? The bear I can understand and agree with. Cougars and wolves are endangered. Get a fence.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That works for me. Let me take an example right from this thread:
So what we have here is an anti-gun person who walks around in combat condition yellow when he is in an uncertain environment, which is appropriate regardless of his choice of weapon. When called upon to do so, he can snap to condition red. At that point, he is willing and able to use lethal force if the situation does not resolve instantly.
Viewed in that light, Vastet is not so different from the people he is debating. He just uses a knife to come an instant away from killing some asshole who may really need to die.
Vastet, let me ask you specifically how that would have gone down differently if you had a gun instead of a knife? Would you have gone muzzle to temple to potentially save the life of an innocent friend?
=
What happens when two people with guns and with opposite agendas meet? One of them likely ends up dead or wounded. And as you the one taken by surprise you are the one more likely to end up dead.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Trip post due to strange keyboard error.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Trip post due to strange keyboard error.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Probably. Hopefully my excitement wouldn't have twitched my finger though, or things wouldn't have ended well. Still, that goes for a knife to someones throat as well, so I can't suggest that twitchiness could only have effected a gun.
Though to be honest it's a highly unlikely scenario. I have held and fired a gun, but it was in my youth and part of a collection of activities I undertook that year (along with archery and water skiing, to name two). I have not even held one since. I consider it a cowards weapon. Short of a war, I can't think of a scenario where I'd be carrying a gun around.
I will however be quite honest here: it probably would have ended exactly the same way as it did end. There's even a chance it would have ended faster. Though that is speculation.
Editted due to keyboard error posting response 3 times before I was done typing.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
A robber who shoots his victims after robbing them did not have robbery on his mind in the first place, but homicide. Or he suspects that the victim might draw a gun and shoot him in the back as soon as he runs away. Which would not be a terribly weird thought in a country where guns are legal.
Where I live, there are, of course, robbers as well. But they carry daggers, and not just because they do not expect to ever face people with guns, but also because if anybody sees anybody with a gun, (s)he KNOWS that this is an illegal weapon, therefore WILL (courage permitting) call the police, and the police WILL come, quickly and in force. People carrying guns on the street simply are not tolerated in my otherwise sort-of tolerant country, and the question "But does he have a permit" never needs to come up.
(By the way, I have been attacked twice by people who intended to rob me. I fought both times- mostly because I am not rational about these things- something lke "when you give in to demands of an assailant you also give away a bit of your self-esteem and I'd rather be stabbed a couple of times then to do that". Pretty foolish, I know, and it may get me in an awful lot of trouble some day. But for now I am just very, very happy that on both of these occasions, these guys just carried knifes)
A friendly addition: Or he simply wants to ensure that there are no witnesses to testify against him in the eventuallity that he gets caught.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well, if two armed men are playing chicken, then one or both of them may not walk away. However, that is not a usual scenario. Since you have not thought this through, let me explain how we are trained to think. There is a four level system of situational awareness that goes as follows:
Condition White: You are unarmed and not prepared to defend yourself. If you are attacked, you can pretty much shit yourself and hope that your attacker is not competent to carry through with the attack.
Condition Yellow: You are armed but there is not specific threat. You are willing to use lethal force if called upon to do so.
Condition Orange: You are armed and aware of a specific danger. Your gun remains holstered but you are thinking that if THIS person does THAT action, you will have to draw your gun.
Condition Red: Time to fight. THIS person has done THAT and your gun is in your hand with the muzzle pointed at him. You will pull the trigger if the situation does not resolve itself peacably.
So your scenario where I will be taken by surprise is not realistic. I cannot be armed and in condition white.
=
Well... I did think about that one, but you don't have a normal robbery then. It's probably possible to rob multiple people in the same area, but kill one, and you will have to get out fast, and concentrate on not getting caught. Plus, if you make it a habit to go around and kill people for their cash, I'll bet you will "promote" from "just another robbery for he bottom of the pile" to a "serial killer priority case" faster then you can say "hands up"
There is only one rational reason to shoot someone. You have to make them stop what they are doing right now, right now.