Guns

[RC45]

We also know that additional shots fired will likely result in additional casualties. But neither are facts without proper statistics to back them up.

No, you would be incorrect. We know that additional shots fired by legally armed civilians almost always result in the attacker retreating/slowing and sometimes even being killed.

The number of 'innocent bystanders shot' by responding legally armed civilians (whether at home or in a shop or restaurant etc.) is statistically insignificant.

The FBI and local law enforcement have these stats for you - but if you want to see actual proof of the effect legally armed civilian responses can have, simply search YouTube for armed response videos showing the many attackers retreating (and sometimes being killed by) from legally armed civilian returned gun fire.

You do realize that annually, many thousands of legally armed civilians successfully defend themselves with their firearms - right?

Still, I believe the whole gun problem is only symptomatic. It's a catalyst/accelerator on top of a different problem rooted deep into the psyche of American culture.

'Murican culture yeah? What about adults that immigrate to the USA and from other countries (such as myself) that support and agree with the 2nd Amendment?

 

[NLxAROSA]

What? Why? Let's take a hypothetical....

A guy busts into a movie theater with body armor and lots of ammo and starts mowing people down. One person in the movie theater shoots at the ceiling while crouched behind a seat. Is that:

A) Likely to result in additional casualties

or

B) Likely to reduce casualties

or

C) Likely to have no effect on casualties

Let's not go hypothetical and stick to facts. Because if we're going hypothetical: there could be tennants or other theatres above the one in the example. So your warning shots just killed an innocent bystander. We can make hypothetical examples go as crazy as we want in either way, so let's not do that.

No, you would be incorrect. We know that additional shots fired by legally armed civilians almost always result in the attacker retreating/slowing and sometimes even being killed.

Citation needed. As far as I can tell, the whole 'good guy with a gun' is a myth and a strawman argument. And even if it does exist, it's apparently not much of a factor in preventing these massacres.

'Murican culture yeah? What about adults that immigrate to the USA and from other countries (such as myself) that support and agree with the 2nd Amendment?

You are making wild assumptions here about my motivations (since I didn't give any), but yes, culture is a part, but I think it's only a smaller part of a complex set of circumstances.

Again, I'm not against guns at all, I'm just really perplexed at the inability to tackle the problem of mass shootings. The pro-gun mob basically just throws a fitty "Don't touch mah guns!" and the anti-gun church thinks they can fix this with additional laws. Both are ludicrous IMO.

 

[Danoff]

Let's not go hypothetical and stick to facts. Because if we're going hypothetical: there could be tennants or other theatres above the one in the example. So your warning shots just killed an innocent bystander. We can make hypothetical examples go as crazy as we want in either way, so let's not do that.

Holy crap.

Yes, if you want to be unreasonable, hypotheticals don't help illustrate any points or assist the conversation. So how about you respond to the facts then?

 

[RC45]

No, you would be incorrect. We know that additional shots fired by legally armed civilians almost always result in the attacker retreating/slowing and sometimes even being killed.

Citation needed. As far as I can tell, the whole 'good guy with a gun' is a myth and a strawman argument.

Does your Google or YouTube not work? Why should I do you homework for you?

Have you even bothered looking for the many hundreds of videos showing legal civilian armed responses or the many hundreds of TV News reports on YouTube reporting on legal civilian armed responses?

Try this as a start:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+owner+defends+self

And even if it does exist, it's apparently not much of a factor in preventing these massacres.

And how could it??? LEGAL civilian gun owners and carriers are PREVENTED by law from carrying in all these Gun Free Zone soft target areas.

And as law abiding people, we legal gun carriers are forced by law to be sitting ducks with the rest of the soft targets.

 

[Denur]

And as law abiding people, we legal gun carriers are forced by law to be sitting ducks with the rest of the soft targets.

You shouldn't be. The American people have religiously embraced gun ownership, which means that you'll have to go all out with free carry, in all places at all the time. Half measures just won't do. But you'll also have to accept that the number of accidental injuries and deaths will increase with gun ownership and also the number of successful suicide attempts.

By these numbers, approximately 92-95% of suicide attempts end in survival.

Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others. The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time. Wrist-slashing has a much lower lethality rate, comparatively. 75% of all suicide attempts are by self-poisoning, a method that is often thwarted because the drug is nonlethal or is used at a nonlethal dosage. These people survive 97% of the time.

source

 

[NLxAROSA]

Holy crap.

Yes, if you want to be unreasonable, hypotheticals don't help illustrate any points or assist the conversation.

Exactly.

So how about you respond to the facts then?

Which ones? Not being a douche here (though maybe just blind ), genuine question.

Does your Google or YouTube not work? Why should I do you homework for you?

My homework? You brought in the argument/state a claim, it's not up to me to provide your proof.

And how could it??? LEGAL civilian gun owners and carriers are PREVENTED by law from carrying in all these Gun Free Zone soft target areas.

And as law abiding people, we legal gun carriers are forced by law to be sitting ducks with the rest of the soft targets.

Again, you're misunderstanding me: I'm not against guns or gun ownership by the general population. (Do I need to put this in capitals or extra large font as it's the second time I have to state this?) I just don't believe that arming everyone will fix anything and neither will laws that disarm only the legal owners.

 

[Barra333]

I have not posted in this thread before, and excuse me for not reading all the way through, but I thought now would be a good time for me to put forward my opinion on gun control.

I just voted 'strict control' in the poll.

In my opinion, there are very few situations were a gun is needed, and exactly zero situations where an automatic weapon of any sort is needed.
If you are a farmer or show that you hunt, by all means, have yourself a rifle or shotgun or two. I grew up with my dad regularly going to friends' farms to hunt kangaroos. I fired both shotguns and rifles at a young age, and saw him shoot kangaroos as well.
If sports shooting (basically the olympic disciplines or similar), or even just going to the range to shoot is your thing, then, by all means go for it.

BUT, if you are none of the above, then there is no reason to have a weapon. 'For protection' is a complete bull**** excuse in my opinion.

The argument then comes back that the people who break the law are less likely to have proper registration for their guns, so tighter regulation will do nothing. In the short term, this may be correct. But if you make lots of handguns and all automatic guns illegal, then the upstanding citizens who own them will turn them in, reducing the number of guns in the community. Then every time that one of the undesirables gets caught with an illegal weapon, that is another one off the street. Over time, the number goes down.

 

[RC45]

My homework? You brought in the argument/state a claim, it's not up to me to provide your proof.

Yes, your homework - You claimed what I said was not true. You prove that it is not true. I stated facts, these facts are not voided simply because I didn't do your research for you.

Everyday, legally armed civilians cause illegally armed attackers to back off, scatter or sometimes even die when they bring their legally owned firearms to bear.

This is fact - period. Nothing you say or claim will change the fact that 'good guy with a gun' is not a myth, but is fact.

Another fact is that these events do not produce the number of cross-fire injuries you and others would wish they did.

Everyday, local news stations around the nation report on stories of 'good guys with guns' saving the day.

This is another fact that you cannot change - even though your narrative is upset by this fact.

Again, this fact is not voided simply because I didn't do your research for you.

Does the bahaviour of gravity stop being fact because I don't cite Isaac Newton in every thread?

Again, you're misunderstanding me: I'm not against guns or gun ownership by the general population. (Do I need to put this in capitals or extra large font as it's the second time I have to state this?) I just don't believe that arming everyone will fix anything and neither will laws that disarm only the legal owners.

For a supposed gun proponent you sure have a confused message.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have not posted in this thread before, and excuse me for not reading all the way through, but I thought now would be a good time for me to put forward my opinion on gun control.

I just voted 'strict control' in the poll.

In my opinion, there are very few situations were a gun is needed, and exactly zero situations where an automatic weapon of any sort is needed.
If you are a farmer or show that you hunt, by all means, have yourself a rifle or shotgun or two. I grew up with my dad regularly going to friends' farms to hunt kangaroos. I fired both shotguns and rifles at a young age, and saw him shoot kangaroos as well.
If sports shooting (basically the olympic disciplines or similar), or even just going to the range to shoot is your thing, then, by all means go for it.

BUT, if you are none of the above, then there is no reason to have a weapon. 'For protection' is a complete bull**** excuse in my opinion.

The argument then comes back that the people who break the law are less likely to have proper registration for their guns, so tighter regulation will do nothing. In the short term, this may be correct. But if you make lots of handguns and all automatic guns illegal, then the upstanding citizens who own them will turn them in, reducing the number of guns in the community. Then every time that one of the undesirables gets caught with an illegal weapon, that is another one off the street. Over time, the number goes down.

Why does one need a reason to own a weapon? Tens of thousands of people are killed by cars in the U.S., do you need a reason to own a car? Why does that logic apply to guns and not cars? With hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation, how does taking the guns out of the hands of "upstanding citizens" help anyone? Aren't they the last people that should turn in their guns?

 

[RC45]

I have not posted in this thread before, and excuse me for not reading all the way through, but I thought now would be a good time for me to put forward my opinion on gun control.

I just voted 'strict control' in the poll.

In my opinion, there are very few situations were a gun is needed, and exactly zero situations where an automatic weapon of any sort is needed.
If you are a farmer or show that you hunt, by all means, have yourself a rifle or shotgun or two. I grew up with my dad regularly going to friends' farms to hunt kangaroos. I fired both shotguns and rifles at a young age, and saw him shoot kangaroos as well.
If sports shooting (basically the olympic disciplines or similar), or even just going to the range to shoot is your thing, then, by all means go for it.

BUT, if you are none of the above, then there is no reason to have a weapon. 'For protection' is a complete bull**** excuse in my opinion.

The argument then comes back that the people who break the law are less likely to have proper registration for their guns, so tighter regulation will do nothing. In the short term, this may be correct. But if you make lots of handguns and all automatic guns illegal, then the upstanding citizens who own them will turn them in, reducing the number of guns in the community. Then every time that one of the undesirables gets caught with an illegal weapon, that is another one off the street. Over time, the number goes down.

Automatic weapons are already very strictly regulated in the USA - have been since 1936 - every single legally owned automatic weapon is registered with the Federal Government and ownership carefully recorded and known by authorities. Ownership transfer only takes place after a lengthy convoluted registration/taxing/application process.

And how about you call each of these folks and tell them their semi-auto hand gun was not needed:

 

[NotThePrez]

Yes, your homework - You claimed what I said was not true. You prove that it is not true. I stated facts, these facts are not voided simply because I didn't do your research for you.

Everyday, legally armed civilians cause illegally armed attackers to back off, scatter or sometimes even die when they bring their legally owned firearms to bear.

This is fact - period. Nothing you say or claim will change the fact that 'good guy with a gun' is not a myth, but is fact.

Then you wouldn't mind producing evidence to back that up?

Does the bahaviour of gravity stop being fact because I don't cite Isaac Newton in every thread?

No, but (not trying to be harsh here) backing up your claims with evidence makes it a lot easier to take them seriously.

 

[RC45]

Then you wouldn't mind producing evidence to back that up?

What claim? That 'good guy with a gun' is not a myth?

Do I have to produce evidence for you because you do not know how to use Google or YouTube?

Here you go - 1 of tens of thousands of YouTube videos of News reports:

This one mentions 2 events in 3 days for 1 single city... and neither had cross-fire injuries:

No, but (not trying to be harsh here) backing up your claims with evidence makes it a lot easier to take them seriously.

No, but (not trying to be harsh here) you doing your own research would be indicative of your maturity and ability to find information yourself - again, me not spoon feeding you does not void the facts.

And you not taking facts seriously is not my problem, but rather yours.

And 1 more just to keep you going while you find your own videos online:

 

[Barra333]

Why does one need a reason to own a weapon? Tens of thousands of people are killed by cars in the U.S., do you need a reason to own a car? Why does that logic apply to guns and not cars? With hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation, how does taking the guns out of the hands of "upstanding citizens" help anyone? Aren't they the last people that should turn in their guns?

Cars are there to get people from A to B, the fact that people die in the process is unfortunate, but you don't hear of too many occasions where people go out to kill others with their car. Guns are designed to kill. End of story. The target shooting part of guns is similar to car racing, it is a sport that evolved from an existing invention.
As for people who don't need guns, but want them, see below.

Automatic weapons are already very strictly regulated in the USA - have been since 1936 - every single legally owned automatic weapon is registered with the Federal Government and ownership carefully recorded and known by authorities. Ownership transfer only takes place after a lengthy convoluted registration/taxing/application process.

OK. I don't know the ins and out of laws about all guns in the US.

And how about you call each of these folks and tell them their semi-auto hand gun was not needed:

Fight the problem of too much gun crime with more guns. Sounds good. Maybe if there were less guns overall, there would be less need for the homeowners to have guns.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Everyday, legally armed civilians cause illegally armed attackers to back off, scatter or sometimes even die when they bring their legally owned firearms to bear.

Again, not my responsibility to prove your arguments. And it actually makes the problem much worse, because you're basically saying that not more people are getting killed because someone else is threatening to do the same and the answer is to then just arm everyone. It's a downward spiral of fear and violence.

It does not address the issue of why people are doing this in the first place? Guns are not the cause, nor the solution (I'm starting to sound like a broken record here).

For a supposed gun proponent you sure have a confused message.

Why? Because I am ok with people owning a gun (or a whole arsenal full of them for all I care), but not ok with creating a society where 'freedom' is maintained by arming everyone? Where products like bullet proof blankets and shooter evacuation drills are standard things we have to equip/teach to our kids? Where people are nice to each other, not because they're civilized, but because there are guns pointing from all directions? Where the police is a paramilitary organization to be feared? Because that's where you're headed (and already there for most of the part) if you're continuing this arms race. If that's your idea of freedom, then please keep it.

If you think that's a confused message and literally the only way to solve issues is to arm everyone, then maybe, just maybe, you could consider that you're the exception to the rule and that everyone else in the world thinks it's crazy?

EDIT: I'll give you the defense argument, since you were so kind to post a couple of vids. 👍 Still doesn't change the way I think about starting an arms race.

 

[NotThePrez]

So, @NLxAROSA pretty much wrote my thoughts before I could. Having a society where everyone maintains freedom by being armed to the teeth doesn't sound very "free" to me. I appreciate the videos, though. 👍

And you not taking facts seriously is not my problem, but rather yours.

Forgive me for wanting evidence of something claimed to be fact before passing full judgement.

 

[RC45]

So, @NLxAROSA pretty much wrote my thoughts before I could. Having a society where everyone maintains freedom by being armed to the teeth doesn't sound very "free" to me. I appreciate the videos, though. 👍

I have lived in the USA since 1994 and have never ever felt more free than the day I arrived here.

Freedom to choose and associate and prosper at my pace and freedom to legally defend myself if need be - And you know what? - the 300 million guns never bothered me ever. I don't have burglar bars on my house, I don't have a razor wire topped wall around my house - hell I sometimes don't even lock my cars out in the driveway.

That was not an option in South Africa, even in 1994.

Oh, and remember the USA is still the only place on earth where the people have explicitly given the consent to govern to the government while having said government in check by a centuries old Constitution that enumerates the rights of the people while explicitly restricting the power of the government.

This is real freedom.

Forgive me for wanting evidence of something claimed to be fact before passing full judgement.

In other words you have never ever researched whether your point of view is actually based in fact or just liberal Democrat utopian pipe dreams?

Have you never thought to see if the claims of people defending themselves is true?

In other words you simply accepted the view that 'good guys with guns' is not true but a myth without any research to back up that point of view?

Interesting....

 

[Johnnypenso]

Cars are there to get people from A to B, the fact that people die in the process is unfortunate, but you don't hear of too many occasions where people go out to kill others with their car. Guns are designed to kill. End of story. The target shooting part of guns is similar to car racing, it is a sport that evolved from an existing invention.
As for people who don't need guns, but want them, see below.

OK. I don't know the ins and out of laws about all guns in the US.

Fight the problem of too much gun crime with more guns. Sounds good. Maybe if there were less guns overall, there would be less need for the homeowners to have guns.

You don't need a car to get from A to B, it's only more convenient. Public transportation, professional taxi drivers, walking, bicycles etc. could accomplish the task with far less risk, so your reasoning falls apart on that basis alone.

And again, how does taking guns out of the hands of "upstanding citizens" make the situation better? How do you get the guns out of the hands of the criminals who are responsible for most of the gun crime, given that using a firearm in the commission of an offense is already punishable by stiffer sentences and illegal to begin with?

 

[Rallywagon]

Again, you're misunderstanding me: I'm not against guns or gun ownership by the general population. (Do I need to put this in capitals or extra large font as it's the second time I have to state this?) I just don't believe that arming everyone will fix anything and neither will laws that disarm only the legal owners.

This is my take as well. As I said, we want hell, and we are getting it. I don't blame guns. They are inanimate. Just a tool. one of several at a killers disposal. Either side of this debate can argue their statistics til we are blue in the face. The real issue is that society in general is violent as hell. Most people don't care enough to fix that issue. And when people do try, they are generally labeled a liberal pansy ass, whether or not they actually are, and dismissed. No one wants to fix society for whatever reason, and so we will just kill ourselves, our planet, and everything else on it that we possibly can.

 

[Danoff]

Exactly.

Which ones? Not being a douche here (though maybe just blind ), genuine question.

I don't believe you're interested in a real discussion.

 

[Barra333]

You don't need a car to get from A to B, it's only more convenient. Public transportation, professional taxi drivers, walking, bicycles etc. could accomplish the task with far less risk, so your reasoning falls apart on that basis alone.

And again, how does taking guns out of the hands of "upstanding citizens" make the situation better? How do you get the guns out of the hands of the criminals who are responsible for most of the gun crime, given that using a firearm in the commission of an offense is already punishable by stiffer sentences and illegal to begin with?

You live in Windsor - what is the public transit like out there? Do you ride your bicycle everywhere in February? Is your car a necessity or a convenience? Sure, there are times where a car is a convenience (I don't own one right now), but it is a completely different argument to firearms.

I am talking about reducing the absolute number of guns in existence. Sure, lots of them will be taken out of the hands of upstanding citizens to start with, but after the initial phase, that will swing towards the less upstanding folks who are caught doing other stuff. And you are also hindering the next generation of potential gun owner from getting their first gun (unless they have a reason to, as per my first post). I didn't say the problem of gun crime can be solved overnight, but it sure won't solved by giving more people guns.

Also, do you think Oscar Pistorius would be a convicted murderer if he only had a baseball bat to protect himself from the intruder?

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes, I believe Pistorious would have. Did he not attack his girlfriend/wife whatever she was? A flimsy locked bathroom door would surely be easily pushed in by an enraged athlete. A bat only needs a swing or two too kill.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

I have a KSG 12 Gauge shotgun in my home for protection, yes, home protection. I do not plan on allowing someone to survive if they illegally enter my home and threaten my loved ones.

I do use it to go shoot a target or two every once and while, but that's about it.

To me, and millions of other law abiding US citizens, my firearm represents my freedom. No one will take my gun away, nor will I give up my right to bear arms.

 

[Barra333]

Yes, I believe Pistorious would have. Did he not attack his girlfriend/wife whatever she was? A flimsy locked bathroom door would surely be easily pushed in by an enraged athlete. A bat only needs a swing or two too kill.

Really? You don't think he would have stopped swinging after he got through the door and saw his girlfriend?

 

[MatskiMonk]

I didn't say the problem of gun crime can be solved overnight, but it sure won't solved by giving more people guns.

To be fair, given the situation is what it is in America at the moment, even if it was a proven fact that banning guns would make the country safer in the long run, you're still asking real people to put their life on the line to achieve it, and I don't blame them for not being prepared to do that. It's just a shame that so many legal gun owners in the US come across as brain-washed nut jobs.

 

[Rallywagon]

Really? You don't think he would have stopped swinging after he got through the door and saw his girlfriend?

That depends on if you think he did it on accident. I don't.

 

[Exorcet]

Cars are there to get people from A to B, the fact that people die in the process is unfortunate, but you don't hear of too many occasions where people go out to kill others with their car.

Does the reasoning matter? People still die. The threat posed to me in my life by guns is essentially non existent. I'm at risk of death by car nearly every day though.

Guns are designed to kill. End of story.

Then why are so many not used for such a task?

Fight the problem of too much gun crime with more guns. Sounds good. Maybe if there were less guns overall, there would be less need for the homeowners to have guns.

The problem with gun crime is the crime, not the guns. Even if you could wipe away the guns, the crime will still be there. I doubt chunks of metal make people willing to kill out of the blue.

As far as practicality goes, besides the difficulty of removing guns in a country like the US, you have to consider the short term consequences. Make them illegal and people can no longer defend themselves with guns leading directly to crimes/injuries/deaths that could have been prevented. What do you tell the affected people? Your losses don't matter as much as people in the future who may not even exist yet?

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is my take as well. As I said, we want hell, and we are getting it. I don't blame guns. They are inanimate. Just a tool. one of several at a killers disposal. Either side of this debate can argue their statistics til we are blue in the face. The real issue is that society in general is violent as hell. Most people don't care enough to fix that issue. And when people do try, they are generally labeled a liberal pansy ass, whether or not they actually are, and dismissed. No one wants to fix society for whatever reason, and so we will just kill ourselves, our planet, and everything else on it that we possibly can.

I don't know of any single person nor any group that advocates for continuing with a violent society. Name one if you dare. It's the method or reducing or eliminating violence and violent tendencies that we disagree on.

You live in Windsor - what is the public transit like out there? Do you ride your bicycle everywhere in February? Is your car a necessity or a convenience? Sure, there are times where a car is a convenience (I don't own one right now), but it is a completely different argument to firearms.

Saying it's a completely different argument doesn't make it so. They both kill lots of people, yet you're saying that you should prove why you need a gun and not a car. Do you disagree that reducing the number of cars on the road would save lives?

By the way, public transit here is fine. I could take a cab in the winter if necessary, uber has come to town making it even more affordable.

I am talking about reducing the absolute number of guns in existence. Sure, lots of them will be taken out of the hands of upstanding citizens to start with, but after the initial phase, that will swing towards the less upstanding folks who are caught doing other stuff. And you are also hindering the next generation of potential gun owner from getting their first gun (unless they have a reason to, as per my first post). I didn't say the problem of gun crime can be solved overnight, but it sure won't solved by giving more people guns.

And you still haven't answered the question of why law abiding citizens first and how that's beneficial. Shouldn't we be taking them out of the hands of the criminals first and law abiding citizens last?

Also, do you think Oscar Pistorius would be a convicted murderer if he only had a baseball bat to protect himself from the intruder?

Depends on whether you think it was an accident or murder. Do you think if this person had only a baseball bat to protect themselves they would be alive today?

 

[MatskiMonk]

The threat posed to me in my life by guns is essentially non existent

Non existent, wow, that's pretty good.... with 70 times the gun related homicides in the US vs the UK that makes us pretty safe too. It's just a shame that without guns to defend ourselves we have to put up with 70 times the home invasions, muggings, and rape cases.

 

[RC45]

I have a KSG 12 Gauge shotgun in my home for protection, yes, home protection. I do not plan on allowing someone to survive if they illegally enter my home and threaten my loved ones.

I do use it to go shoot a target or two every once and while, but that's about it.

To me, and millions of other law abiding US citizens, my firearm represents my freedom. No one will take my gun away, nor will I give up my right to bear arms.

Bingo. The same way owning my own car represents my freedom of movement.

Even if I never have to travel more than 5 miles, the mere fact I can, when I chose, pick up my stuff and go literally any distance when I chose is the ultimate expression of freedom of movement.

And I moved halfway around the world to be able to experience these protected ultimate freedoms.

 

[Exorcet]

It's just a shame that without guns to defend ourselves we have to put up with 70 times the home invasions, muggings, and rape cases.

While the lack of guns correlates with increased crime in the UK, it's far from the only factor to consider if you're going to make a comparison. I don't see the relevance between the homicide rates and the other rates.