Guns

[PocketZeven]

Can you let me in on the joke?

 

[BobK]

That is a strange hypothesis. What if someone cant afford a gun then? Are the goverment required to subsidize a gun?

My opinion, no. But you were the one to advance the proposition that if my defenses are inadequate that you can dictate what my choices can and cannot be.

Now, I've ansewred your question. To repeat myself:

What if one cannot afford "better" home security? Are you going to supply the funds for my security if I cannot afford it?

Can you give us an example of what would be an effective non-lethal weapon?

I know that you habitually avoid questions, especially ones that make you think. but could you please do so in this case?

 

[Dennisch]

Can you give us an example of what would be an effective non-lethal weapon?

In the eyes of our government (who by law are the only ones allowed to use force) an effective non-lethal weapon is:

*drumroll*


A stern word asking the hoodlum to leave your property.

 

[PocketZeven]

My opinion, no. But you were the one to advance the proposition that if my defenses are inadequate that you can dictate what my choices can and cannot be.

Now, I've ansewred your question. To repeat myself:

What if one cannot afford "better" home security? Are you going to supply the funds for my security if I cannot afford it?

Can you give us an example of what would be an effective non-lethal weapon?

I know that you habitually avoid questions, especially ones that make you think. but could you please do so in this case?

I did not advance or dictate at all. My post was based on that killing is a disproportionate reaction to trespassing.

Your unrelated question however is based on the premise that somehow I or the government are required to fund basic home security? That would be valid if the premise is the government issued you a gun. How did you determine that one that can afford a gun, can’t afford better home security? I cannot answer that question properly without complete context. But if one can afford a gun, I would be inclined to think one could afford alternative security measures.

Also it depends what kind of security you want protection against. I did not suggest these measures are more expensive then buying a gun. Are security alarms, IP cameras more expensive then a gun? Also in countries with less gun ownership there are not more breakins then the USA. One should then explore why that is?

Non-lethal weapons (in context of the USA) could be tazers, blunt weapons, rubber bullets, pepper spray etc. however in my opinion camerasecurity, alarm, security locks are better for prevention then owning a gun. An alarm can be more efficient then a warning shot. How could the potential violator of your rights know you have a gun? Even more important i assume most breakins or trespassing happen when you are not at home. What use does a gun then provide? And in the rare cases that there is a confrontation, what is the success rate for gun owners in home protection.

In the eyes of our government (who by law are the only ones allowed to use force) an effective non-lethal weapon is:

*drumroll*


A stern word asking the hoodlum to leave your property.

On the flip side it is highly more unlikely that in our country that a trespasser or thief is armed with a gun compared to the USA. If you look at statistics we are still safer here then the USA, despite not having guns for protection. Are the police more effective? Is there less socio economic problems?

I don’t see how a gun makes you safer in the context of our country.

 

[Dennisch]

Seeing how most robberies are usually armed robberies, even in our country, a gun would be a simple but mighty fine deterrent against the people of the night.

And when you have a wife and/or kids, I myself don't want to take the chance of being run over by some ****er who then proceeds to go after said wife and/or kids. I am a massive fan of defending your castle with as much force as possible, 1 as a deterrent and 2 making their job as dangerous as possible.

I am also the type of person who will not call the emergency services once I am done with you. Risk of the trade.

What I really meant to say is that after the fight I had I was shaking and under total shock and confusion that I wasn't able to pick up the phone for a good 45 minutes.

 

[Michael88]

I am also the type of person who will not call the emergency services once I am done with you.

What you really meant to say: after the fight you were shaking and under total shock and confusion so you had to wait 45 minutes before you were able call the ambulance.

 

[PocketZeven]

Seeing how most robberies are usually armed robberies, even in our country, a gun would be a simple but mighty fine deterrent against the people of the night.

And when you have a wife and/or kids, I myself don't want to take the chance of being run over by some ****er who then proceeds to go after said wife and/or kids. I am a massive fan of defending your castle with as much force as possible, 1 as a deterrent and 2 making their job as dangerous as possible.

I am also the type of person who will not call the emergency services once I am done with you. Risk of the trade.

What I really meant to say is that after the fight I had as so shaking and under total shock and confusion that I wasn't able to pick up the phone for a good 45 minutes.

How did you conclude most robberies are armed? House/car robberies are mostly when the owners arent present. And if hypothetically most robberies are armed... Which weapon do they carry?

Having people have acces to guns brings in other problems. For example the increased likelyhood that those robbers will also have a guns. I am just guessing but I think the mortality rate changes when a robber has a knife or a gun.

That said I have been robbed probably 7 times in my life. That is the risk of being in business that handles with cash money. However everytime has been a breakin at home, when noone of us where home. The best and most efficient deterrent would have been just being at home. I also have spoken with many insurance experts and they confirmed that most robberies happen without any violence whatsoever.

There has been an instance from my area, where a neighbour was surprised leaving his house in the morning and then where bound in the cellar and forced to tell the safecombination. There was no opportunity, if he had a gun, to go and grab it, because there was no opportunity. Even if he was carrying when leaving the house, he wouldnt have had the opportunity.

 

[Dennisch]

How did you conclude most robberies are armed? House/car robberies are mostly when the owners arent present. And if hypothetically most robberies are armed... Which weapon do they carry?

I am talking about when people are home or in their business. Pretty useless to have a weapon to defend yourself when you're not there when they are stealing your ****.

Armed robbers usually don't just use their fists unless they come as a team.

In any case, if you're allowed to shoot the first one entering your home or business, the rest usually flees the scene, as the many, many videos on the different sites show. The ****ers don't have a plan for when things go wrong apart from panic mode.

 

[PocketZeven]

I am talking about when people are home or in their business. Pretty useless to have a weapon to defend yourself when you're not there when they are stealing your ****.

Armed robbers usually don't just use their fists unless they come as a team.

In any case, if you're allowed to shoot the first one entering your home or business, the rest usually flees the scene, as the many, many videos on the different sites show. The ****ers don't have a plan for when things go wrong apart from panic mode.

as I explained. In most armed robberies the robbers are prepared and will catch you off guard.

 

[Michael88]

I am talking about when people are home or in their business. Pretty useless to have a weapon to defend yourself when you're not there when they are stealing your ****.

Armed robbers usually don't just use their fists unless they come as a team.

In any case, if you're allowed to shoot the first one entering your home or business, the rest usually flees the scene, as the many, many videos on the different sites show. The ****ers don't have a plan for when things go wrong apart from panic mode.

There was a recent study here in Austria, the average home invasion consists of a team of three people, and at least one is armed with a firearm or a knife.

Don't forget that most burglars use tools to get into your home, its not very hard to get stabbed to death with a screwdriver or beaten to death with a pry-bar. At the tight confinements of a house those tools are very deadly.

as I explained. In most armed robberies the robbers are prepared and will catch you off guard.

Being more vigilant and armed helps a lot though.

 

[PocketZeven]

There was a recent study here in Austria, the average home invasion consists of a team of three people, and at least one is armed with a firearm or a knife.

Don't forget that most burglars use tools to get into your home, its not very hard to get stabbed to death with a screwdriver or beaten to death with a pry-bar. At the tight confinements of a house those tools are very deadly.

I am also not convinced having a gun is a sufficient deterrent or even an efficient securitytool. I am certain there is enough anecdotal evidence it has saved people, but does it show in studies and reports? Perhaps guns themselves are also an attractive thing to rob?

edit:
I also assume a experienced robber would try to avoid conflict at all costs.

 

[Michael88]

I am also not convinced having a gun is a sufficient deterrent or even an efficient securitytool. I am certain there is enough anecdotal evidence it has saved people, but does it show in studies and reports? Perhaps guns themselves are also an attractive thing to rob?

Of course you are not convinced because you have absolutely zero hands on experience with firearms. I can tell you with experience and good training you can absolutely ruin a home invasion and either chase them off or kill them.

Funny thing is, a friend of mine who is a gun owner got robbed while he was not at home, they took everything valuable BUT his guns. The police said that this is a common thing with burglaries nowadays, firearms can be so easily tracked and there is so many undercover police operations in the black market for firearms it no longer pays off to steal guns.-

And in case you say you can scratch the serial number- police can easily trace a gun with such modified serial number with x-ray, the serial number still shows due to the metal density variations caused from the number stamping process.

 

[PocketZeven]

Of course you are not convinced because you have absolutely zero hands on experience with firearms. I can tell you with experience and good training you can absolutely ruin a home invasion and either chase them off or kill them.

Funny thing is, a friend of mine who is a gun owner got robbed while he was not at home, they took everything valuable BUT his guns. The police said that this is a common thing with burglaries nowadays, firearms can be so easily tracked and there is so many undercover police operations in the black market for firearms it no longer pays off to steal guns.-

And in case you say you can scratch the serial number- police can easily trace a gun with such modified serial number with x-ray, the serial number still shows due to the metal density variations caused from the number stamping process.

I am not very experienced, but I have shot guns at a shooting range. And like I said in most instances when you are robbed is when one is away from home and /or during sleep.

I also have never found evidence that guns prevent robberies.

 

[Michael88]

I am not very experienced, but I have shot guns at a shooting range. And like I said in most instances when you are robbed is when one is away from home and /or during sleep.

Sorry but thats like saying ''I know racing because I drove a car once''. You have near zero experience with guns so you have basically no realistic idea how efficient you can become with them with training. You really should not say that you think guns are less than ideal safety devices if your knowledge about them is so limited.

Also how do you know that burglaries only happen when nobody is home? I recently read an article that home invasions during the day when people are at home are getting more and more frequent.
Don't forget that it becomes more and more popular to spend 3-2 days of your working week working from your home, increasing the chances of home invasions with people in their houses.

Saying you don't need to protect yourself from home invasions because chances of you being there when it happens are slim is like saying you don't need a fire extinguisher at home because statistically the chances of fires is higher when people are not at home.

I also heve never found evidence that guns prevent robberies.

That doesn't mean they don't, knowing that the local laws allow citizens to own gun alone prevents many robberies. If you were a burglar, would you rather raid a Texan farm or an English cottage?

Burglars usually hunt for the most profitable and easiest prey, people who are potentially armed and can kill you is not something burglars like and makes them reconsider.
Since guns are no real lucrative loot anymore, as I mentioned above, leaving some subtle evidence that you are armed is no bad idea as burglar deterrent. If I was a burglar and there were two houses to loot I sure as hell would pick the one that does not have shooting targets with holes in them leaning next to the garbage bin. I want loot, I don't want to have to fight for it or even risk death. Do you risk your live in your job when you don't have to?

 

[Xavier2342]

I am not very experienced, but I have shot guns at a shooting range. And like I said in most instances when you are robbed is when one is away from home and /or during sleep.

I also have never found evidence that guns prevent robberies.

I don't have a study to share you but below is a video and a link to the article explaining what happened.

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) -- A would-be robber of a convenience store brought a hatchet as a weapon. He ran when the clerk pulled out a gun.

The April 28 incident at the Oak Grove Plaid Pantry was captured on surveillance video and just released by the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office.

The video shows a man walk into the Plaid Pantry around 1 a.m., walk up to the counter and pull a 12-inch hatchet from his pants. He shows it to the clerk, who then pulls out a gun.

As the clerk picked up the phone to call 911, the robber slid the hatchet across the counter, put his hands up and reportedly said, "I'm sorry. I'll leave." He then ran out of the store.

The suspect, a Hispanic man in his early 20s, is about 5-feet-5. He wore a dark black jacket with hood, a dark green ski mask, khakis and dark shoes with white soles.

The president of Plaid Pantry told KOIN 6 News the stores have a zero tolerance for weapons and the clerk is no longer employed there. He said employees are trained to de-escalate robbery situations to avoid injury.

Anyone with information is asked to contact the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office.

Source: https://www.koin.com/news/local/cla...-shows-hatchet-clerk-pulls-out-gun/2024928955

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't have a study to share you but below is a video and a link to the article explaining what happened.





Source: https://www.koin.com/news/local/cla...-shows-hatchet-clerk-pulls-out-gun/2024928955

Anecdotal is not evidence. I can also post videos here of gunless defenses:





But I suspect many robberies with guns end up with the clerk being shot for pulling a gun.

 

[Michael88]

Anecdotal is not evidence.

How many videos do we have to post to make you say that its not anecdotal anymore?

Yeah I use my guns for protection, the most modern and effective self defense implement known to mankind right now. Millions of police officers, bodyguards and security personnel can't be wrong.


Also just because I saw in one of your videos, large blades look great for deterring burglars, but if you actually have to USE them in confined spaces you are el screwed.

 

[PocketZeven]

How many videos do we have to post to make you say that its not anecdotal anymore?

Yeah I use my guns for protection, the most modern and effective self defense implement known to mankind right now. Millions of police officers, bodyguards and security personnel can't be wrong.


Also just because I saw in one of your videos, large blades look great for deterring burglars, but if you actually have to USE them in confined spaces you are el screwed.

Dont post videos. They never represent reality accurately. The posted graph seems more like the results of a poll? There doesnt seem to be a source? From the same website:

 

[McLaren]

Anecdotal is not evidence. I can also post videos here of gunless defenses:

That doesn't matter. You claimed:

I also have never found evidence that guns prevent robberies.

He posted evidence of a gun that prevented a robbery. More evidence of a gun preventing a robbery just from this month.

Tallahassee: 4 armed intruders met with an armed owner:
https://www.wtxl.com/news/local-news/tpd-investigating-home-invasion-robbery

Tampa Bay: 2 armed intruders met with an armed owner:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...-during-st-petersburg-home-invasion-20190501/

Jacksonville: 2 men are met with an armed owner:
https://www.news4jax.com/news/sources-at-least-1-shot-at-argyle-area-home

Dallas: a man is met with an armed owner:
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/05/13/texas-homeowner-shoots-kills-robbery-suspect-forced-way-inside/

If the original poster has said only guns prevent robberies, you'd have a strong point showcasing that bats/sharp objects can as well. But, he didn't.

Hard to claim 1 video is therefore anecdotal evidence (a personal account; hearsay) when you have multiple videos/reports across a vast country showcasing his claim.

 

[PocketZeven]

That doesn't matter. You claimed:

He posted evidence of a gun that prevented a robbery. More evidence of a gun preventing a robbery just from this month.

Tallahassee: 4 armed intruders met with an armed owner:
https://www.wtxl.com/news/local-news/tpd-investigating-home-invasion-robbery

Tampa Bay: 2 armed intruders met with an armed owner:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...-during-st-petersburg-home-invasion-20190501/

Jacksonville: 2 men are met with an armed owner:
https://www.news4jax.com/news/sources-at-least-1-shot-at-argyle-area-home

Dallas: a man is met with an armed owner:
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/05/13/texas-homeowner-shoots-kills-robbery-suspect-forced-way-inside/

If the original poster has said only guns prevent robberies, you'd have a strong point showcasing that bats/sharp objects can as well. But, he didn't.

Hard to claim 1 video is therefore anecdotal evidence (a personal account; hearsay) when you have multiple videos/reports across a vast country showcasing his claim.

For every robbery prevention you posted I probably can find instances of accidental discharge that hurt or killed someone.

Past month:

https://nypost.com/2019/05/28/georgia-man-killed-in-accidental-shooting-at-gun-range/

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local...er-Cops-Gun-Accidentally-Fires-509967101.html

https://eu.clarionledger.com/story/...er-county-ms-sheriff-andy-mccants/3766236002/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ally-shoots-mother-baseball-game-gun-n1005876

Just 1 video/article or even several videos/articles are not representative as evidence on a national level. More accurate proof comes from national research reports etc. Just posting videos of incidents is a bit lazy.


edit: Correction in post, because of incorrect use of source

 

[ImaRobot]

I posted a graph that showed violent crime use vs defensive use even more then 5 to 1.

1 to 5 I think you mean, no?

 

[PocketZeven]

1 to 5 I think you mean, no?

Not sure if I posted correctly. I meant at least 5 times more use in violent crime then in defensive use.

 

[ImaRobot]

Not sure if I posted correctly. I meant at least 5 times more use in violent crime then in defensive use.

No, you're fine, that's what I got from it. That's also why I asked though, because that graph doesn't show that.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, you're fine, that's what I got from it. That's also why I asked though, because that graph doesn't show that.

I guess I was viewing the graph incorrectly.

edit: Thanks for pointing out the fail on my part.
edit 2 : removed reference in my post to reflect my incorrect interpertation.

 

[McLaren]

For every robbery prevention you posted I probably can find instances of accidental discharge that hurt or killed someone.

Past month:

https://nypost.com/2019/05/28/georgia-man-killed-in-accidental-shooting-at-gun-range/

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local...er-Cops-Gun-Accidentally-Fires-509967101.html

https://eu.clarionledger.com/story/...er-county-ms-sheriff-andy-mccants/3766236002/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ally-shoots-mother-baseball-game-gun-n1005876

Just 1 video/article or even several videos/articles are not representative as evidence on a national level. More accurate proof comes from national research reports etc. Just posting videos of incidents is a bit lazy.


edit: Correction in post, because of incorrect use of source

That is irrelevant information; no one stated anything about accidental discharges.

You’re ignoring what you said. You claimed there is no evidence of a gun preventing a robbery and yet there’ve been 5 instances shown otherwise. There doesn’t need to be a national study to determine if a gun can prevent a robbery, only to determine its efficiency as such. But again, no one stated that specific claim.

I could say bats/sharp objects can also prevent robberies and use your post as proof but your logic is no study done=no evidence they can prevent a robbery.

 

[Danoff]

I am also not convinced having a gun is a sufficient deterrent or even an efficient securitytool.

In terms of efficiency, in the US it's pretty hard to beat for certain kinds of security. For example, I can spend $300 or so and have a tool which can enable me with very little training to be able to deliver deadly force from a distance. Maintenance? virtually none. Space? It's very small. I think to be using it properly you'd need a safe, which will run you a bit more. But on the whole the ability to deliver deadly force from a distance for such a small investment, I think, is just about the definition of efficiency.

Realistically if you're getting your gun out something in your security configuration has gone horribly wrong. Your locks failed, your alarm failed, your police failed, your likable personality failed, whatever it is that you use to ensure that nobody wants to harm you has failed you and now you're left with your emergency preparedness kit.

Think of it a bit like a fire extinguisher (I keep using this analogy, because it's so perfect). If you're getting your fire extinguisher out, something has gone horribly wrong with your fire prevention configuration, and you've now tapped into your last line of defense... blowing corrosive chemicals all over your home and belongings in order to stop a spreading fire. You wouldn't say that someone using their fire extinguisher is necessarily the model of fire prevention. The best scenario is that the fire extinguisher gathers dust. But... if everything else fails you, that fire extinguisher sure is an efficient fire prevention tool, at least from the perspective of preventing an existing fire from turning into a bigger one.

 

[PocketZeven]

In terms of efficiency, in the US it's pretty hard to beat for certain kinds of security. For example, I can spend $300 or so and have a tool which can enable me with very little training to be able to deliver deadly force from a distance. Maintenance? virtually none. Space? It's very small. I think to be using it properly you'd need a safe, which will run you a bit more. But on the whole the ability to deliver deadly force from a distance for such a small investment, I think, is just about the definition of efficiency.

Realistically if you're getting your gun out something in your security configuration has gone horribly wrong. Your locks failed, your alarm failed, your police failed, your likable personality failed, whatever it is that you use to ensure that nobody wants to harm you has failed you and now you're left with your emergency preparedness kit.

Think of it a bit like a fire extinguisher (I keep using this analogy, because it's so perfect). If you're getting your fire extinguisher out, something has gone horribly wrong with your fire prevention configuration, and you've now tapped into your last line of defense... blowing corrosive chemicals all over your home and belongings in order to stop a spreading fire. You wouldn't say that someone using their fire extinguisher is necessarily the model of fire prevention. The best scenario is that the fire extinguisher gathers dust. But... if everything else fails you, that fire extinguisher sure is an efficient fire prevention tool, at least from the perspective of preventing an existing fire from turning into a bigger one.

I agree fully and got me to see it from a different perspective. As long as people dont see it as a deterrent or even as their sole security measure it is a very usefull "fire extinguisher". However I would not say a fire extinguisher is a fire "prevention" tool, but rather fire fighting tool. Training, protocols are much more efficient in prevention of fire and also security. Like having good locks, locking away valuables, not having cash laying around etc. In most homes I know do not have fire extinguishers in their homes, but are required by their insurance to have fire alarms. So that should be a good first/second line of security.

So my point was based on the premise I didnt believe a gun is a good security or breakin and entering prevention tool. The risk of misuse is also quite high, so that in my opinion does not justify to use it as a prevention tool at all. As a last measure protection tool guns can be very usefull. But I disagree little training is enough. Like with driving people need constant training to prevent misuse.

edit:

That is irrelevant information; no one stated anything about accidental discharges.

You’re ignoring what you said. You claimed there is no evidence of a gun preventing a robbery and yet there’ve been 5 instances shown otherwise. There doesn’t need to be a national study to determine if a gun can prevent a robbery, only to determine its efficiency as such. But again, no one stated that specific claim.

I could say bats/sharp objects can also prevent robberies and use your post as proof but your logic is no study done=no evidence they can prevent a robbery.

Those examples are when robberies are already in motion. Foiling a robbery isnt the same as preventing a robbery from happening. Like Danoff said I also see it as a "fire extinguisher". The fire extinguisher itself does nothing to prevent fires, just like guns do not prevent robberies. When there is a fire/robbery then it can be usefull tool. But in my opinion there are alternatives, that are less prone to misuse, to a gun. Security glass, Alarms, special system to transport cash remotely, card-only etc. are more efficient in preventing robberies like these.
I perhaps didnt specify clearly enough. I meant I have not seen evidence that guns deter (is that a better word?) people from robberies. So I have not seen any evidence on that.

 

[Danoff]

I agree fully and got me to see it from a different perspective. As long as people dont see it as a deterrent or even as their sole security measure it is a very usefull "fire extinguisher". However I would not say a fire extinguisher is a fire "prevention" tool, but rather fire fighting tool.

As with guns, fire "prevention" vs. fire "fighting" is blurry. Because many many people would see putting out a grease fire that has engulfed your backyard grill, or spraying the kitchen wall behind the stove, to be fire "prevention" - in that it did not take down the house. I doubt that what I described would constitute a house fire, and so you have "prevented" the statistic of "house that caught on fire" from ticking up 1 number.

Similarly with crime, if there is an attempted robbery which is prevented from becoming an actual (successful) robbery via a firearm, many people would see that as crime prevention. You might see it as fighting crime, but you have to recognize that it prevents an attempted robbery from ticking over into the robbery statistics box.

Training, protocols are much more efficient in prevention of fire and also security. Like having good locks, locking away valuables, not having cash laying around etc. In most homes I know do not have fire extinguishers in their homes,

Inexcusable in a home that doesn't have a fire suppression system of some other kind.

But I disagree little training is enough.

So I didn't point out that little training is required to effectively deliver deadly force from a distance because I felt like it was a good idea to have minimal training, or necessarily that it should be even legal to own a gun with little training. I merely pointed it out because guns do not take long to learn how to use. You can spend a single day shooting and have an idea of what to do with one. That's a minimal investment compared to how long it takes to learn to ride a bike, drive a car, or master swordplay. What I mean is that the training barrier to entry is low with guns.

Like with driving people need constant training to prevent misuse.

Define misuse. Training doesn't prevent one from becoming a mass murderer. Just keeps you from accidentally shooting something.

I meant I have not seen evidence that guns deter (is that a better word?) people from robberies.

I posted some a while (years) back. But it depends on what you mean by deter. I don't think guns do much to prevent people from deciding to rob. But they can and do prevent attempted robberies from becoming successful robberies. I don't know if that qualifies as deterring in your book.

 

[PocketZeven]

As with guns, fire "prevention" vs. fire "fighting" is blurry. Because many many people would see putting out a grease fire that has engulfed your backyard grill, or spraying the kitchen wall behind the stove, to be fire "prevention" - in that it did not take down the house. I doubt that what I described would constitute a house fire, and so you have "prevented" the statistic of "house that caught on fire" from ticking up 1 number.

Similarly with crime, if there is an attempted robbery which is prevented from becoming an actual (successful) robbery via a firearm, many people would see that as crime prevention. You might see it as fighting crime, but you have to recognize that it prevents an attempted robbery from ticking over into the robbery statistics box.



Inexcusable in a home that doesn't have a fire suppression system of some other kind.



So I didn't point out that little training is required to effectively deliver deadly force from a distance because I felt like it was a good idea to have minimal training, or necessarily that it should be even legal to own a gun with little training. I merely pointed it out because guns do not take long to learn how to use. You can spend a single day shooting and have an idea of what to do with one. That's a minimal investment compared to how long it takes to learn to ride a bike, drive a car, or master swordplay. What I mean is that the training barrier to entry is low with guns.



Define misuse. Training doesn't prevent one from becoming a mass murderer. Just keeps you from accidentally shooting something.




I posted some a while (years) back. But it depends on what you mean by deter. I don't think guns do much to prevent people from deciding to rob. But they can and do prevent attempted robberies from becoming successful robberies. I don't know if that qualifies as deterring in your book.

The training barrier should be raised in my opinion.

In this context I meant misuse in the sense of accidental discharge or other accidents.

In my opinion prevension or deter is much more efficient in the sense of discouraging the intent to rob. Having less cash in the register, advanced security system, bulletproof glass, Timeclock on safe, securityguard, securitydoors etc. Having a gun does not discourage robbers the intent to rob. An argument in favor of gunownership is the idea that it is a good deterrent. I have not seen evidence of this. The premise that guns make you safer is just not true.

Also the idea of the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is something I disagree with.

 

[ImaRobot]

Having a gun does not discourage robbers the intent to rob.

If serious bodily injury, or death, in the form of a gunshot wound is not enough to make people think twice about robbing you than why would you think non-lethal obstacles would? These are all things that these robbers wouldn't likely know you have in the first place either way, before hand, but it'll be the most likely thing to stop a crime that's in progress, I feel.

Also the idea of the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is something I disagree with.

I haven't really posted in here but I don't think that's actually what's being said. I've seen a lot of posts saying it's the most efficient, and likely safest(for yourself) bet to stop someone. It'll be a lot more riskier for you to get into a physical altercation with someone if you have knife, blunt objects, or anything similar. You don't need to have physical strength to stop someone with a gun, but you definitely do if you have to get physical.