Gun control

[Pendaric]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

This is part of the price that America pays for having free access to guns. Is it worth it?

When you look at the lists, there are other countries with shootings true, but there are more in America than everywhere else put together.

The attitude of Americans towards guns is one which seems way out there to non-Americans, and I think it is one which is so culturally dependent that Americans and non-Americans will very rarely see eye to eye.

[DMB]

Here in Switzerland the policy of allowing soldiers (most adult Swiss males) to keep their guns at home is under attack.

http://www.swisster.ch/en/news/news_flash/initiative-launched-over-guns-in-home_183-1175641

Since 2007 they have not been allowed to keep the ammunition for the guns at home anyway. But if this vote passes, it looks as though Switzerland will be moving closer to the practice of much of the rest of Europe.

[Master Taran]

Gun control for me is the ability to aim the weapon, squeeze the trigger and hit what I'm aiming at.

[DMB]

Would you feel threatened, MT, if you stayed in a European country and couldn't have a gun?

[Master Taran]

Not at all. I've been trained in various ways to delete a person.

[PostMortem]

:eek:OH WELL~ I suppose it had to happen sometime, our first gun control thread.http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/aaa.gif

[Garnet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

This is part of the price that America pays for having free access to guns. Is it worth it?

When you look at the lists, there are other countries with shootings true, but there are more in America than everywhere else put together.

The attitude of Americans towards guns is one which seems way out there to non-Americans, and I think it is one which is so culturally dependent that Americans and non-Americans will very rarely see eye to eye.

We actually pay a far higher price for easy access to a far more dangerous thing than a gun.

The use of it is prevalent in our society. Many people use this thing on a daily basis, despite the known danger and risk of death and injury. Yet, I have never seen a call for control of this thing in the same way that I've seen calls for the control of guns.

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

Accidents and adverse effects resulting from the accidents is the leading cause of death for people under 45 to 1 year of age. Of all the causes of death due to accidents, the leading cause is motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle accidents remain a high risk for all age groups.

Look, I'm not trying to demean the tragedy of school shootings or any other serious crime. But the fact is that driving or riding in an automobile is just about the riskiest behavior most of us engage in. Yet, there is no hue and cry for more "auto" control. And if you look at this:

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/111riskd.html

It is the same age group that is most at risk for death from both auto accidents and homicide. Broad brush gun control isn't necessarily the best answer.

[Goldie]

I've said what I think in the past, on other sites. I am a gun owner / user and I'd prefer it to stay that way.

[Loren Pechtel]

School shootings are dramatic but overall kill very few people. It's not reasonable to base legislation on the outlier events.

[Christina]

:eek:OH WELL~ I suppose it had to happen sometime, our first gun control thread.http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/aaa.gif

:popcorn:

[darjeeling]

The attitude of Americans towards guns is one which seems way out there to non-Americans, and I think it is one which is so culturally dependent that Americans and non-Americans will very rarely see eye to eye.

You're right that it's culturally dependent.

I'm not all that American, culturally. Even though I mostly grew up in the US, I wasn't born here and I was raised by a family that didn't throw out its previous culture and replace it with American culture. I've never held or fired a firearm before, and neither has anyone in my immediate family.

But I still think it's wrong for someone like me to tell someone in a completely different part of the country who lives in a completely different environment and was raised in a different culture that they can't own a firearm.

[David B]

You're right that it's culturally dependent.

I'm not all that American, culturally. Even though I mostly grew up in the US, I wasn't born here and I was raised by a family that didn't throw out its previous culture and replace it with American culture. I've never held or fired a firearm before, and neither has anyone in my immediate family.

But I still think it's wrong for someone like me to tell someone in a completely different part of the country who lives in a completely different environment and was raised in a different culture that they can't own a firearm.

You have a point there, I suppose.

But still, as an outsider, it seems bizarre to me that a culture which places great value in the government not being able to take away the ability to own lethal weapoms, allowed that government several decades ago, to take away for many years their freedom to have a little drink, and now interferes with their ability to have a game of online poker.

David

[Master Taran]

it seems bizarre to me that a culture which places great value in the government not being able to take away the ability to own lethal weapoms, I'll ask this of you David. Just what would be considered a NON
lethal weapon?

[His Noodly Appendage]

The point is the cultural assumption that the need to shoot someone in the face is such a mundane, matter-of-fact consideration that owning and carrying a gun is no more remarkable than owning and carrying an umbrella.

And most Americans don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

[Garnet]

Yeah, because everyone knows that every American who owns a gun has a huge desire to shoot someone in the face.

In my family, HNA, owning and shooting guns is indeed unremarkable. And wouldn't you know, with the exception of those members of my family who are/were combat veterans, no one has shot anyone else. Amazing! Why, we must not be real Americans!

[darjeeling]

You have a point there, I suppose.

But still, as an outsider, it seems bizarre to me that a culture which places great value in the government not being able to take away the ability to own lethal weapoms, allowed that government several decades ago, to take away for many years their freedom to have a little drink, and now interferes with their ability to have a game of online poker.

Personally, I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 and I don't see what the big deal is with online poker. But that's just my opinion.

In any case, there was no amendment to the Constitution protecting the right to drink alcohol at any age or play online poker.

The point is the cultural assumption that the need to shoot someone in the face is such a mundane, matter-of-fact consideration that owning and carrying a gun is no more remarkable than owning and carrying an umbrella.

All my friends and acquaintances who own firearms have shot lots of people in the face. It's the national pastime.

In my family and in a lot of the families I know, owning and carrying a firearm would be pretty remarkable. Does that mean they're not Americans or something?

And most Americans don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

Yes, most Americans are okay with the thought of shooting someone in the face.

[David B]

I'll ask this of you David. Just what would be considered a NON
lethal weapon?

Ok, I withdraw lethal weapons, and substitute 'firearms, except where licensed'.

With the justifications for obtaining a licence being pretty tight.

David

[Xrikcus]

I'll ask this of you David. Just what would be considered a NON lethal weapon?

A banana. I don't think the word weapon includes a requirement to be able to kill in its definition. While you *could* kill with a banana, I think few would really call it lethal, it'd need too much luck.

I just don't see the feeling of need for owning a gun, and none of the ex-military people in my family see guns as defensive weapons. There are major cultural differences here, though. Take the recent Texan who was threatening illegal immigrants coming across the border and across his land. Talking to people about that a lot of the arguments from Americans were about his right to keep people off his property. In Scotland, as an example, trespass isn't even committed until someone does damage - crossing property is bordering on being a right.

Differences in attitude to the protection of property, and concepts of self defense, are bound to show up in different attitudes to things like gun ownership.

[Ray Moscow]

Oh, one can kill with all sorts of lesser weapons, especially with some training. But guns are especially efficient at this, which is why the body count is so high when they are used.

I've had quite a bit of stick fighting practice, but I wouldn't kill anybody with one unless someone's life was at stake. But it's not easy to shoot someone without running a good chance of killing him/her.

(Swords have the same problem, actually, just a much shorter range.)

[Uthgar the Brazen]

For all of the NRA types I've met, it's the best way to protect themselves against a government whose ass has been firmly attached to their lips for the past 8 years.

[BioBeing]

Yeah, because everyone knows that every American who owns a gun has a huge desire to shoot someone in the face.

But you have to have the ability (for want of a better word) to be able to shoot someone in the face (or elsewhere). If you carry a gun, you are prepared to take another human being's life.

And that, my friends, is the scary part.

[Master Taran]

If you carry a gun, you are prepared to take another human being's life.Not always. I'm prepared to take a life at any time necessary with or without a gun in my hand. My preferred weapon is a knife, which I carry at all times.

[Garnet]

But you have to have the ability (for want of a better word) to be able to shoot someone in the face (or elsewhere). If you carry a gun, you are prepared to take another human being's life.

And that, my friends, is the scary part.

You have the ability to kill, maim and injure every time you drive a car. In fact, you have more of chance being injured in an auto accident than you do of getting shot.

Is that scary? If not, why not?

By the way, I don't carry a gun. I do have at least one gun in my home. And if someone breaks into my house again by say, kicking the door in like has already happened to me once and proceeds to physically attack me again then yes, I am prepared to shoot him or her. Can't say that I care much if anyone finds that scary.

In addition, not all guns owned in the US are for self protection. Hunting is a big part of culture here.

[Ray Moscow]

Not always. I'm prepared to take a life at any time necessary with or without a gun in my hand. My preferred weapon is a knife, which I carry at all times.

I was going to say that knives are just weeny swords, but then one can carry them around easily whilst swords have to be kept at home.

Pity, really.

[Xrikcus]

I think a lot of the problem is that a lot of people are willing to shoot (or at least, claim to be) long before it reaches the "and proceeds to physically attack me" bit. After attacking it might reasonable, although even then I'm not sure that shooting to kill isn't overdoing it a little.

[Garnet]

I think a lot of the problem is that a lot of people are willing to shoot (or at least, claim to be) long before it reaches the "and proceeds to physically attack me" bit. After attacking it might reasonable, although even then I'm not sure that shooting to kill isn't overdoing it a little.

Actually, I misspoke. I shan't wait for someone to proceed to physically attack me. That would be too late and they would be too close. But in the scenario I described, I will shoot as soon as I realize that an attack is imminent.

Shooting to wound is a foolish concept unless a person is a well-practiced marksmen. Even then it isn't a good idea when one is acting in self defense.

[Xrikcus]

And shooting to kill is murder and I would always support such prosecutions.

[Garnet]

And shooting to kill is murder and I would always support such prosecutions.

No, it isn't always and as a prosecutor, if you took that stance you would lose.

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, even extremities have arteries that will quickly cause death if pierced. It's not that easy to shoot someone without a high risk of killing the person. ETA: I think what I was taught was correct: never point a gun at anyone or anything that you don't intend to kill.

Heck, even blunt trauma can kill pretty easily, but it's less likely to except for a few vulnerable spots.

[Xrikcus]

No, it isn't always and as a prosecutor, if you took that stance you would lose.

In the UK only in very very clear self defense cases (ignoring the illegality of the gun, of course). You'd have to have a strong case for saying you'd die if you were going to claim self defense for killing - unless the killing was an accidental result of the self defense.

Ray: Shooting and accidentally killing is not shooting to kill. Accidentally killing in self defense is merely unfortunate, trying to kill unless death is what you are defending yourself from is not.

[darjeeling]

But you have to have the ability (for want of a better word) to be able to shoot someone in the face (or elsewhere).

Yes, but merely having the ability doesn't mean you're going to do it.

If you carry a gun, you are prepared to take another human being's life.

Not necessarily. I could carry an unloaded firearm, and it could be just as useful as a loaded one. I doubt the person at the business end of a firearm would be willing to take their chances that it's unloaded.

Besides, ask any cop or soldier: one of the first things you're taught is that you should only draw your weapon if you're prepared to fire it.

ETA: I think what I was taught was correct: never point a gun at anyone or anything that you don't intend to kill.

^ Ya beat me to it.

[Garnet]

In the UK only in very very clear self defense cases (ignoring the illegality of the gun, of course). You'd have to have a strong case for saying you'd die if you were going to claim self defense for killing - unless the killing was an accidental result of the self defense.

So, you are acknowledging that shooting to kill is not always murder. Thank you.

Ray: Shooting and accidentally killing is not shooting to kill. Accidentally killing in self defense is merely unfortunate, trying to kill unless death is what you are defending yourself from is not.

Have you ever actually shot a gun? I'm not being snarky in asking that. It seems that you have a very unrealistic notion about shooting to wound a person. That kind of stuff generally only happens in fiction. If you aim a gun at a person, fire that gun and hit the person, then unless you are some world reknowned sharp shooter, you are taking the risk of killing the person. Even if you are a sharp shooter, you still take the risk.

[Garnet]

Yeah, even extremities have arteries that will quickly cause death if pierced. It's not that easy to shoot someone without a high risk of killing the person. ETA: I think what I was taught was correct: never point a gun at anyone or anything that you don't intend to kill.

Heck, even blunt trauma can kill pretty easily, but it's less likely to except for a few vulnerable spots.

^^^This.

[Garnet]

I just realized that I might be coming off as someone who is opposed to all forms of gun control. I am not. What I am opposed to is gun control laws that would prevent anyone from having a gun for any purpose.

Hunting is a really big deal in my family, although it is not for me personally. Varmint control is another reason that people in my family have guns, at least those who live on large spreads of land. All of us target shoot for fun. For me personally, one big thing is self defense because I have been violently attacked in my own home. There were other reasons, in another place and time, that I had a conceal and carry permit. But those reasons no longer exist and I shan't talk more about them on a soon-to-be-public board.

[Xrikcus]

If you aim a gun at a person, fire that gun and hit the person, then unless you are some world reknowned sharp shooter, you are taking the risk of killing the person. Even if you are a sharp shooter, you still take the risk.

Of course. I don't see why it's relevant though. Shooting always has the risk of killing. Shooting with the aim of killing is not the same thing. Is that not obvious?

I just asked a lawyer out of interest on this, he said (based on UK law):
If you're aiming, you shouldn't be trying to kill; if you kill, your best defence is that you weren't aiming. Short of the attacker being a suicide bomber or something.

I don't know people, military, police or civilian, here who would support guns for self defense. I'm not sure where I or anyone stands on hunting, though. One possible question there is whether the kind of gun that people would use in self defense is useful for hunting. Is there a legitimate reason to hunt with a hand gun, or defend oneself with a hunting rifle?

[darjeeling]

Of course. I don't see why it's relevant though. Shooting always has the risk of killing. Shooting with the aim of killing is not the same thing. Is that not obvious?

If you're in a situation which requires self-defense, how do you shoot without the aim to kill?

I just asked a lawyer out of interest on this, he said (based on UK law):
If you're aiming, you shouldn't be trying to kill;

This first part is the exact opposite of what any self-defense firearm instructor will tell you (at least, that's what I've had friends tell me and that's what I've read -- I've never taken a course myself). You should only draw your weapon if you're prepared to fire it, and if you fire it, you aim for center mass.

if you kill, your best defence is that you weren't aiming. Short of the attacker being a suicide bomber or something.

How would that type of defense work, though? "I wasn't aiming. I just pulled the trigger to scare them off."?

I don't know people, military, police or civilian, here who would support guns for self defense. I'm not sure where I or anyone stands on hunting, though.

That's not surprising. And a lot of the people I grew up with would probably agree.

[Xrikcus]

Well, aiming clearly means "aiming at the target", and obviously that is what you'd be trained to do with a gun. It's also murder and to argue it as self defense (and arguably then to use a gun at all in self defense) you'd have to be highly likely to die as a result of not firing. Otherwise it's probably best not to fire anywhere near the target.

[darjeeling]

Well, aiming clearly means "aiming at the target", and obviously that is what you'd be trained to do with a gun. It's also murder and to argue it as self defense (and arguably then to use a gun at all in self defense) you'd have to be highly likely to die as a result of not firing.

The law in the US varies from state to state, and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is exactly right: if my life were in serious danger and I shot and killed the person threatening my life, it would probably be considered justifiable homicide. I think in some circumstances, it might classify as manslaughter, but I don't know the law. Still, I doubt it would be considered second degree homicide unless there was never a threat to begin with.

Otherwise it's probably best not to fire anywhere near the target.

That makes absolutely no sense. If someone drew a knife and started coming towards me, why would I fire my weapon at something other than the person threatening my life? If I fired at something other than the person coming at me, why would they stop? I've just demonstrated that in the split second I had to stop them with deadly force, I wasn't able to fire at them, so why would they feel threatened? If I couldn't fire at them then, I wouldn't be able to fire at them at all, so I might as well be completely unarmed. Doing that would be an entirely ineffective attempt at self-defense and it'd be utterly pointless. I might as well stand there and say, "Come and get me. I won't try to stop you even though I technically could."

[Master Taran]

I don't know people, military, police or civilian, here who would support guns for self defense.Well you just met one. I am ex military and I support using a sidearm for self defense.

[Garnet]

Of course. I don't see why it's relevant though. Shooting always has the risk of killing. Shooting with the aim of killing is not the same thing. Is that not obvious?

It's relevent because your original claim was that shooting to kill is always murder. It is not. I suspect that you don't know much about firearms or how to use them. Again, I'm not being snarky, but a gun is not something that you ever aim at a person or an animal unless you intend to kill them. Shooting to wound is unrealistic.

I just asked a lawyer out of interest on this, he said (based on UK law):

Your lawyer friend just made an excellent argument for not having guns in the UK. From my perspective, that position is absurd and dangerous. Here in the US, the laws are different. I only need be in placed in reasonable fear of my life. In some states, such as where I live, there is also the Castle doctrine.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

I don't know people, military, police or civilian, here who would support guns for self defense. I'm not sure where I or anyone stands on hunting, though. One possible question there is whether the kind of gun that people would use in self defense is useful for hunting. Is there a legitimate reason to hunt with a hand gun, or defend oneself with a hunting rifle?

Different cultures, as Pendaric mentioned in the OP. Here, guns are supported for both recreational and defensive uses.

As for hunting with a handgun, no, it really isn't a good way to hunt. The preferred way is with rifle or shotgun, depending on what you're hunting.

A rifle can be used for self defense, but I wouldn't recommend it because of the skills required and because rifles are generally for distance shooting. (Before anyone jumps on me, I said generally.)

Shotguns with the right kind of load can make an excellent home defense weapon.

[Ray Moscow]

Your lawyer friend just made an excellent argument for not having guns in the UK. From my perspective, that position is absurd and dangerous. Here in the US, the laws are different. I only need be in placed in reasonable fear of my life. In some states, such as where I live, there is also the Castle doctrine.


As much as I agree that "shooting is generally meant to kill", the UK position is not actually absurd or dangerous, based on its actual results. There are very few shootings or other murders here, compared to places like the USA.

Guns tend to escalate a potentially violent situation into a deadly one.

[Master Taran]

There are very few shootings or other murders here, compared to places like the USA.Really. That's interesting.

[Ray Moscow]

Really. That's interesting.

Yeah, it's a major contrast.

Unfortunately, the UK is trying to catch up -- its murder rate is now about 1/3 that of the US on a per-capital basis.

[Xrikcus]

It's relevent because your original claim was that shooting to kill is always murder. It is not. I suspect that you don't know much about firearms or how to use them.

While you may or may not be right, associating those two things is downright silly. Whether it is possible to shoot without the aim of killing or not with a firearm is not relevant to whether shooting to kill is murder or not. If it is true, and shooting to kill is murder, then using a firearm and killing is murder because you alway shot to kill. I would like to believe you could use a firearm defensively, but given my moral stance and your argument, I can't see how.

For your benefit, of course: Except in those vanishlingly rare circumstances that I mentioned, of course, that goes without saying.

As for hunting with a handgun, no, it really isn't a good way to hunt. The preferred way is with rifle or shotgun, depending on what you're hunting...A rifle can be used for self defense, but I wouldn't recommend it because of the skills required and because rifles are generally for distance shooting... (negatively)Your lawyer friend just made an excellent argument for not having guns in the [B]UK.

Both of which seem obvious, but given my apparent nonexistent knowledge of guns I thought I'd best not make the claim. Given that situation, and assuming (as you do not, I realise) that shooting to kill (or shooting, as you argued) is murder: Why allow hand guns if you cannot legally defend yourself with them anyway? Granted, that's the UK situation, so as you say it's an argument for no guns in the UK. Or maybe it's only an argument for no hand guns with no clear argument against rifles.

Ray: 1/3 murder on a per capita basis. Any idea on gun crime, whether generally or firearms murders specifically?

[Ray Moscow]

Here's the Wikipedia article on gun crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime).

8% of England/Wales murders were guns; 39% of the US murders.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

I'd like to point out as a resident of a mountain state that if you go hiking into the deep country here and you don't have at least a good pistol, you are a complete idiot. You really don't even have to go that far; bears and big cats make their way out of the mountains and into good ol' suburbia from time to time.

The chances of an encounter aren't great, but they're not negligible, either.

[Xrikcus]

Ok, that's a case for hand guns for "hunting" of a sort.

I should also add that as a rule, SO19 does not have a shoot-to-kill policy. They will shoot to incapacitate, with the obvious side effect of killing every so often. Suicide bombers have to some extent caused a rethink on that, though.

[Ray Moscow]

I'd like to point out as a resident of a mountain state that if you go hiking into the deep country here and you don't have at least a good pistol, you are a complete idiot. You really don't even have to go that far; bears and big cats make their way out of the mountains and into good ol' suburbia from time to time.

The chances of an encounter aren't great, but they're not negligible, either.

I support the American right to keep and arm bears.

[darjeeling]

While you may or may not be right, associating those two things is downright silly. Whether it is possible to shoot without the aim of killing or not with a firearm is not relevant to whether shooting to kill is murder or not. If it is true, and shooting to kill is murder, then using a firearm and killing is murder because you alway shot to kill. I would like to believe you could use a firearm defensively, but given my moral stance and your argument, I can't see how.

First of all, how exactly are you defining murder? What if I stab an armed rapist in self defense, sever a major artery, and mess them up so badly that they bleed to death? Would you consider that murder? What if I reach for a heavy object and bash them in the head? What if I reach for a gun and shoot them instead? What's the alternative - allow myself to be victimized?

What about police officers who end up in situations where they have to discharge their firearms? If a person pulls a gun on a cop, and the cop fires and kills that person, is the cop a murderer? What if a person is holding another person hostage, and the cop fires at them? Is that also murder? Do any of these situations demonstrate an acceptable or justifiable use of deadly force in your eyes?

If none of that works or makes sense, what exactly would you consider self-defense?

Why allow hand guns if you cannot legally defend yourself with them anyway? Granted, that's the UK situation, so as you say it's an argument for no guns in the UK. Or maybe it's only an argument for no hand guns with no clear argument against rifles.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the UK should change its laws.

But to answer your question -- if I have a firearm and my life is in immediate, serious danger, why would I hesitate to use my firearm to defend myself? At that point, I probably wouldn't give a shit what the law says. I'd rather take my chances going on trial for murder after the fact than be killed. I imagine the adrenaline and instinct of self-preservation would be more than enough to make me use a firearm to defend myself, even if I sat here and disagreed with it as a hypothetical.

[Xrikcus]

The judgement in those cases is whether you had the intent to kill, or merely the intent to stop them attacking you. A judge/jury would have to decide that based, presumably, on how you did it, whether you continued to stab after they stopped raping you and so on. If you intended to kill, then you are a murderer. If you intended merely to stop them harming you, but happened to kill, then you are not. It is the job of the legal system to make that call.

Cops pulling guns obviously doesn't happen here except for SO19 (firearms squad) which, as I said, does not have a shoot-to-kill policy. Killing happens, and it is generally not judged as murder by the above judgement with the extension that SO19 is tasked to protect people other than themselves, so it is not necessarily personal danger that is involved.

If you are in immediate danger, I would probably expect many people to use a weapon. If that judgement is a poor one, and the force was excessive, then I don't have a problem with them being charged. If your life is really in immediate danger, then the force is probably not excessive, but of course the situations we define as immediate danger may differ vastly here. Someone entering your property is not immediate danger to your life. Theft of your car is not immediate danger to your life. Someone pointing a gun at you probably is.

[Garnet]

As much as I agree that "shooting is generally meant to kill", the UK position is not actually absurd or dangerous, based on its actual results. There are very few shootings or other murders here, compared to places like the USA.

Guns tend to escalate a potentially violent situation into a deadly one.

Let me clarify. What I find absurd and dangerous is this particular line of reasoning:

If you're aiming, you shouldn't be trying to kill; if you kill, your best defence is that you weren't aiming. Short of the attacker being a suicide bomber or something.

As for the UK position on gun control, I do not find that absurd or dangerous. I simply do not think that, as it stands, it's workable in US culture.

[Garnet]

While you may or may not be right, associating those two things is downright silly. Whether it is possible to shoot without the aim of killing or not with a firearm is not relevant to whether shooting to kill is murder or not. If it is true, and shooting to kill is murder, then using a firearm and killing is murder because you alway shot to kill. I would like to believe you could use a firearm defensively, but given my moral stance and your argument, I can't see how.

For your benefit, of course: Except in those vanishlingly rare circumstances that I mentioned, of course, that goes without saying.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to convey here. If I shoot someone in self defense, I have not committed murder. All this aiming or not aiming stuff is irrelevant.

Both of which seem obvious, but given my apparent nonexistent knowledge of guns I thought I'd best not make the claim. Given that situation, and assuming (as you do not, I realise) that shooting to kill (or shooting, as you argued) is murder: Why allow hand guns if you cannot legally defend yourself with them anyway? Granted, that's the UK situation, so as you say it's an argument for no guns in the UK. Or maybe it's only an argument for no hand guns with no clear argument against rifles.

So, do you know about guns? Have you been trained to use them?

No, I do not agree that shooting to kill in all circumstances is murder. The exceptions I can think of just off the top of my head are:


Shooting in self defense.
In combat
In certain police actions


In the US, it legal to use a handgun to defend oneself, others and in some circumstances one's property. That is a valid reason to have a hand gun here. Other valid reasons include target shooting and varmint control. On my aunt's farm in Oklahoma, for example, there was always a .22 rifle and a hand gun available. They were frequently used to kill copperheads and other varmints.

[Loren Pechtel]

In the UK only in very very clear self defense cases (ignoring the illegality of the gun, of course). You'd have to have a strong case for saying you'd die if you were going to claim self defense for killing - unless the killing was an accidental result of the self defense.

Ray: Shooting and accidentally killing is not shooting to kill. Accidentally killing in self defense is merely unfortunate, trying to kill unless death is what you are defending yourself from is not.

The usual standard in the US is that you shoot to stop. Unfortunately, this tends to kill but that's not the intent.

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, aiming clearly means "aiming at the target", and obviously that is what you'd be trained to do with a gun. It's also murder and to argue it as self defense (and arguably then to use a gun at all in self defense) you'd have to be highly likely to die as a result of not firing. Otherwise it's probably best not to fire anywhere near the target.

We have somewhat different standards. Here it's death or serious injury. You can shoot to prevent a rape even if you know the guy isn't going to kill you.

[Xrikcus]

So, do you know about guns? Have you been trained to use them?


Assume I don't, it seems to make you happy. By all means keep stating the obvious, please. Shooting people with guns can kill accidentally. Yes. Thanks. That was obvious before you first posted, and it's still obvious now. As Loren said, the police do not shoot with the intent to kill. Intent is everything. Intent is a judge's job is to decide on.

The difference here seems to be that in the UK, if you intend to kill and didn't expect death yourself, then that is murder. In the US you merely need to suspect harm. The latter makes it much easier to use guns in self defence, that is evident.

[darjeeling]

The judgement in those cases is whether you had the intent to kill, or merely the intent to stop them attacking you.

Well, I think the point is to get them to stop, but unless you're a sharpshooter, your best bet at shooting to stop is aiming for center mass, which is essentially shooting to kill. The idea is that if you're not a marksman and you're in a very high-stress situation where your life is in immediate danger, you shouldn't take the risk of aiming for someone's leg, arm, or head because chances are, you'll miss.

That's a little different than a "make sure the fucker isn't moving, and put a few in his head just to make sure" type of shoot to kill.

A judge/jury would have to decide that based, presumably, on how you did it, whether you continued to stab after they stopped raping you and so on. If you intended to kill, then you are a murderer.

I think that would be considered manslaughter here.

Cops pulling guns obviously doesn't happen here except for SO19 (firearms squad) which, as I said, does not have a shoot-to-kill policy. Killing happens, and it is generally not judged as murder by the above judgement with the extension that SO19 is tasked to protect people other than themselves, so it is not necessarily personal danger that is involved.

Yeah, different world. In this city, cops always complain about being outgunned on the streets. Funny enough, handguns are banned.

Someone entering your property is not immediate danger to your life.

It depends on the situation. If I see someone jump the fence into my backyard, I'm not going to react the same way I would if someone climbed in through the window in my bedroom while I was in there. edit: And those reactions would even depend on where I am. If I were at my parents' old house in the suburbs, I wouldn't react the same way that I would if I were in this city, or a small town in the UK, or in Detroit, or in Almaty, or in a village in the Alps.

[Xrikcus]

But it clearly isn't shooting with the intent to kill. It's shooting when you know you have a good chance of killing. It's enough of a distinction for the police to follow it. Having said that, the high probability of killing still means that you need very good reason to believe that you might die as a result of not shooting. It shifts the balance if probabilities against using a handgun as a defensive weapon, because it too easily hits the extreme of defence.



Yeah, different world. In this city, cops always complain about being outgunned on the streets. Funny enough, handguns are banned.

Indeed, but not entirely surprising. A city's borders don't offer much of a level of disuasion.

If I were at my parents' old house in the suburbs, I wouldn't react the same way that I would if I were in this city, or a small town in the UK, or in Detroit, or in Almaty, or in a village in the Alps.

True. Is part of that not in your expectation of the attacker having a gun, though? Obviously the current situation in the US is very different from in most of Europe. Nobody would expect an intruder here to have a gun, so the idea of defending yourself with anything but a stick hardly seems worth worrying about.

[Garnet]

Assume I don't, it seems to make you happy. By all means keep stating the obvious, please. Shooting people with guns can kill accidentally. Yes. Thanks. That was obvious before you first posted, and it's still obvious now. As Loren said, the police do not shoot with the intent to kill. Intent is everything. Intend is what a judge's job is to decide on.

You can take your snark, fold it until it's all sharp corners and stick it somewhere painful. Keep it up if you want to end this conversation.

By the way, it is obvious you've missed my point. Perhaps I was unclear but in any event, I'm not inclined to clarify unless you can engage with me without the sarcasm.

The difference here seems to be that in the UK, if you intend to kill and didn't expect death yourself, then that is murder. In the US you merely need to suspect harm. The latter makes it much easier to use guns in self defence, that is evident.

Thank you for clarifying as I honestly did not understand your point. The comments about aiming or not aiming turned my mind to proper gun use, not intent.

[Garnet]

The usual standard in the US is that you shoot to stop. Unfortunately, this tends to kill but that's not the intent.

I'm not sure about that shooting to stop being a standard, Loren. The standard that I'm aware of is whether or not deadly force is justified. AFAIK, police in Arizona weren't trained to shoot to stop. They were trained to aim for the torso. I can't recall intent being an issue if deadly force is justified.

But then, it's been a very long time since I've had involvement with the police in any professional capacity. Perhaps this shoot to stop thing is new since I was involved in law enforcement or just not a standard in jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

[Goodchild]

what, no gun pornography?

[Danhalen]

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

[Danhalen]

Aww, c'mon! That's still funny.

On a more serious note, I do believe people ought to be allowed to have guns. The people who own guns that scare me are the ones who own guns illegally. I have yet to meet an irresponsible legitimate gun owner. That's not to say they do not exist, but (as Garnet has pointed out) there are a lot of people I know who are irresponsible vehicle owners.

[dancer_rnb]

How likely are you to be beaten in England? That does carry a possiblility of dying.

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure about that shooting to stop being a standard, Loren. The standard that I'm aware of is whether or not deadly force is justified. AFAIK, police in Arizona weren't trained to shoot to stop. They were trained to aim for the torso. I can't recall intent being an issue if deadly force is justified.

But then, it's been a very long time since I've had involvement with the police in any professional capacity. Perhaps this shoot to stop thing is new since I was involved in law enforcement or just not a standard in jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

Aiming for the torso *IS* shooting to stop. It does tend to kill, though.

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

http://www.pumpkintrap.com/Favorite%20Links/DSC_0364.JPG

[RBH]

But then, it's been a very long time since I've had involvement with the police in any professional capacity. Perhaps this shoot to stop thing is new since I was involved in law enforcement or just not a standard in jurisdictions I'm familiar with.It's still COM -- Center of Mass. And nowadays mostly with calibers that begin with "dot-4." (Though deputies in my county still carry 9mm, known colloquially as "Euro-pellets." :D)

And having ridden emergency squad for 35 years, I've seen a helluva lot more people killed with automobiles (innocent people who were involved through no act of their own) than with guns. However, the few gun deaths I've seen (in a rural area heavy on hunting) were homicides, not accidental. No gun suicides, interestingly, though several by hanging. Ever cut down a corpse that's been hanging out in the woods in the August heat for a few days? Eeew! Wear self-contained breathing apparatus!

[Xrikcus]

You can take your snark, fold it until it's all sharp corners and stick it somewhere painful.

When you keep irrelevantly asking whether I can use a gun, when ability to use one is orthogonal to the intent in what to do with it, what do you honestly expect? Your point was completely lost on me because it seemed so obvious from before your first posted it, but you seemed to think I was missing it.

[Ray Moscow]

How likely are you to be beaten in England? That does carry a possiblility of dying.

Me personally? Not very.

But there are a fair number of fights and "batteries". The main problem at the moment seems to be the prevelance of knives in what used to be fistfights.

[Oolon Colluphid]

In the UK only in very very clear self defense cases (ignoring the illegality of the gun, of course). You'd have to have a strong case for saying you'd die if you were going to claim self defense for killing - unless the killing was an accidental result of the self defense.

Ray: Shooting and accidentally killing is not shooting to kill. Accidentally killing in self defense is merely unfortunate, trying to kill unless death is what you are defending yourself from is not.
It's still manslaughter though. And if you did it with a gun, rather than a cricket bat or whatever, that would be taken into account, and you may well go down for life. The defence of self-defence relies on the degree of force you use being commensurate with the threat you face.

[Xrikcus]

Maybe, but if the force you apply is reasonable given the threat and a death still occurs (you hit the person but their heart condition causes an attack) that need not be manslaughter. Indeed there are not going to be many situations where using a gun or deeply stabbing the attacker would be seen as reasonable force under British law.

[LoneWolf]

Fun thread to read.

I have received countless hours of training with my sidearm by various federal agencies. I have had to fire my sidearm in a non-training event before. I have, in the past, kept my sidearm at home for protection. The minute my wife and three-year-old step-son began living with me I began keeping it locked up at the Embassy. The threat of an intruder breaking in and shooting my family is nowhere near the risk of an untrained member of the family having an accident with a sidearm kept at home.

I do believe Americans should have the right to keep a handgun in their homes for self defense but I think they should be licensed and should have to undergo serious weapons training. The courses most people take to get licensed are a joke. I also lean toward prohibiting handguns in homes with minors, but that might be my personal bias.

And sorry, but the term "shoot to kill" always strikes me as laughable. There is a reason we are trained to aim for "center mass". In a real life situation the rush of adrenaline makes those fancy arm and leg shots like you see in the movies damn near impossible. Center mass happens to be the easiest thing to hit. As it happens, it is also the kill zone. It might be better to tell a jury you were aiming for center mass rather than the kill zone but it amounts to the same thing.

[Oolon Colluphid]

While you may or may not be right, associating those two things is downright silly. Whether it is possible to shoot without the aim of killing or not with a firearm is not relevant to whether shooting to kill is murder or not. If it is true, and shooting to kill is murder, then using a firearm and killing is murder because you alway shot to kill.
This is true under English law.

To prove the mens rea for murder, the prosecution has to show you either intended to kill, or to commit grievous bodily harm. Grievous bodily harm is defined -- I forget the case's name -- as "nothing more nor less than very serious".

As the Wiki link puts it:

Direct intention - the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur

Oblique intention - the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.
Knowingly - the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur
Recklessness - the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not
Criminal negligence - the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences


I'm struggling to think of a situation where you could fire a gun at someone and not come under one of those varieties of intent to commit very serious harm. And if the victim dies, it's murder.

Self defence is a plea of mitigation. If accepted, it'll reduce the crime from murder (mandatory life sentence) to manslaughter (sentence at the judge's discretion). But it accepts that murder took place (someone died as a result of an intent to at least cause GBH), but merely softens it because the accused had no other choice.

And as I've said, for self defence to be a valid defence, the force you use to defend yourself has to be commensurate with the danger. Off-hand, you'd therefore need to be faced with someone wielding a knife or sword, or maybe bow and arrow, crossbow or hunting slingshot. Or another gun. And to have no other way to defend yourself other than by something that will probably result in GBH -- running away, getting behind something suitably solid, using something other than the gun, etc.

At which point, I'll quote the late great Bill Hicks:
... England, where no one has guns: 14 deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns - whoo! I'm gettin' a stiffy! - 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one... There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone...

If you've got guns, they're going to get used. Sometimes appropriately and out of necessity. Sometimes not.

Wanna take bets on the proportions of each?

TTFN, Oolon, 'A' Level Law (1986)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Maybe, but if the force you apply is reasonable given the threat and a death still occurs (you hit the person but their heart condition causes an attack) that need not be manslaughter. Indeed there are not going to be many situations where using a gun or deeply stabbing the attacker would be seen as reasonable force under British law.
Yup. See my subsequent post.

[Garnet]

Aiming for the torso *IS* shooting to stop. It does tend to kill, though.

Gotcha. Thank you for the clarification. We're saying the same thing, just using different language. I had not heard it called shooting to stop before.

[Garnet]

When you keep irrelevantly asking whether I can use a gun, when ability to use one is orthogonal to the intent in what to do with it, what do you honestly expect? Your point was completely lost on me because it seemed so obvious from before your first posted it, but you seemed to think I was missing it.

It was obviously not irrelevent to me. I did not understand, through your continuing references to "aiming" that you were talking about intent. I thought you were talking about how to use a gun. Aim is generally not a word used to talk about intent.

I have a low tolerance for sarcasm and snark from strangers on bulletin boards. If that is your mode of clarifying a point of discussion, then please refrain from interacting with me and I will do the same in return.

[Garnet]

And sorry, but the term "shoot to kill" always strikes me as laughable. There is a reason we are trained to aim for "center mass". In a real life situation the rush of adrenaline makes those fancy arm and leg shots like you see in the movies damn near impossible. Center mass happens to be the easiest thing to hit. As it happens, it is also the kill zone. It might be better to tell a jury you were aiming for center mass rather than the kill zone but it amounts to the same thing.

Yes. This last paragraph is what I've been trying to get across, albeit poorly.

[Garnet]

It's still COM -- Center of Mass. And nowadays mostly with calibers that begin with "dot-4." (Though deputies in my county still carry 9mm, known colloquially as "Euro-pellets." :D)

And having ridden emergency squad for 35 years, I've seen a helluva lot more people killed with automobiles (innocent people who were involved through no act of their own) than with guns. However, the few gun deaths I've seen (in a rural area heavy on hunting) were homicides, not accidental. No gun suicides, interestingly, though several by hanging. Ever cut down a corpse that's been hanging out in the woods in the August heat for a few days? Eeew! Wear self-contained breathing apparatus!


Center of mass is a term I'd forgotten, thank you for reminding me.

I don't want to derail the thread but how about going into a neighborhood and smelling that smell then being involved in a house to house search to isolate it. It didn't take very long. Bloated corpse in a house without electricty in Arizona in June. Blech.

I've never had to handle any bodies, thank goodness. I don't have the constitution for it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

How likely are you to be beaten in England? That does carry a possiblility of dying.
Anywhere from 'never' to 'very likely', depending on where you go and what you do when you get there. :dunno:

[Oolon Colluphid]

And having ridden emergency squad for 35 years, I've seen a helluva lot more people killed with automobiles (innocent people who were involved through no act of their own) than with guns.
The difference being, of course, the purpose of the object: what tends to happen when the object is used as intended, 'in accordance with manufacturer's instructions', as it were.

Cars are dangerous, sure. Then again, I heard somewhere that two people die each year in the UK from pulling on their socks, and hundreds from falling down stairs. But socks, stairs and cars, though undoubtedly dangerous, are not intended and designed for the specific purpose of powerfully putting a hole in something, nor would they generally make anyone's list of ways to settle a dispute.

[Xrikcus]

It was obviously not irrelevent to me. I did not understand, through your continuing references to "aiming" that you were talking about intent. I thought you were talking about how to use a gun. Aim is generally not a word used to talk about intent.

Then I apologise for being unclear. I thought you were just trying to be difficult, and was getting rather frustrated with your attitude in that direction, hence the sarcasm.

[Garnet]

Then I apologise for being unclear. I thought you were just trying to be difficult, and was getting rather frustrated with your attitude in that direction, hence the sarcasm.

Thank you. I apologize for being difficult. :)

[darjeeling]

Indeed, but not entirely surprising. A city's borders don't offer much of a level of disuasion.

And it's not that much different for national borders, either.

True. Is part of that not in your expectation of the attacker having a gun, though?

Yes. Someone breaking into my house in Detroit is more likely to be armed than someone breaking into my house in a small village in the Alps. I have different expectations of different environments. Since I can't change those environments, it's up to me to adapt to them.

Nobody would expect an intruder here to have a gun, so the idea of defending yourself with anything but a stick hardly seems worth worrying about.

This is true for a lot of parts of the US, but not for others. I just don't think it's fair for a group of people in one situation to dictate what a group in another situation should do.

If you've got guns, they're going to get used. Sometimes appropriately and out of necessity. Sometimes not.

Wanna take bets on the proportions of each?

All the people I know who own firearms have never used them inappropriately. Every single one has been a responsible gun owner. How can you say for sure that guns are used inappropriately more often than they're used appropriately? When my friends go hunting or to the shooting range and nothing fucking happens, the events don't get recorded and stored in a database. When someone keeps an antique rifle in a safe for years without incident, it doesn't get recorded and stored in a database. When a six year old gets caught in the crossfire of a gang shooting, it does and it's plastered all over the news.

And what's the solution, anyway?

[Goldie]

and it's not that much different for national borders, either.



Yes. Someone breaking into my house in detroit is more likely to be armed than someone breaking into my house in a small village in the alps. I have different expectations of different environments. Since i can't change those environments, it's up to me to adapt to them.



This is true for a lot of parts of the us, but not for others. I just don't think it's fair for a group of people in one situation to dictate what a group in another situation should do.



All the people i know who own firearms have never used them inappropriately. Every single one has been a responsible gun owner. How can you say for sure that guns are used inappropriately more often than they're used appropriately? When my friends go hunting or to the shooting range and nothing fucking happens, the events don't get recorded and stored in a database. When someone keeps an antique rifle in a safe for years without incident, it doesn't get recorded and stored in a database. When a six year old gets caught in the crossfire of a gang shooting, it does and it's plastered all over the news.

And what's the solution, anyway?

thank you!

[Xrikcus]

Thank you Goldie. Is this board going to suffer from "OMFG ME TOO!" type posts like so many others?

darjeeling: I don't know what the solution is. In the US I don't think it's feasible for a moment to change the law, both because guns are too common, and because the self protection feeling is too strong. There is a far stronger sense of personal property (land, really) in the US than in most of Europe, which gives a far stronger sense of trespass. National boundaries clearly do offer a stronger barrier than city boundaries, thanks to x-ray machines and so on, but only to casual imports rather than planned one. To a large extent stopping casual imports is the goal. UK law aims less to stop criminals having guns than to stop criminals feeling they want to use their guns - it's that latter point that stops the police wanting them, along with worries that their own guns will be used against them. Nobody (sane) has any belief that there will be no guns.

I do think Oolon was referring to guns being used appropriately/inappropriately against people. I don't think he was suggesting that when you include ranges and hunting then guns are used inappropriately more often than not.

As an aside: Does anybody know if trespass is a criminal offence over in the US? A friend has pointed out to me recently that "Trespasses will be prosecuted" in the UK is a lie and a legal impossibility.

[Garnet]

Trespass is a criminal offense in most states here. In the state I'm most familiar with, Arizona, there are three classes of Criminal Trespass.

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.
__________________________________________________ _____

13-1503. Criminal trespass in the second degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the second degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in or on any nonresidential structure or in any fenced commercial yard.

B. Criminal trespass in the second degree is a class 2 misdemeanor.
__________________________________________________ _____

13-1504. Criminal trespass in the first degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the first degree by knowingly:

1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure.

2. Entering or remaining unlawfully in a fenced residential yard.

3. Entering any residential yard and, without lawful authority, looking into the residential structure thereon in reckless disregard of infringing on the inhabitant's right of privacy.

4. Entering unlawfully on real property that is subject to a valid mineral claim or lease with the intent to hold, work, take or explore for minerals on the claim or lease.

5. Entering or remaining unlawfully on the property of another and burning, defacing, mutilating or otherwise desecrating a religious symbol or other religious property of another without the express permission of the owner of the property.

6. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a critical public service facility.

B. Criminal trespass in the first degree under subsection A, paragraph 1, 5 or 6 is a class 6 felony. Criminal trespass in the first degree under subsection A, paragraph 2, 3 or 4 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

[Xrikcus]

Many thanks :)

[Garnet]

You're welcome, Xrikcus. Trespass in Arizona is a kind of hot topic right now because of illegal aliens crossing the border and how some ranchers are reacting to that.

[Xrikcus]

That's part of why I asked. Had a big debate about that elsewhere. I judged the average intelligence here to be higher so I'd more likely get a proper answer to the question :)

[Garnet]

Ahhhh! Well, you might find this useful.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13

That's a link to Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13. The criminal stuff. Some of it is scary shit. If you want a real heart stopper, look at the justification for use of deadly force laws. In Arizona, you can threaten deadly force for certain kinds of trespass.

ETA: Are you following the case about the rancher who is being sued for detaining illegal aliens on his property?

[Goldie]

Thank you Goldie. Is this board going to suffer from "OMFG ME TOO!" type posts like so many others?



So sorry I offended you!
I wanted to show my appreciation for a good post...would you rather I said qft?:dunno::rolleyes:

[Xrikcus]

ETA: Are you following the case about the rancher who is being sued for detaining illegal aliens on his property?

That is indeed the one. From what I've read currently I think they have a right to sue - however, that may depend on the legal status of trespass in Arizona. If they are legally not allowed to be there I don't know how the law stands on one crime cancelling out another. The greater concern is damage to his property and animals. The problem is that from what I read before he had no reason to believe this particular set of people had done any damage. If that is the case, then he was detaining them for trespass alone, or as a vigilante relating to their crime of being illegal immigrants.

In the UK it'd be a definite right to sue, and he'd have a right to sue over trespass. As trespass is not a criminal offence there is no sort of automatic loss of their right to sue. In fact, given that, he might be the only one who committed a criminal offence under UK law.

and Goldie: I'd have been less bothered if you hadn't made it draw the eye quite so much.

[Garnet]

Xrikcus, there is a whole lot I don't understand about that case. While it does have some bearing on the gun control issue, it might be a complete derail of this thread. I would really enjoy discussing it more though.

Would you be interested in carrying on a conversation about it in another thread?

[Goldie]

Xrikus,
Thank you for the lesson in board etiquette.
I'd be less bothered if you weren't so nit-picky.

[dancer_rnb]

Maybe, but if the force you apply is reasonable given the threat and a death still occurs (you hit the person but their heart condition causes an attack) that need not be manslaughter. Indeed there are not going to be many situations where using a gun or deeply stabbing the attacker would be seen as reasonable force under British law.

What about the case of someone like me, who is a diabetic with a heart condition? Getting beaten up might be more dangerous for me than your average 20 or 30 year old.

[darjeeling]

darjeeling: I don't know what the solution is. In the US I don't think it's feasible for a moment to change the law, both because guns are too common, and because the self protection feeling is too strong.

If you mean "ban guns" when you say "change the law," I agree. I don't have a solution, either, but "more laws" doesn't seem to work very well. I like the idea of mandating licensing and serious training for all firearms, though.

What I see as the biggest problem with the gun control debate in the US is that people seem more concerned with treating the symptom than dealing with the actual causes. It's true that you can't have gun violence without guns, but guns don't automatically make people violent. You can ban guns all you like, but if you don't fix the underlying causes of violence and crime, you're not going to solve much of anything.

I haven't researched this, but my guess would be that gangs are responsible for the majority of gun violence in the US. Banning guns wouldn't make gangs or guns vanish, unfortunately.

There is a far stronger sense of personal property (land, really) in the US than in most of Europe, which gives a far stronger sense of trespass.

In some places, yeah. In others, not so much.

National boundaries clearly do offer a stronger barrier than city boundaries, thanks to x-ray machines and so on, but only to casual imports rather than planned one. To a large extent stopping casual imports is the goal.

I agree for the most part, but it would take a great deal of manpower to secure both the US-Canadian and US-Mexican borders. I'm not so sure that's doable.

UK law aims less to stop criminals having guns than to stop criminals feeling they want to use their guns ...

That makes a bit more sense to me.

I do think Oolon was referring to guns being used appropriately/inappropriately against people. I don't think he was suggesting that when you include ranges and hunting then guns are used inappropriately more often than not.

Well, the problem is that a lot of people buy firearms for the purpose of hunting or shooting at a range, not self-defense, and never intend to find themselves in a situation where they're pointing it at a human being. I don't think it's fair to ignore a large/significant group of responsible gun owners when talking about how often firearms are used appropriately or inappropriately.

[Xrikcus]

Would you be interested in carrying on a conversation about it in another thread?

If you like. Whereabouts?


If you mean "ban guns" when you say "change the law," I agree. I don't have a solution, either, but "more laws" doesn't seem to work very well. I like the idea of mandating licensing and serious training for all firearms, though.


Err. yes. That was a little too general of me.

[Xrikcus]

Xrikus,
Thank you for the lesson in board etiquette.
I'd be less bothered if you weren't so nit-picky.

'sok. Its less annoying now. Do it as much as you like.

[Oolon Colluphid]

darjeeling, I agree about dealing with the underlying causes as well, obviously.

However...
It's true that you can't have gun violence without guns [...] You can ban guns all you like, but if you don't fix the underlying causes of violence and crime, you're not going to solve much of anything.
... except gun violence, presumably. :rolleyes:

Of course people will still be violent. The problem is the amount of violence it is possible to do with a gun, compared to what you can do without one. Here is an example. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5884862.ece)

Doubtless he could have done quite a lot of violence with a machete (say). But do you seriously reckon he could have 'achieved' what he did if he did not have a gun?

The other thing to remember is that guns -- not uniquely (there's bows and crossbows and slingshots) but with a modern, industrial efficiency -- allow one to commit personal violence at a distance.

You don't have to look someone in the eye, nor exert any more effort than pulling a trigger. That makes it easier to do. Those with a will to harm are less inhibited. One can 'go nuts' and just pick people off at a distance, but one would have to be a real, genuine psycho to do the same face to face, hand to hand, over and over (not to mention the physical demands of doing so).

With or without guns, most people will still be sensible.

With or without guns, some people will still be violent.

With or without guns, there will still be some nutters.

With guns, you have violent people with guns.

With guns, you have nutters with guns.

To paraphrase Nicholas Humphrey (http://edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html):

All right, you may want to say, so it's tough on those killed with guns to die in the way they do — but at least the result is that law-abiding citizens can go to ranges and hunt for recreation. Would not our whole civilisation be impoverished if the law-abiders couldn't indulge their hobbies? It's a shame, maybe, when individuals have to be sacrificed to maintain such sport. But there it is: it's the price we pay as a society.

Except, I would feel bound to remind you, you do not pay it, they do.

[Ray Moscow]

Can I be inflammatory (as an American, I'm entitled) and ask how guns in the hands of unstable people keeps everyone safer?

For example, from this morning's news: Alabama man's 10 victims include family, strangers (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/11/alabama.shooting.spree/index.html)

Yes, he might have done someone in with a baseball bat, but not 10 people.

No, having access to guns themselves didn't help his victims any. It seldom does much good when someone else has a gun and is intent on shooting you first.

But as long as everyone feels safer with easy access to guns, that's the main thing.

[Oolon Colluphid]

The other thing to remember is that guns -- not uniquely (there's bows and crossbows and slingshots) but with a modern, industrial efficiency -- allow one to commit personal violence at a distance.
I knew I'd read some stuff about this, about how it becomes easier and easier to kill as distance increases, how bombing from an aircraft has hardly any psychological effect, etc. So I looked it up, and found the following. Not sure how reliable the site is, but it makes sense.

http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_psychweapons.htm

(I've put in some extra paragraph breaks for ease on on-screen reading.)
Distance as a Psychological Weapon: Another key factor in overcoming the resistance to killing is distance, which has been partially addressed earlier. The utility of weapons that kill from a distance cannot be truly understood without understanding the psychological enabling aspect of distance, which, simply stated, means that the further away you are the easier it is to kill. Thus, dropping bombs from 20,000 feet or firing artillery from 2 miles away is, psychologically speaking, not at all difficult (and there is no indication of any noncompliance in these situations), but hand-to-hand combat and firing a rifle from 20 feet is very difficult (with high incidence of nonfirers) and from a few feet away it is virtually impossible to stab an opponent.

John Keegan's landmark book The Face of Battle makes a comparative study of Agincourt (1415), Waterloo (1815), and the Somme (1916). In his analysis of these three battles spanning over 500 years, Keegan repeatedly notes the amazing absence of bayonet wounds incurred during the massed bayonet attacks at Waterloo and the Somme.

At Waterloo Keegan notes that, "There were numbers of sword and lance wounds to be treated and some bayonet wounds, though these had usually been inflicted after the man had already been disabled, there being no evidence of the armies having crossed bayonets at Waterloo."

By World War I edged-weapon combat had almost disappeared, and Keegan notes that in the Battle of the Somme, "edged-weapon wounds were a fraction of one per cent of all wounds inflicted in the First World War."

Indeed, all evidence indicates that ancient battles were not much more than great shoving matches, until one side or the other fled. This can be observed in the battle record of Alexander the Great, who (according to Ardant du Picq's studies of ancient records) lost a total of approximately 700 men "to the sword" in all his battles put together, and this is simply because Alexander the Great always won, and the actual killing happened only to the losers after the battle (Fig. 1).

http://www.killology.com/images/wpnryfig1.JPG

The only thing greater than the resistance to killing at close range is the resistance to being killed at close range. Close-range interpersonal aggression is the universal human phobia, which is why the initiation of midbrain processing is so powerful and intense in these situations. Thus, one limitation to killing at long range is that greater distance results in a reduced psychological effect on the enemy.

[Oolon Colluphid]

The problem is the amount of violence it is possible to do with a gun, compared to what you can do without one. Here is an example. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5884862.ece) Doubtless he could have done quite a lot of violence with a machete (say). But do you seriously reckon he could have 'achieved' what he did if he did not have a gun?

from this morning's news: Alabama man's 10 victims include family, strangers (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/11/alabama.shooting.spree/index.html)

Yes, he might have done someone in with a baseball bat, but not 10 people.
"Great minds...", Ray... :D

[Ray Moscow]

In the US, we're raised on shows and films in which the good guys, being more proficient with guns than the bad guys, outdraw and outshoot them such that good folks are saved and the bad ones put down.

Unfortunately, armed conflict in real life is a lot messier. Unless the "good guy" is very well trained indeed, having a gun of his own is not likely to help.

[Garnet]

If you like. Whereabouts?



I'll set up a thread in here when I get a chance. I'll find a couple of articles to reference and include them.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Potentially, there a lot of people who are not currently dead or dying who are glad for guns at least one place (http://bangornews.com/detail/99263.html). :evil:

[darjeeling]

... except gun violence, presumably. :rolleyes:

That's demonstrably not true. Making something illegal doesn't make it vanish.

Where I live, handguns are banned, and I see news reports of shootings on a regular basis. There are regular reports of armed robberies. Break-ins. Muggings. Street shootings. Teenagers showing up to schools with guns. Handguns, shotguns, AK-47s - you name it.

The people breaking the laws that exist don't give a shit that possession of handguns and AK-47s is illegal. If they get caught and sent to prison, there are plenty of other people there to replace them on the streets. You can add as many laws as you want, and it's not going to change reality one fuckin' bit.

Of course people will still be violent. The problem is the amount of violence it is possible to do with a gun, compared to what you can do without one.

Yes, you can do more damage with a firearm than you can with a knife. So how do you make firearms vanish?

Here is an example. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5884862.ece)

Worse shit happens in cities across the US and across the world, but since it's business as usual, no one pays attention except the locals. It's only spectacular, out-of-the-ordinary shit like that story that grabs everyone's attention, and the reaction is "OMG GUNS!" not "What led this person to snap in the first place?". Where's the global outrage over the three teenagers who were killed in Chicago's South Side last week? Is that not sensational enough to make it into a UK newspaper?

But do you seriously reckon he could have 'achieved' what he did if he did not have a gun?

Sure, he could've. Homemade explosives. Arson. Molotov cocktails. There are plenty of simple yet spectacular, attention-grabbing options for harming a lot of people.

But do you seriously think a law banning all firearms would prevent something like that from happening?

You don't have to look someone in the eye, nor exert any more effort than pulling a trigger. That makes it easier to do.

I've never shot someone, so I don't really know exactly what it takes to kill another human being. But even though shooting someone is easier than stabbing them, I still think a normal person would have a difficult time shooting another human being.

One can 'go nuts' and just pick people off at a distance, but one would have to be a real, genuine psycho to do the same face to face, hand to hand, over and over (not to mention the physical demands of doing so).

Are you serious? So you're only a genuine psycho if you murder a bunch of people face-to-face, hand-to-hand? And here I was thinking that shooting a bunch of people already makes you a real, genuine psycho.

With guns, you have violent people with guns.

With guns, you have nutters with guns.

So I'll ask again since you didn't answer last time. What's your solution?

To paraphrase Nicholas Humphrey (http://edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html):

All right, you may want to say, so it's tough on those killed with guns to die in the way they do — but at least the result is that law-abiding citizens can go to ranges and hunt for recreation. Would not our whole civilisation be impoverished if the law-abiders couldn't indulge their hobbies? It's a shame, maybe, when individuals have to be sacrificed to maintain such sport. But there it is: it's the price we pay as a society.

So the gangbanger who gunned down three teenagers with an AK-47 in Chicago was able to do so because some hunting rifles are legal and because people are allowed to fire other types of firearms in shooting ranges? That makes perfect sense. If my friends didn't hunt or go to shooting ranges, those three teenagers would still be alive, but their hobby is more important than stopping gun violence.

Except, I would feel bound to remind you, you do not pay it, they do.

To be honest, this is pretty fucking infuriating. Come step in my goddamn shoes and tell me I don't pay for it. I haven't paid for it with my life, but that's always a possibility. Even though I know better than to set foot in certain neighborhoods, violence doesn't always stick to set borders, and plenty of crazy shit happens on public transportation. Almost everyone in this fucking city pays for it in one way or another, even if they're not shot, stabbed, or mugged. You don't fucking live here, so you don't have to adjust your lifestyle in order to account for the possibility of being a victim of gun violence. So please spare me the condescending bullshit armchair lecture.

Besides, you can twist your paraphrase any way you want:
All right, you may want to say, so it's tough on those killed in accidents caused by drunk drivers to die in the way they do - but at least the result is that law-abiding citizens can drive their own personal cars for recreation. Would not our whole civilisation be impoverished if the law-abiders couldn't indulge in their hobbies? It's a shame, maybe, when individuals have to be sacrificed in order to maintain such sport. But there it is: it's the price we pay as a society.

Wouldn't fewer people die in auto accidents if we restricted who can own a personal vehicle and had everyone else ride newly developed and expanded public transportation?

[Xrikcus]

[QUOTE=darjeeling;7348
Wouldn't fewer people die in auto accidents if we restricted who can own a personal vehicle and had everyone else ride newly developed and expanded public transportation?[/QUOTE]

Well, we do. We test people first. At the very least by that argument ability testing for gun ownership makes sense.

[darjeeling]

Well, we do. We test people first. At the very least by that argument ability testing for gun ownership makes sense.

I would have no problem at all with requiring mandatory testing, licensing, and serious training. None. It makes perfect sense to me, and I don't understand why it isn't required in every county of every state. Some places have requirements like that, but not all.

My point is that in the US, lots of people own and drive personal vehicles when it's not absolutely necessary that they do so. I've seen houses with two cars in the garage and three more parked on the driveway. If only people who absolutely required personal cars were permitted to have them, then there'd be a lot fewer vehicles on the road -- fewer accidents, fewer drunk drivers, less pollution, less dependence on gas. What's not to like? Why doesn't anyone ever seriously propose a plan like that?

(The answer I'm looking for - because most people in the US value personal car ownership and would probably flip out if someone suggested taking that away.)

edit: I'd just like to add that if banning all firearms actually eliminated gun violence, I'd be for it. But it doesn't.

[Xrikcus]

I can see your point. However, I think the difference is in the fact that a car has a wide range of direct benefits to society. Guns don't in a comparable fashion. Even if you think of guns in terms of hunting tools, that's still really only a sporting benefit. It's a rare case where it becomes a survival benefit, which cars are far closer to.

edit wrt your edit ;) As I said before, the goal of banning guns is never to eliminate gun violence. It's to reduce it to a level where it is merely noise, and to reduce collatoral damage. In many ways it makes more sense for only the criminal to have a gun, point it at you, nick your telly and leave again than for both of you to have them.

[darjeeling]

I can see your point. However, I think the difference is in the fact that a car has a wide range of direct benefits to society.

Yes. But two-or-more-cars-to-every-home also does a great deal of damage and is, more often than not, unnecessary.

To state the obvious, it's always a matter of weighing the benefits and the drawbacks. I think there's good reason to restrict gun ownership, but my point is that you can also make that same exact argument for cars. Putting more restrictions on car ownership could potentially save a lot of lives and reduce damage to the environment. Having people get rid of the notion that every single person should and must have their own personal car would be extremely helpful. But my point is that most people probably don't think infringing on that individual "right" to own a personal vehicle is worth it. Most people would rather keep their personal car and accept the consequences, including more pollution, more congestion on roads, more accidents, and more deaths. How come people don't get upset over that? Where are the comments about car accident victims paying for personal car ownership with their lives?

Guns don't in a comparable fashion. Even if you think of guns in terms of hunting tools, that's still really only a sporting benefit. It's a rare case where it becomes a survival benefit, which cars are far closer to.

Right. I agree that guns obviously have much more limited uses. But look at the numbers for a second --
Motor vehicle deaths in the US, 2005: 43,443
Homicide - handguns and other guns, 2005: 11,346 (I picked 2005 because that's the most recent year I found in the DOJ statistics)

I don't personally know a single person who has been shot, but most people I know have been in some kind of car accident (and some of them, multiple times). I know a few who died in accidents. It would be much, much easier to put more restrictions on vehicle operation and ownership than it would be to get rid of guns, so why not do it? If you consider deaths, accidents, pollution, etc., then cars cause a lot more damage than firearms, but are the extra benefits of widespread personal car ownership worth the extra damage? :dunno:

The problem is that in some places cars are absolutely necessary. But I can think of some contexts in which a firearm would be absolutely necessary. If I lived in a cabin in the woods, surrounded by wildlife, it'd probably be stupid of me not to keep a rifle in the house.

edit wrt your edit ;) As I said before, the goal of banning guns is never to eliminate gun violence. It's to reduce it to a level where it is merely noise, and to reduce collatoral damage.

Yeah, I remember you said that, but the problem is that here, it doesn't seem to do that or even come close to doing it. It can work in other places - seems to work for the UK, yes? - but it wouldn't do much in a lot of parts of the US. It's too late for that.

In many ways it makes more sense for only the criminal to have a gun, point it at you, nick your telly and leave again than for both of you to have them.

It depends on the situation. In the one you described, yeah, it'd be better if someone ran off with your TV without anyone getting shot.

[Xrikcus]

I wonder how those statistics would change if you count them by time the gun is in use :) Like measuring aeroplane deaths by mile makes it seem really safe, but by flight changes that entirely. Not that it's important, because:


Yeah, I remember you said that, but the problem is that here, it doesn't seem to do that or even come close to doing it. It can work in other places - seems to work for the UK, yes? - but it wouldn't do much in a lot of parts of the US. It's too late for that.

is true enough.

[Goodchild]

Right. I agree that guns obviously have much more limited uses. But look at the numbers for a second --
Motor vehicle deaths in the US, 2005: 43,443
Homicide - handguns and other guns, 2005: 11,346 (I picked 2005 because that's the most recent year I found in the DOJ statistics)

I've never found the autos v. guns argument compelling in the slightest due to the difference in amount of use.

If people used autos as often as they handle firearms, the number of MV deaths would be a tiny fraction of the 43K you quote. I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of deaths drop into the hundreds even.

Auto-related deaths is an inflated number compared to firearm-related deaths simply because of the far greater prevalence of use of autos compared to firearms. Sure my chances of dying in a car accident are far greater than from a firearm ... but that's because I actually use my car quite often. If I used my car as often as I use firearms (never) then I feel very safe in saying that my odds of dying in a car crash are so remotely tiny compared to dying from a firearm that the two can't even be reasonably compared to each other.

As you admit, cars have much greater use (and usage) than firearms. Guns put holes in things ... the end.

And fwiw, while I support the idea of a complete ban on private ownership of firearms i'm not so wedded to it or worried about it that i'm willing to make a political issue of it. My chances of dying by gun are still small enough that I feel safe as I go about my life.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Plus, guns do a lot less damage to the environment.

[darjeeling]

If people used autos as often as they handle firearms, the number of MV deaths would be a tiny fraction of the 43K you quote. I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of deaths drop into the hundreds even.

Well, that's exactly my point. If you put heavy restrictions on personal car ownership, get rid of the cultural "belief" that every single adult must have their own car, and develop public transportation, you'll significantly reduce both usage of motor vehicles and the number of motor vehicles out on the road. That would in turn reduce the number of accidents/deaths (and would also lead to other benefits, like less pollution). It's a fairly easy way to prevent a significant number of unnecessary deaths. So why don't we do it and why don't people get upset that we're not doing it?

[Goodchild]

Because Americans, in general, focus on today and are pretty content to let tomorrow sort itself out? :) Because we tell each other and have it reinforced by TV and advertising that unless you have our own car you're a nobody?

I'm no fan of the American auto-culture either lol. I'm not much a fan of my country period, tbh.

[darjeeling]

Because Americans, in general, focus on today and are pretty content to let tomorrow sort itself out? :) Because we tell each other and have it reinforced by TV and advertising that unless you have our own car you're a nobody?

I'm no fan of the American auto-culture either lol. I'm not much a fan of my country period, tbh.

Probably.

I don't think the two issues are all that related, but comparing them can be interesting. I just find it kind of weird that most people accept the current number of motor vehicle deaths without questioning the necessity of personal car ownership. For whatever reason, "Teen drives car into telephone pole, kills self and passenger" is less sensational than "Two teens shot by rival gang member." I'm not saying it's only possible or desirable to work on one problem at a time. It's just odd to me that one isn't viewed as much of a problem.

[halii]

The judgement in those cases is whether you had the intent to kill, or merely the intent to stop them attacking you.

Well, I think the point is to get them to stop, but unless you're a sharpshooter, your best bet at shooting to stop is aiming for center mass, which is essentially shooting to kill. The idea is that if you're not a marksman and you're in a very high-stress situation where your life is in immediate danger, you shouldn't take the risk of aiming for someone's leg, arm, or head because chances are, you'll miss.Self defense depends on the state. Maryland, for example, has a duty to retreat in all life-threatening matters outside of one's home. meaning, if you are in a public park or school and someone has a gun/knife, you have a duty to run away to a "safe haven" if one exists that you can reasonably get to. However, if there is no "safe haven", you are not required to retreat.

As for the force used, it must be first reasonable to assume that you were in immediate danger of being severely harmed/killed. If a jury finds that it was not reasonable to assume that, but truly believes you thought you were in danger, it will be manslaughter and not self defense. If it is reasonable that your life was in immediate danger, you are authorized to use deadly force.

Now, when there is no longer a threat you are no longer allowed to use deadly force. but again, the reasonable standard applies. Say you successfully knock a rapist unconscious, then stab him two seconds after he loses consciousness, killing him. It may be reasonable to assume he was still a threat, and the stabbing - though apparently not necessary afterall - was a legitimate use of deadly force. Now, if you knock a rapist unconscious, leave him for an hour, and then kill him, absent other circumstances self defense would most likely not apply.

on the other more recent thread discussion, I wish that we regulated guns as much as we regulated cars. A test you had to take to own a gun license, training, logged hours with a teacher, etc, etc. all of that would be helpful.

[Notta]

on the other more recent thread discussion, I wish that we regulated guns as much as we regulated cars. A test you had to take to own a gun license, training, logged hours with a teacher, etc, etc. all of that would be helpful.
To be able to hunt as a juvenile in PA (under the age of 18), you have to do that. Training, test, and logging hours with another adult, preferably a parent or other relative. You have to be at least 12 to take part (it's called the hunter's safety course), and I and all my kids did it since deer hunting is practically mandatory in our part of the state! It certainly taught us a lot about gun safety and proper use during hunting.

[Goldie]

on the other more recent thread discussion, I wish that we regulated guns as much as we regulated cars. A test you had to take to own a gun license, training, logged hours with a teacher, etc, etc. all of that would be helpful.
To be able to hunt as a juvenile in PA (under the age of 18), you have to do that. Training, test, and logging hours with another adult, preferably a parent or other relative. You have to be at least 12 to take part (it's called the hunter's safety course), and I and all my kids did it since deer hunting is practically mandatory in our part of the state! It certainly taught us a lot about gun safety and proper use during hunting.

My son went through that course, as well. Everything I learned was from my husband, but I am a naturally great shot. The first time I went target shooting I blew everyone away.
Most people who live here know and own guns. Now that I live in "town" my guns don't get much use. I need to take them out and clean them and make sure they are sighted in and all of that. My pistol shoots true. I love that old thing.

But, I would like to see a manditory gun safety course for all gun owners. I would think it would make a big difference in the amount of gun accidents. I have seen too many people handle guns who didn't have a clue. That's scarey.

[Notta]

In my state, I always wanted it to be illegal to be in possession of a gun AND alcohol. Even though my family hunted without alcohol, I knew a lot of families where deer hunting went hand-in-hand with all-night drinking.

[Goldie]

Unfortunately, that happens a lot here as well. Not a good combination. I am not sure how they'd manage to enforce it, but responsible folk know better. But, responsible folk aren't the problem, are they.

[Loren Pechtel]

In my state, I always wanted it to be illegal to be in possession of a gun AND alcohol. Even though my family hunted without alcohol, I knew a lot of families where deer hunting went hand-in-hand with all-night drinking.

I wouldn't go quite that far. As far as I'm concerned it should be legal to transport alcohol while carrying a gun--should someone with a concealed carry permit not be allowed to buy alcohol to take home?

As far as I'm concerned the rule should be BAC of 0.0 while in possession of a firearm.

[Notta]

In my state, I always wanted it to be illegal to be in possession of a gun AND alcohol. Even though my family hunted without alcohol, I knew a lot of families where deer hunting went hand-in-hand with all-night drinking.

I wouldn't go quite that far. As far as I'm concerned it should be legal to transport alcohol while carrying a gun--should someone with a concealed carry permit not be allowed to buy alcohol to take home?

As far as I'm concerned the rule should be BAC of 0.0 while in possession of a firearm.
I was thinking of being dressed in hunting camouflage while in possession of both a gun and alcohol.

But, yes, possession of a gun and alcohol and a BAC of 0.0 would be fine.

[RBH]

I was thinking of being dressed in hunting camouflage while in possession of both a gun and alcohol.That's why I quit deer hunting. Too many of those loons out in the woods.

Though I'll say the worst deer hunting accident I've run on with the emergency squad was a guy a couple of years ago who shot his deer and then managed to stab himself deep in the thigh with a hunting knife trying to field dress it. He apparently hadn't got that far in the "how to slay a deer and get it and yourself to a check-in station safely for Dummies" book. :D Biggest problem with him was getting him out of the woods to the medic parked in a field. He weighed a forking ton.

And then we get the bow hunters who fall 15 feet out of their tree stand and break various bones. :eek: Once again, we have to carry 'em out of the woods. Gack.

[Loren Pechtel]

In my state, I always wanted it to be illegal to be in possession of a gun AND alcohol. Even though my family hunted without alcohol, I knew a lot of families where deer hunting went hand-in-hand with all-night drinking.

I wouldn't go quite that far. As far as I'm concerned it should be legal to transport alcohol while carrying a gun--should someone with a concealed carry permit not be allowed to buy alcohol to take home?

As far as I'm concerned the rule should be BAC of 0.0 while in possession of a firearm.
I was thinking of being dressed in hunting camouflage while in possession of both a gun and alcohol.

But, yes, possession of a gun and alcohol and a BAC of 0.0 would be fine.

Yeah, drinking while armed is something that should almost totally be prohibited. The only justification I can see for it is an undercover officer who needs to do it to maintain his cover.

I would also permit someone who has been drinking to go get a firearm in a self-defense situation.

[pSimon]

A banana. I don't think the word weapon includes a requirement to be able to kill in its definition. While you *could* kill with a banana, I think few would really call it lethal, it'd need too much luck.



If frozen, they become very hard, if sharpened they could be quite lethal... :banana:

[DMB]

Here's a gun case that somewhat resembles what happens in the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6005471.ece

A gun-toting grandmother who shot a man she says tried to mug her in her wheelchair in Harlem is being sued by the career criminal for $5 million (£3.5 million).

[Xrikcus]

Hmm, a criminal case against her would make more sense than a civil suing, really, so I'm not sure that resembles the UK very much. I think the CPS'd be all over her.

Or am I missing something?

[DMB]

I only said "somewhat resembles".

[rlogan]

I am opposed to animals owning guns.

[Notta]

I am opposed to animals owning guns.
That would certainly fuck things, up, wouldn't it?

Gimme some of your dinner NOW or I'll let you have it!! (while your dog is holding your rifle......)

And bears? Don't EVEN get me started on bears owning guns!!

[Goodchild]

And bears? Don't EVEN get me started on bears owning guns!!

My stereotypical view of the average gun owner would be that of a bear :) Gay lingo ftw.

[Matty]

This is one of those issues i've had to seriously rethink in terms of the US in particular. I dont agre with blanket gun bans in any case, there are ample decent reasons for owning a gun and i intend to do my shotgun course here in the spring. The big difference is having some sort of hoops you have to jump through in order to get a gun. I have to pay 250 bucks and take a 2 day safety course. No pass =no gun license.

That sort of thing should be a lot more prevalent, its the access of every retard that wants one to handguns in particular that is at the root of the american love of killing each other IMO. I have no problem with sporting guns and those needed for life in rural ares etc. I have significant issues with blanket ownership for spurious reasons.


Basically though i think the US situation is so fucked that there is no option but to go with it till peopl get sick of the societal ills they cause, give it another century of education or whatever. When you have made it a point of pride to let every gangbanger and chav get tooled up there isn't a lot else to be done. I am however glad to have always lived in a country where access to guns is doable but you need a good reason (sorry americans but "home safety" is a shit reason for owning a gun) and to demonstrate that you are capable of owning and storing one without killing yourself or others inadvertently.

I also think that it isn't guns per se at the crux of most of the violence but handguns in particular. Why? Because the primary use of a handgun is to kill other people or the threat of doing so thereof. Other guns have other primary uses (and arent as concealable so not as useful to the chavs and crims) .

So do cars knives etc etc. Killing people isn't their entire raison d'être. PLus, the car argument is all well and good Garnet but its a false dichotomy. It isnt one or the other, its a cumulative effect so what would be the problem with mandatory gun safety education and registration AND road safety. Your argument actually rebounds, why are you up for road safety but when its something whos primary (only) purpose is to inflict harm on another human being, its okay for every dickhead that wants one to get one by showing a drivers license?

MVA arent part of what cars are for, they are fuckups, you shoot someone with a gun and you are essentially fulfilling the purpose of having that gun in the first place, like it or not.

I also think the "presumption of a threat" laws in some states are simply retarded, it boils down to being able to justifiably shoot someone you dont like the look of

[Notta]

I grew up in the country, and pretty much still live in the country. When I was a child, every single male adult and teenaged boy I knew hunted year-round. I figured every household had several guns. My WWII veteran uncles used to bring theirs out on holidays, and we'd have a family shooting match. So I know I have a very different take on gun ownership than someone who only knows them from violent acts. My son (who still lives with me while going to college) has multiple handguns, swords, and rifles. Everything is locked up in a gun safe, including ammunition. But I think we (the US) should not only enforce the gun laws we have, but make certain weapons illegal (semi-automatics, for instance, and pistols -- it's much harder to hide a rifle when you're trying to be discreet, and I don't see why anyone who hunts would need a semi-automatic).

[BWE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

This is part of the price that America pays for having free access to guns. Is it worth it?

When you look at the lists, there are other countries with shootings true, but there are more in America than everywhere else put together.

The attitude of Americans towards guns is one which seems way out there to non-Americans, and I think it is one which is so culturally dependent that Americans and non-Americans will very rarely see eye to eye.

I think outside america it looks a lot more important than inside america. It actually isn't a problem. The media hypes it up.

[RBH]

I think outside america it looks a lot more important than inside america. It actually isn't a problem. The media hypes it up.I grew up like Notta, did military service where I qualified on several personal weapons, and still own a shotgun, so I'm not the classic 'ban 'em' type person. That said, the widespread ownership of handguns in the U.S. is a problem in ways that don't make it into the media. One example: I've run on a volunteer emergency squad for decades. When we get a call on an injury from a domestic dispute we don't respond to the scene, but rather stage half a mile away until law enforcement arrives (one or both of the two deputies on patrol in the county late at night who may be 20 minutes away). We don't go on in until law enforcement assures us that the scene is safe. That inevitably results in delayed treatment of an injured person.

You'll never read about that in the newspapers, but it's one actual detrimental effect of widespread handgun ownership.

[nygreenguy]

Here's a gun case that somewhat resembles what happens in the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6005471.ece

A gun-toting grandmother who shot a man she says tried to mug her in her wheelchair in Harlem is being sued by the career criminal for $5 million (£3.5 million).
Talk about a misleading interpretation. He was acquitted of the crime. He said that her dog attacked him and he kicked the dog and she shot him. Fuck yeah, I'd sue the lady too!

[TheBear]

I am reminded of the Virginia Tech massacre, where 32 students and faculty were killed by Seung-Hui Cho, who methodically and leisurely walked around and shot people, one after the next, reloaded, continued shooting and walking, reloaded, kept shooting, reloaded...and on. He had all the time in the world, because Virginia Tech has a very strict gun control policy - no firearms are allowed on the entire campus. Period. They have a zero tolerance policy for firearms on campus. None of the victims were armed. They were all in compliance with the strict gun control policy of Virginia Tech.
Seung-Hui Cho knew this and took full advantage of it.

Gun control is good? Yeah right. Tell that to the law-abiding, (now dead), victims of the Virginia Tech massacre.

[Goodchild]

And where would Cho have gotten his guns if there were strict gun control laws throughout the nation? How many people are going to make a trip to Mexico and try to smuggle illegal firearms into the US just so they can shoot up a school?

The problem with your example is that you are suggesting that the solution to gun violence is gun violence. What the other side is proposing is removing the potential for gun violence in the first place. You misrepresent your opposition with your suggestion and further dismiss the likelihood of gun violence absent the strict gun control laws on campus. We have no way of knowing but the years of no firearms on campus may have prevented more deaths than occurred in that situation. But we can certainly say that all campuses with zero firearm tolerance combined together has certainly prevented more gun-related deaths than occurred at VA Tech or all campuses combined.

[LoneWolf]

How has Ty not posted in this thread yet?

[TySixtus]

What's to say?

ETA: I've learned that most non-Americans are stunningly ignorant of how life here really is. I gave up trying to inform them.

[Xrikcus]

That may be true, but what are we ignorant of? The dangerous environment and need for aggressive self defense just to preserve one's own life, which is the impression we get from people who claim they need guns for viable self defense as TheBear just did. Or merely the ingrained nature of gun possession, which we regret but are by no means ignorant of - it would certainly be challenging if not impossible to remove guns from US society for that reason alone.

[Ray Moscow]

What's to say?

ETA: I've learned that most non-Americans are stunningly ignorant of how life here really is. I gave up trying to inform them.

As I lived in the US for over half my life (so far), I don't really all into that category.

However, I do find most Americans to be ignorant of how nice it is not to have to worry all the time about someone shooting you.

Yes, it is possible to control guns, and yes, it's possible to feel and be safe without them.

[TheBear]

And where would Cho have gotten his guns if there were strict gun control laws throughout the nation?
You don't get it.

There were strict gun control policies already in place on the campus.

The problem with your example is that you are suggesting that the solution to gun violence is gun violence.
What a naive and pacifistic view.

You may want to just crouch down in fear, and wish/hope/pray that you won't to be shot to death, and that's your right. But not everyone feels that way. Believe it or not, there are some people who actually want to live, and want to do anything possible to neutralize the threat. Had one student or faculty member been armed at the time, the death toll wouldn't have been so high. Had Seung-Hui Cho known that there was a strong possibility that some of the students and faculty were probably conceal carrying, he wouldn't have viewed the campus as such a soft target, and maybe would have reconsidered the whole thing. And yeah, when somebody is violently injuring and killing people, one after the next, you take him out. Holding hands and singing Kumbaya doesn't cut it here. You have to neutralize the threat.

We have no way of knowing but the years of no firearms on campus may have prevented more deaths than occurred in that situation.
Strict gun control left all the victims defenseless in the face of a massacre. That much we do know for sure.

But we can certainly say that all campuses with zero firearm tolerance combined together has certainly prevented more gun-related deaths than occurred at VA Tech or all campuses combined.
Did you even bother to click on the OP link?

[Ray Moscow]

And where would Cho have gotten his guns if there were strict gun control laws throughout the nation?
You don't get it.

There were strict gun control policies already in place on the campus.



Bear, you're missing the point. Cho bought his guns in an adjacent area, then brought them to campus for his murder spree.

The point is that he should not have been able to arm himself like this in the first place.

As to your assertion that an armed student would have stopped Cho: it just doesn't work that way, unless the armed student had a lot of special training. In other words, he/she was police, military, or had equivalent training.

Just ask the (surviving) Texans who got shot up in the Luby's cafeteria in 1991. A restaurant full of Texans, and no one had a gun? Pu-leez. Having one and using it effectively are very different things.

[TySixtus]

The dangerous environment and need for aggressive self defense just to preserve one's own life

So you let the posting of some guys on the internet determine your stance on the issue (that you probably don't even really care about because it's not your country)?

Not everyone who owns guns in a America is convinced they're going to get their head shot off. We don't all walk around packing, worried (hoping) that we're going to get into a shootout. It is quite simply a steaming pile of bullshit.

The bottom line is that there are 300 million people in this country and well all come from different backgrounds and we all don't fucking get along. I'm disappointed in many of you because we (Americans) get preached at for being dumb and insular but I swear I never knew anyone who relied more on stereotypes to formulate opinions about Americans than our Pommy cousins. I mean Jesus Christ.

[TySixtus]

worry all the time about someone shooting

When you lived here you seriously worried about this?

[Ray Moscow]

worry all the time about someone shooting

When you lived here you seriously worried about this?

Sure. That's why most people have handguns -- to protect themselves from other people who have weapons, with other handguns being the scariest thing to defend against. Otherwise they are pretty useless.

I've had many people express fear for their safety if they didn't have guns to protect themselves.

I'm just saying that it's a fucked-up way to organise a society, or rather to fail to organise one. And it's not necessary -- just go to any other "developed" country that doesn't have a "2nd amendment" and see how they manage things.

[nygreenguy]

I've had many people express fear for their safety if they didn't have guns to protect themselves.

I'm just saying that it's a fucked-up way to organise a society, or rather to fail to organise one. And it's not necessary -- just go to any other "developed" country that doesn't have a "2nd amendment" and see how they manage things.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gRt4g9fWJbIW/610x.jpg

Like them?

[TySixtus]

worry all the time about someone shooting

When you lived here you seriously worried about this?

Sure. That's why most people have handguns -- to protect themselves from other people who have weapons, with other handguns being the scariest thing to defend against. Otherwise they are pretty useless.

Well I can disprove your thesis in about 2 seconds. I have handguns and I don't carry them. I'm not worried about "protecting myself" from other people "with weapons" because that's usually a nebulous distinction when it comes time to use them. Guns are never defensive, they are offensive. The only hope you have is shooting back or, if you're lucky, shooting first.

I've had many people express fear for their safety if they didn't have guns to protect themselves.

"Many people"? How many? And who? And why do you frame your ideas from those people and not the larger subset of people who aren't fooling themselves about the use guns in a self-defense situation?

The only gun I keep for self-defense is a shotgun. It's leaning in the corner right now. I would only grab it and load it if someone were in my house and I feared for my or someone else's life.

I'm just saying that it's a fucked-up way to organise a society, or rather to fail to organise one. And it's not necessary -- just go to any other "developed" country that doesn't have a "2nd amendment" and see how they manage things.

Yes, other countries don't have guns. And? We don't have soccer hooligans. What's your point? And what's this about "organizing a society"? The US is "organized" around guns? This is yet more hyperbole.

[Xrikcus]

So you let the posting of some guys on the internet determine your stance on the issue (that you probably don't even really care about because it's not your country)?


Sometimes I think you make a habit of making random assertions from peoples posts for fun. I asked if the random need to defend yourself is what we are ignorant of, where people like TheBear discuss that aspect of society and where I have certainly never lived in a society dangerous enough to feel that need. Now you're arguing that I'm determining my stance from that, but clearly as I'm ignorant of that feature I can't be determining my stance from it, can I.

A LOT of Americans talk about guns being necessary for self defense. But if that's the case, society must be fairly dangerous. I asked if you if the dangers of American society are what we over here are ignorant of. You have since claimed this is not the case when talking to Ray. That's fine, we are not ignorant of the dangers, so guns aren't needed for self defense.

I presume, then, that it is necessary for people to own guns for no reason other than that people like to own guns? A perfectly valid opinion, and not one we are particularly ignorant of, I would think. We do, on the other hand, quite enjoy living in societies where people don't, as a rule, feel the need to own guns and enjoy the resulting freedom (which I realise you would argue isn't a freedom at all - freedom is relative, it seems).

I suppose the problem there is that Americans export ignorance so effectively that we don't really get to see a lot of the more intelligent ones. Of course, that assumes you're right and that people in Europe, including our American friend Ray here, are entirely stereotyping.

[Ray Moscow]

Well, Ty, we obviously just know completely different people with completely different views.

I'm still curious about why you own handguns, yet assert they are essentially useless for self defense. That's certainly not how most US people I know see them.

As to US society being arranged around gun ownership: well, try improving gun restrictions a bit and see what happens.

[TySixtus]

A LOT of Americans talk about guns being necessary for self defense.

They do? What kind of self-defense?

I suppose the problem there is that Americans export ignorance so effectively that we don't really get to see a lot of the more intelligent ones. Of course, that assumes you're right and that people in Europe, including our American friend Ray here, are entirely stereotyping

I'm sure you're missing the irony of your own statement, here. The "so many Americans are stupid we have no choice but to judge them that way!" argument is bigotted and, frankly, fucking lazy. I'm not even going to talk to someone who believes it has merit. Americans export no more ignorance than the chavs that end up on TV export. And you could stand to remove the plank from thine own eye. Talking about ignorance, and then claiming that your limited interaction with people on a message board is "good enough" for you make assumptions about 300 million people... well... it's pretty retarded.

[TySixtus]

Well, Ty, we obviously just know completely different people with completely different views.

I'm still curious about why you own handguns, yet assert they are essentially useless for self defense. That's certainly not how most US people I know see them.

As to US society being arranged around gun ownership: well, try improving gun restrictions a bit and see what happens.

I never said they were useless for self-defense. I said most people (including people who own handguns) don't walk around fantasizing about getting into gunfights. That's a caricature that other people have made to claim we're all idiot rednecks.

[Xrikcus]

They do? What kind of self-defense?


The kind where people come into their houses and try to steal things with the possibility of hurting them/raping their dogs. I don't really know, self-defense is a buzzword, not a description.

[Matty]

They do? What kind of self-defense?

"Home defence" is probably the most common reason given for owning a gun in hte US isnt it? It is certainly the most common reason given in these threads. Self defence again the bogeyman, gangs of murderer/rapists AND/OR self defence against the uppity government and their rights infringing behaviour no?

[TheBear]

The point is that he should not have been able to arm himself like this in the first place.
People should not be able to shoot heroine, but those who want it, get it.



Just ask the (surviving) Texans who got shot up in the Luby's cafeteria in 1991.
Good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRr02YrW6o

A restaurant full of Texans, and no one had a gun?

That is correct. At the time of the incident, concealed carry was a felony in Texas.

[TheBear]

BTW, there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now.

[Xrikcus]

Always amazing how many laws a government can spawn.

[TheBear]

Gun control for me is the ability to aim the weapon, squeeze the trigger and hit what I'm aiming at.
:thumbup:

[TySixtus]

They do? What kind of self-defense?

"Home defence" is probably the most common reason given for owning a gun in hte US isnt it? It is certainly the most common reason given in these threads. Self defence again the bogeyman, gangs of murderer/rapists AND/OR self defence against the uppity government and their rights infringing behaviour no?

This is what I was I walking about. You guys are unable to have this conversation without throwing in your sly digs or your uninformed stereotypes. They ooze off every fucking word. I would be much more willing to engage people in conversation if they didn't take this tack, or talk about the of raping dogs, etc. Xrikcus accused me of making "random assertions", but then he goes on and talks about that shit. So obviously he doesn't want to have a serious conversation about it, and I don't think you do either.

If you live in a country where you don't have to worry about self-defense, good for you. Over here it is legitimate concern. However, I will on rain on the pommy parade and just tell you flat out that we don't sit in our underground bunkers and prepare for the zombie holocaust. We are actually normal people who happen to own guns and think they are a neccessary tool like fire extinguishers, jumper cables and all the other shit you keep around for emergencies that you hope on never having to use.

[TySixtus]

Gun control for me is the ability to aim the weapon, squeeze the trigger and hit what I'm aiming at.
:thumbup:

This kind of shit is stupid and empty of content. Embracing the macho gun owner stereotype gives people like Xrikcus ammunition (pun intended) to paint American gun owners as stupid fucking cowboys. You guys should probably stop.

[Ray Moscow]

That is correct. At the time of the incident, concealed carry was a felony in Texas.

Felony or not, about 10% of Texans still carried guns at the time, either on their person or in their cars.

I lived there. Lots of people carried guns, including many of my friends and colleagues. The "right to carry" just legalised the practice.

Again, the idea that "if only someone had a gun" will prevent slaughters like this is nonsense. Americans have always carried guns, legally or not.

[Xrikcus]

Xrikcus accused me of making "random assertions", but then he goes on and talks about that shit.

Yes, you went from my request for information about what we're ignorant of to a claim that viewing the posts of someone like TheBear is my source of information on the issue, without actually going any way to answering my question about what we are ignorant of over here. You even called a statement of fact irony, having earlier accused me of getting my information from such people... which appeared to be your point - that the exported stupidity and macho arrogance is our only source of information. You're flip flopping around like a flounder on a deck. And what shit? That Americans export a certain impression to the foreigner? Are you really telling me you don't think that? You're even telling TheBear to stop the macho nonsense, because he's doing roughly what I said the US is so good at. It's not as if anybody in the thread has claimed that all Americans like to shoot guns at bunny rabbits, though the way you're talking we might as well have done.

You don't think guns are there for self defense, except when they're there for self defense. You question who has claimed guns are used for that purpose, and then claim that:
Over here it is legitimate concern. However, I will on rain on the pommy parade and just tell you flat out that we don't sit in our underground bunkers and prepare for the zombie holocaust.

While putting in one of the childish digs that you're so good at, directed at those of us you claim (and possibly legitimately, though we learn from the master) do the same.

[TheBear]

This kind of shit is stupid and empty of content. Embracing the macho gun owner stereotype gives people like Xrikcus ammunition (pun intended) to paint American gun owners as stupid fucking cowboys. You guys should probably stop.
Lighten up, Sweet Pea. Stop reading things in that aren't there and getting your panties in a bunch. I appreciated his comment only because I am a firearms instructor and know about that play on words. And that's all it was - a lighthearted play on words. Nothing more.

[TheBear]

That is correct. At the time of the incident, concealed carry was a felony in Texas.

Felony or not, about 10% of Texans still carried guns at the time, either on their person or in their cars.

I lived there. Lots of people carried guns, including many of my friends and colleagues. The "right to carry" just legalised the practice.

Again, the idea that "if only someone had a gun" will prevent slaughters like this is nonsense. Americans have always carried guns, legally or not.
Did you watch the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRr02YrW6o

[Ray Moscow]

No, Youtube is blocked from this server.

[darjeeling]

In my experience, what people are ignorant of - and that goes for not just Europeans but some Americans - is just what kind of role firearms play in American society. If people understood that, they'd realize that banning guns would be an empty, useless gesture.

[TheBear]

No, Youtube is blocked from this server.
Watch it when you get a chance. It goes right to your suggestion to ask the survivors of the shooting spree.

[Matty]

This kind of shit is stupid and empty of content. Embracing the macho gun owner stereotype gives people like Xrikcus ammunition (pun intended) to paint American gun owners as stupid fucking cowboys. You guys should probably stop.
Lighten up, Sweet Pea. Stop reading things in that aren't there and getting your panties in a bunch. I appreciated his comment only because I am a firearms instructor and know about that play on words. And that's all it was - a lighthearted play on words. Nothing more.


Thats alright then. We all feel much safer. :D
ZE3QAeYRk-A

[TheBear]

I saw that one. Laughed my ass off for quite some time. What a dumbass! :D

[TheBear]

All these mass shootings have one thing in common - they all happened in gun free zones. If guns are the problem, then why have we never seen mass shootings at NRA conventions, gun shows, police stations, and other venues where guns abound?

[Matty]

more to the point why dont we have daily massacres in countries where "only the criminals" are armed.

why arent we all cowering, crying and waiting for death seeing as we have no way to protect ourselves from the marauders, criminals, psychos and other armed head cases? Why in countries where guns are not allowed or much more heavily restricted, are the numbers of deaths related to guns so damn low (well.....duh? )

Why are we so much apparently less scared of our neighbours or suspicious of the intent of Mr Average Joe on the streets, compared to so many Americans? Do you actually really genuinely think that you are in need of lethal weaponry to either genuinely BE, or simply to feel, safe, or is it more of a pascals wager "better to have and not need.....etc etc " type thingy?

[TheBear]

More to my point - guns are not the problem.

[Matty]

no one ever claimed guns up and kill people without being wielded did they?
the issue is that you think it preferable to arm everyone, including the fucking morons and gang bangers, on the production of some ID and with no onus on knwing they are capable of owning and safely using one.

the safer countries we are talking about (in my experience Canada and the UK) seem to strike a much better balance between not totally disallowing gun ownership, but making sure you have a decent reason and are serious about it in terms of safe usage. .

ftr i think bringing in a modern gun ban in the US is totally unworkable, too many morons dig their deadly toys to give them up willingly, and no one seems to give a shit about the cost to society as long as "i'm alright Jack, fuck everyone else", . I AM still glad for this reason amongst many, to live in Canada where they are more sensible about such things. )

[TheBear]

no one ever claimed guns up and kill people without being wielded did they?
And I never claimed nor insinuated that.


the issue is that you think it preferable to arm everyone, including the fucking morons and gang bangers, on the production of some ID and with no onus on knwing they are capable of owning and safely using one.
How you could have extrapolated that from my remarks, is beyond me. That's not what I said or think. Your remarks here are nothing more than a misrepresentational straw man.

[darjeeling]

more to the point why dont we have daily massacres in countries where "only the criminals" are armed.

How many criminals are armed in those countries?

why arent we all cowering, crying and waiting for death seeing as we have no way to protect ourselves from the marauders, criminals, psychos and other armed head cases? Why in countries where guns are not allowed or much more heavily restricted, are the numbers of deaths related to guns so damn low (well.....duh? )

Because those countries weren't previously flooded with millions and millions of guns?

you think it preferable to arm everyone, including the fucking morons and gang bangers

Do you think gang bangers get guns legally?

ftr i think bringing in a modern gun ban in the US is totally unworkable, too many morons dig their deadly toys to give them up willingly

That's not really the reason why it's unworkable.

[TheBear]

Why have we never seen mass shootings at NRA conventions, gun shows, police stations, shooting ranges, and other venues where guns and gun toters abound?

[Matty]

[QUOTE=Matty;24554]more to the point why dont we have daily massacres in countries where "only the criminals" are armed.

How many criminals are armed in those countries?presumably a comparable amount to the criminals in any country no? Its easy to get a gun if you are a criminal and banning legally owned ones makes no odds to that right?

why arent we all cowering, crying and waiting for death seeing as we have no way to protect ourselves from the marauders, criminals, psychos and other armed head cases? Why in countries where guns are not allowed or much more heavily restricted, are the numbers of deaths related to guns so damn low (well.....duh? )

Because those countries weren't previously flooded with millions and millions of guns?Agreed.

you think it preferable to arm everyone, including the fucking morons and gang bangers

Do you think gang bangers get guns legally?

I think the huge fund of legally owned but poorly looked after guns are easy pickings that feed the black market that DOES arm the ganbangers etc. These crims etc arnt buying guns that are MADE illegally are they, they are getting legal guns through illegal sources.

ftr i think bringing in a modern gun ban in the US is totally unworkable, too many morons dig their deadly toys to give them up willingly

That's not really the reason why it's unworkable.

Agreed. Its one of the reasons. A big one. But the main reason is that you guys, normal types as well as the NRA idiots etc, have been brainwashed to actually think you need them to be safe. You dont.


As for strawman TheBear I'm not the one claiming that the world is only a safe place when everyone is comparably armed. Good manners through fear right?

Thats like religiously inspired morality.

As for shooting range you might not want to include that example. Didnt some typically fucked up US mom just off her kid at a shooting range recently?

[darjeeling]

presumably a comparable amount to the criminals in any country no?

No. That doesn't make sense. If a country is flooded with weapons - legal or illegal - it'll be easier to get one than if a country doesn't have many weapons.

Its easy to get a gun if you are a criminal and banning legally owned ones makes no odds to that right?

In the US? Yes, it's easy to get a gun if you're a criminal. In the UK? Much harder.

I think the huge fund of legally owned but poorly looked after guns are easy pickings that feed the black market that DOES arm the ganbangers etc. These crims etc arnt buying guns that are MADE illegally are they, they are getting legal guns through illegal sources.

So where do gangbangers get AK-47s?

And, okay, let's ignore that for a minute and go back to your point. Criminals can get legal guns through illegal sources. How do you solve that problem?

But the main reason is that you guys, normal types as well as the NRA idiots etc, have been brainwashed to actually think you need them to be safe. You dont.

No. That's not the reason.

This is what I mean by ignorance. Mr. Joe Redneck wanting to keep a gun at home to protect his family isn't the reason why a gun ban wouldn't eliminate gun violence.

How many guns are there in the US, both legal and illegal? Let's say you pass a law making them all illegal. Now how do you actually get rid of them?

As for shooting range you might not want to include that example. Didnt some typically fucked up US mom just off her kid at a shooting range recently?

Typically fucked up? What's that supposed to mean? Is the typical American mom one with a history of mental illness who's been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital and who's suicidal and homicidal and probably delusional? Does the typical American mom think she's the Antichrist and that she needs to kill herself in order for there to be peace on earth?

Is that comment like HNA's post in the beginning of this thread where all Americans are okay with the idea of shooting someone in the face?

Christ, you guys are ridiculous with the goddamn stereotypes.

[Lisa0315]

I always thought of myself as a very, very strong supporter of the right to bear arms.

I am still going to say that owning guns is a right that we should not mess with. However, there needs to be some serious changes in who can obtain them.

For example, right now, one can purchase a gun even if they have a mental illness. There is a question on the form that asks you to check yes or no.

My soon to be ex was diagnosed as bipolar, but after he entered the hospital suicidal and also homicidal, making threats against my life, stating that he had enough guns for a small army, they changed that diagnosis to borderline schizophrenia. In other words, they are not sure what is his problem.

So, I take out a restraining order which demands that he turn over his gun permit and all of his weapons within 24 hours. However, since I reside in one county and he resides in another, there was no cooperation between the two sherriff's departments. He did not turn over the gun permit and lied to the officers and said he had no guns. They took his word for it. I tried to get one county to search to see if he had purchased guns in the last several months, but they said that would require a different court order.

So, all of the things that could be done to keep people from being killed, no one really takes responsibility. They sell the guns with only a wink at the mental health requirement, allow threats to be made, but do not take it seriously, and will not enforce the court order.

I am NOT saying all law enforcement, okay? I have the utmost respect for law enforcement. I am just saying that there is something wrong with the system here.

By the time it was over, and I went back to court, I dropped the whole thing. That silly piece of paper will not protect me from him if he decides to kill me.

I just read an article about the tenth anniversary of Columbine and how there were reports of bombs being made in the home but the police did not follow up. They were not old enough to buy guns, but friends bought the guns for them.

I don't get it, y'all. I just don't get it.

Lisa

[TySixtus]

Christ, you guys are ridiculous with the goddamn stereotypes.

This is why I won't bother with the conversation.

[TheBear]

As for strawman TheBear I'm not the one claiming that the world is only a safe place when everyone is comparably armed. Good manners through fear right?
And the straw men keep coming.

Not once have I said or implied that everyone should be armed. Your gross misrepresentation of what I stated tells me that you're either too dense to grasp what I said, or you're deliberately lying in order to win an argument. Which is it?

As for shooting range you might not want to include that example. Didnt some typically fucked up US mom just off her kid at a shooting range recently?
I will continue to include shooting ranges, NRA conventions, gun shows, and other venues as examples of where mass shootings never take place, and continue to ask why you think that is. I'm still waiting for an honest answer.

[TheBear]

Matty,

Are you a creationist? Your debating tactics are exactly the same as theirs.

[Xrikcus]

I will continue to include shooting ranges, NRA conventions, gun shows, and other venues as examples of where mass shootings never take place, and continue to ask why you think that is. I'm still waiting for an honest answer.

Low hanging fruit.

[Matty]

As for strawman TheBear I'm not the one claiming that the world is only a safe place when everyone is comparably armed. Good manners through fear right?
And the straw men keep coming.

Not once have I said or implied that everyone should be armed. Your gross misrepresentation of what I stated tells me that you're either too dense to grasp what I said, or you're deliberately lying in order to win an argument. Which is it?

As for shooting range you might not want to include that example. Didnt some typically fucked up US mom just off her kid at a shooting range recently?
I will continue to include shooting ranges, NRA conventions, gun shows, and other venues as examples of where mass shootings never take place, and continue to ask why you think that is. I'm still waiting for an honest answer.you are mischaracterising my stance, dont make me out to be Gamera. i'm not pro gun ban in any way, i thought i'd made that clear, what i do think is that there should be more stringent ownership requirements than "because they want one" and "heres my drivers licence" which is all it boils down to in many states no? Yet the mention of stricter licensing or noGod forbid a "registry" :eek: and/or mandatory safety and storage requirements, and many gun owners in these threads act like you just asked to bang their grandma. It goes against everything they seem to hold dear, because the point of the US right to bear arms are that there are very proscribed conditions to negate ownership, as opposed to allow it. So you have 150 million guns in circulation and how many of them are used for any legit sporting, work or other purpose as opposed to a potentially fatal and (imo) unnecessary confidence boost?

As for how to get rid? a. i dont see the need to get rid of all guns and b. i dont see how without a prolonged multi generational effort in terms of education and change of mindsety, the US CAN get rid. I agree its not do able now, but purely becasue by dint of your "rights" you have crated a situation where it would be hard work and costly, obviously that isnt something the US would ever consider as a politcal entity or generalised mindset. My point has never been the cure of the US model, it is simply fucked, but that i'd rather live somewhere where the chavs cant tool up with production of a drivers license, or easily steal daddies or someone else's gun if they really need to be sneaky.

i do think the claims that you NEED guns to be safe or feel safe in the majority of cases are spurious, for the most part gangbangers etc kil each other no? Not to say that is okay, just that they arent exactly trying to jimmy your window and make you reach for the 45.

i perfectly understand people in rural area wanting or needing a gun for multiple reasons (home defense not one of em), but owning a handgun in the absence of a concealed carry for safety reasons is, in the absence of any data to the contrary, based more on hyperbole and media hype than actual data. Thats not to say i think CCs are a good idea but they are the only situation in which owning a gun for defense makes any sense.

The whole idea of it being okay to shoot a burglar or trespasser on the presumption of a threat is also utter bollocks. it subverts the entire judicial process and makes the individual homeowner judge jury and executioner for something they are in no way qualified to be so. And for a presumed crime based on a much lesser actual one (ie theft or trespass) . In some cases of course there could be a perfectly good reason for being on the property but that makes no odds (thinking the dead, direction asking, tourist case)

Is that comment like HNA's post in the beginning of this thread where all Americans are okay with the idea of shooting someone in the face?Dont you need to be okay with the idea if you are to validate owning a gun? ISnt that the bottom line, that you better be okay with it, (note i'm not saying "relish the idea"), in some contexts? Esp if you cite home defence as a/the reason for owning a gun? Isnt owning a gun but NOT being okay with that if it comes to it, more dangerous than less?

Like i say, people owning guns for sporting or similar purposes i have no issue with, but there should be some requirement to owning one more stringent than "becasue i can" IMSHO.

[TheBear]

....

[TheBear]

you are mischaracterising my stance

I'm just going by your very clear remarks to me.

the issue is that you think it preferable to arm everyone, including the fucking morons and gang bangers, on the production of some ID and with no onus on knwing they are capable of owning and safely using one.
Gross misrepresentation (straw man) number 1.

As for strawman TheBear I'm not the one claiming that the world is only a safe place when everyone is comparably armed. Good manners through fear right?
Gross misrepresentation (straw man) number 2.

As for shooting range you might not want to include that example. Didnt some typically fucked up US mom just off her kid at a shooting range recently?
Moving the goalposts.




Call it what you want. To me, its nothing more than dishonest tactics.

[TySixtus]

you are mischaracterising my stance

some typically fucked up US mom

I understand your stance just fine. Your opinions are based on typical anti-American bigotry, and this bigotry is informing your approach to the situation.

[RBH]

These kinds of discussions would shed more light than heat if people would consciously stop using the personal pronoun "you." It's an important and contentious set of questions whose consideration isn't helped one tiny bit by snarky comments directed at other people.

Just a thought, kids.

[Xrikcus]

I understand your stance just fine. Your opinions are based on typical anti-American bigotry, and this bigotry is informing your approach to the situation.

Except that this is an impression that an individual has created in his or her head to satisfy his or her own preconceived ideas.

[Lanakila]

Living in a state where most people are armed (I'm not) but gun violence isn't much of a problem I agree with the gun control is how you aim statement. Yes our population is low so that is probably part of the reason crime is low too. I'm actually glad I don't have a gun at the moment because my sons friends might have been shot for sneaking in my house last weekend. Btw I told them that because my household is one of a few in Montana without a gun so they would be stupid to do this anywhere else around here.

[Amber Robot]

It's not the number of guns available that is the problem. It's the number of bullets.

[Lisa0315]

Its not the guns or the bullets, its the owners, and the irresponsible gun sellers, and government workers who are in charge of making sure only the right people have guns. It is the fault of the federal government and state governments for not having enough police to deal with the problem. It is the fault of the federal government for allowing so many illegals here who are often already are, or become part of gangs (to survive or otherwise)

There are many reasons and few of them are being addressed.

Lisa

[TySixtus]

I understand your stance just fine. Your opinions are based on typical anti-American bigotry, and this bigotry is informing your approach to the situation.

Except that this is an impression that an individual has created in his or her head to satisfy his or her own preconceived ideas.

What's funny is that you don't even know what my ideas are. I haven't even had a real chance to voice them in this thread. I've been too busy dealing with hyberbolic idiocy like dog-raping and typical fucked up US mothers. Don't think for a second that I can't see the big gleaming axe certain people are more than happy to grind.

[Xrikcus]

Fighting fire with fire, apparently. Your ideas are that we have preconceived ideas. Unfortunately, it appears to be a preconceived axe-grinding in itself, whether it is right or wrong. That is where you fail.

[TySixtus]

Really? What preconceived ideas have I put forth? That you guys -- as in you, and Matty, and some others posting here -- are ignorant of or bigoted towards Americans? All I need to do is point to your (and Matty's) posts in this very thread.

You, however, want to paint all Americans as idiot cowboy rednecks by virtue of one poster in the thread.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that plenty of Brits are not operating out of stereotypes about stupid Americans. However, you don't seem willing to admit that there are plenty Americans who own firearms but don't lie awake at night, fearful of break-ins and canine rape.

I get it. America bashing is the form of ill-informed bigotry that's still allowed. Because Americans aren't a "race", feel free to stereotype and all you want. It's good fun!

[Xrikcus]

However, you don't seem willing to admit that there are plenty Americans who own firearms but don't lie awake at night, fearful of break-ins and canine rape.

Unfortunately, I haven't suggested that at all. I asked whether it was the case, and you said it wasn't, though TheBear disagrees with you. It is also a clear fact as others have pointed out that a lot of Americans do claim self defense as a reason to own guns. The question to those people, and you may or may not be one - to be honest I can't tell either way from your posts - is one of whether they need them for self defense when we don't because they are more fearful than we are here, or simply because they have a heightened idea of self defense. I suspect that it depends on the person, I do realise that many people have a heightened idea of self defense over there - many people (and certain American legal juristictions according to the Mexical illegals thread) consider defense of property a form of self defense, but I would not, and the British legal system would not.

ETA: That illegals thread was merely early in this one.

Oh, and you still haven't answered the question that I put forth originally (which you then took to mean I thought all Americans were scared) which was: What are we ignorant of? I can't work out what we don't know at this point, given that I was wrong about it being self defense or simply ingrained culture.

[Matty]

To the best of my knowledge Ty my and your gun control stances arent too far apart in any case. Apart from the home defence aspect. That is one of the more common reasons given for owning a gun, so it stands to reason that iof you feel the need to own a gun for safety, you must be scared of something no? I dont see that as too much of a stretch. Sure it could be a long term pascals wager type fear, "well i better just in case" or whatever, but its still there, and influential.

Okay the "typically fucked up mom" was an over generalisation, to kill your kid you clearly are fucked in the head, and she could have smothered said kid with a pillow or something. that example was simply to highlight the wrongess of "well you never get people shooting each other at ranges where there are lots of guns do you?"

[TySixtus]

What are we ignorant of? I can't work out what we don't know at this point, given that I was wrong about it being self defense or simply ingrained culture.

You're ignorant as to the reasons why people own guns. Some people own them for self-defense. Some people own them for home defense, especially in rural areas where police response times are measured in the 10's of minutes. Some people own them for target shooting. Some people own them and have never fired them.

But you seem most ignorant of is the fact that in America, people can own guns and still favor gun control, or not be rightwing lunatics. This is the ignorance that I accuse you of, ignorance that you display when you say things like "The dangerous environment and need for aggressive self defense just to preserve one's own life" -- which you have no problem taking at face value because it confirms your prejudices that we're all paranoid.

Yes, there is a higher rate of crime here in the US. In many places, the police are there for clean-up and cannot meaningfully intervene in dangerous situations. So you could certainly make the argument that guns for home-defense are a perfectly acceptable solution. But that doesn't mean we live in cowering in fear, either.

But my original comment about you guys being ignorant doesn't fall into your false two-question dichotomy. It was about the larger scope of the gun issue, as it pertains to America. You guys are ignorant of a lot when it comes to the US. If I didn't know any better I'd think the only information you got came from TV.

[Lisa0315]

It is also a cultural thing.

My uncle owns guns and both he and his wife are licensed to carry them concealed. It is part safety, and part culture.

He owns many rifles and shotguns but it is more of a collecting thing. He used to hunt, but he doesn't now.

My husband (soon to be ex) bought guns to be cool is the only reason I can think of. Then, he hocked them to buy drugs. Supposedly he has bought more to kill me with. I have no idea if it is true or not.

My brothers both own guns to hunt.

It is a guy thing in a lot of cases. It is kind of like owning a motorcycle here. It is about being tough and cool.

If everyone were sitting around worried about home protection, a gun is probably the least effective way. Get a big dog or an alarm system.

Guns are about a lot of things to different people. I do not see the reason to generalize about Americans or anyone else who owns guns. People are not morally superior for not owning guns.

I mean, if we want to fight the Revolutionary War all over again...we have the right to bear arms in our Constitution because the assholes from Great Britain made it illegal, then, forced searches on people, stayed in their homes, and confiscated all kinds of stuff. They could do it because they didn't have a gun to say, "Oh, hell no you don't!"

Guns = Freedom to a lot of Americans. It is not about criminals half as much as it is about we a'int ever going to be in the position in which the government can take away our rights.

Lisa

[Xrikcus]

You're ignorant as to the reasons why people own guns. Some people own them for self-defense. Some people own them for home defense, especially in rural areas where police response times are measured in the 10's of minutes. Some people own them for target shooting. Some people own them and have never fired them.

Ok, yes. All of which is obvious and I think we all know... but I see your later point that explains that wasn't all you meant, so that's ok.

which you have no problem taking at face value because it confirms your prejudices that we're all paranoid.

As you wish.

If I didn't know any better I'd think the only information you got came from TV.

Well, generalise to TV, travel and American people, and I suppose you wouldn't be so far wrong.

[darjeeling]

Yet the mention of stricter licensing or noGod forbid a "registry" :eek: and/or mandatory safety and storage requirements, and many gun owners in these threads act like you just asked to bang their grandma.

Really? Could you please quote where people said that? Please, show me where people in this thread said they're against a registry, mandatory safety requirements, or other types of licensing/regulations.

As for how to get rid? a. i dont see the need to get rid of all guns and b. i dont see how without a prolonged multi generational effort in terms of education and change of mindsety, the US CAN get rid.

So tell me, how do we reduce gun violence?

Why can't anyone answer this question for me? Matty, you've given me the closest thing to a decent answer so far, but I'm looking for more specific things.

I agree its not do able now, but purely becasue by dint of your "rights" you have crated a situation where it would be hard work and costly, obviously that isnt something the US would ever consider as a politcal entity or generalised mindset.

It's not just that. From a practical standpoint, do you think it's possible? I mean, if the US banned guns today, how could they go about getting rid of them?

My point has never been the cure of the US model, it is simply fucked, but that i'd rather live somewhere where the chavs cant tool up with production of a drivers license, or easily steal daddies or someone else's gun if they really need to be sneaky.

I grew up in a place where hardly anyone was armed. No family I knew had any firearms, not even hunting rifles. Until I went to other places, I never saw a gun unless it was hanging from a holster on a cop's hip.

i do think the claims that you NEED guns to be safe or feel safe in the majority of cases are spurious, for the most part gangbangers etc kil each other no? Not to say that is okay, just that they arent exactly trying to jimmy your window and make you reach for the 45.

Non-gangbangers get mixed up in incidents, too, and the presence of violence between gangs affects everyone in the community and in surrounding areas. If I lived in a gang-infested neighborhood and owned a store there, I'd probably want to carry a gun to protect myself.

Dont you need to be okay with the idea if you are to validate owning a gun?

No. Absolutely not. A friend of mine owns antique rifles that never get fired. Another friend of mine has a bunch of rifles he inherited from family. Those never get used. Some people own firearms for the sole purpose of using them in shooting ranges. Some people own firearms and don't keep them at home.

ISnt that the bottom line, that you better be okay with it, (note i'm not saying "relish the idea"), in some contexts? Esp if you cite home defence as a/the reason for owning a gun? Isnt owning a gun but NOT being okay with that if it comes to it, more dangerous than less?

Like I said earlier in the thread, you're not supposed to draw a firearm on someone unless you're prepared to fire it. That doesn't mean that this:
The point is the cultural assumption that the need to shoot someone in the face is such a mundane, matter-of-fact consideration that owning and carrying a gun is no more remarkable than owning and carrying an umbrella.

And most Americans don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

...is anything other than a ridiculous caricature.

Besides, if you're not okay with the idea of shooting someone in the face, you can keep your firearm unloaded. If you point an unloaded firearm at someone, do you think they'll take their chances in guessing whether it's loaded?

there should be some requirement to owning one more stringent than "becasue i can" IMSHO.

I agree with that.

It is the fault of the federal government for allowing so many illegals here who are often already are, or become part of gangs (to survive or otherwise)

Seriously? The problem isn't illegal immigration. There would still be plenty of gangs if there were no illegal immigrants.

The question to those people, and you may or may not be one - to be honest I can't tell either way from your posts - is one of whether they need them for self defense when we don't because they are more fearful than we are here, or simply because they have a heightened idea of self defense.

As I've pointed out multiple times already, it's not really either.

Is your country flooded with millions and millions of weapons? Owning a firearm in certain places in the US is a simple adaptation to the environment. I can't control the fact that gangbangers and other people are armed. There's nothing I can do about it. I don't have control over my environment, so it's my responsibility to adapt to it. In some places, that means just locking the doors at night, but in other places, it could mean more - or less - than that.

This is what drives me nuts about gun control debates. People seem to assume that everyone else's situation is just like theirs and they try to explain things that way. Like I said before, I'm going to feel differently if I'm in Detroit or if I'm in a remote village in the Alps. Is that really so difficult to understand?

What are we ignorant of?

Like I said, a lot of Europeans and Americans are ignorant of the role that firearms play in American society.

to kill your kid you clearly are fucked in the head

This is another thing that I find interesting. People seem to have a tendency to lose sight of "you must clearly be fucked in the head to do that" and instead blame the weapon of choice.

Guns don't turn people violent. There are underlying causes. Addressing just the gun part of it and ignoring the underlying causes isn't going to help much.

[Lisa0315]

Originally Posted by Lisa0315 http://www.secularcafe.org/images/oceanzero/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=25055#post25055)
It is the fault of the federal government for allowing so many illegals here who are often already are, or become part of gangs (to survive or otherwise)

Seriously? The problem isn't illegal immigration. There would still be plenty of gangs if there were no illegal immigrants.

Yes, there would be of course. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I am just saying that when you have desperation, there will be violence. When you allow criminals to flee into your country, you will have more crime. We were short of police as it was. The illegal immigrants are not soley responsible, but they are definitely adding to an already bad situation.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and I hate multi-quoting. Just saying...:D

[Xrikcus]

Is your country flooded with millions and millions of weapons? Owning a firearm in certain places in the US is a simple adaptation to the environment.

Yes, but I think we all realise that. Matty and I have both said that we can't see removing guns from the US being practical. My question was in response to people saying it was a self defense issue, that is clearly only part of it, and even in the self defense case it's a question of what they feel they are defending themselves from. If I move to the US, which isn't entirely unlikely, I would have to decide whether I thought a gun was a useful self defense weapon in a society with other guns or not. Possibly that decision would lead to my buying one, possibly not, it's hard to say.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

Not at all. What I'm missing in all these discussions though is what makes people think we don't understand that. The only real lack of understanding I seem to see is how we can think of non-ownership of guns as being a freedom issue as much as many Americans feel owning guns is a freedom issue.

[Xrikcus]

This is another thing that I find interesting. People seem to have a tendency to lose sight of "you must clearly be fucked in the head to do that" and instead blame the weapon of choice.

Oh, incidentally, I don't think that's as bad as you suggest. It is true that people often miss root causes of problems, blaming computer games, guns, cannabis, alcohol etc for violence, thinking that banning under [insert age]s from drinking stops them drinking and so on. However, there is also the opportunity to question. If someone is carrying a gun, and becomes uptight for whatever reason, what they have to hand is something very dangerous - designed for no purpose than to be dangerous (if towards various different types of target). If he is not carrying a gun, then the chance of doing serious harm in that situation is much lower. It is of course true that removing the source of the discontent would be better still, but without the dangerous object, in this case a gun, the risk to others on that missed source-removal is that bit lower.

[TySixtus]

If someone is carrying a gun, and becomes uptight for whatever reason, what they have to hand is something very dangerous - designed for no purpose than to be dangerous (if towards various different types of target)

You should look at the crime rates for individual conceal/carry holders.

Do you think people in a car are a danger because they could conceivably fly off the handle and ram their vehicle into a school bus because "they got uptight"?

[darjeeling]

What I'm missing in all these discussions though is what makes people think we don't understand that.

When you say things like this:
The question to those people, and you may or may not be one - to be honest I can't tell either way from your posts - is one of whether they need them for self defense when we don't because they are more fearful than we are here, or simply because they have a heightened idea of self defense.

I get the feeling you don't understand. It's not necessarily about being more fearful or having a "heightened idea of self defense." It's dependent on the environment.

If you're in the slums of Gary, Indiana, you're going to worry more about self-defense than if you were in Martha's Vineyard. If you're a tall, heavy, strong male, you're not going to worry about self-defense as much as a short, small female. When you ask a question like, "Is it that they're more fearful or that they have a heightened idea of self-defense?", it makes me think you don't understand that living in Place X could be a completely different experience than living in Place Y, so comparing the attitudes and behaviors of people in both places isn't going to really work.

The only real lack of understanding I seem to see is how we can think of non-ownership of guns as being a freedom issue as much as many Americans feel owning guns is a freedom issue.

Not having to worry about gun violence is freedom from gun violence. If that's what you meant, I understand that.

What you don't seem to understand is that if you're in a place where gun violence is common, being able to defend yourself can be freedom, too.

If someone is carrying a gun, and becomes uptight for whatever reason, what they have to hand is something very dangerous - designed for no purpose than to be dangerous (if towards various different types of target). If he is not carrying a gun, then the chance of doing serious harm in that situation is much lower. It is of course true that removing the source of the discontent would be better still, but without the dangerous object, in this case a gun, the risk to others on that missed source-removal is that bit lower.

I'm curious. How often does that happen? How many gun deaths in the US are a result of someone carrying a gun and getting uptight?

My biggest concern with people ignoring the underlying issues with gun violence is people not acknowledging the connections between poverty, urban slums, gangs, drugs, and gun violence. Gun violence is a symptom of much bigger issues.

[TheBear]

These kinds of discussions would shed more light than heat if people would consciously stop using the personal pronoun "you." It's an important and contentious set of questions whose consideration isn't helped one tiny bit by snarky comments directed at other people.

Just a thought, kids.
Thanks for the reminder, RBH.

This is one of those 'hot-button' topics, where strong passion and emotional reactions can override civil discussion. I am sometimes guilty of this myself. For that, I apologize.

I'll make my final remarks in this thread here. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.




I fully understand where the pro gun-control crowd is coming from. You have every right to your views and reasons. And if you don't want a gun, or a specific type of gun, or because owning a gun goes against ever fiber in your body, then don't own one. I respect that. But just like religion, keep it to yourself, and stop trying to impose your personal views everyone else. Like I said, if you don't want to own one, I respect that. On the same note, you should respect my right to own guns, and not try to infringe my rights because of your own personal views. I'm already fed up to here with religious organizations trying to infringe on everyone's rights.

Well, we'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this. So, I'll leave you with one last thought.

I've owned guns for years, and so have many of my friends. None of us have massacred or murdered people. None of us have committed armed robbery. None of us have had our firearms stolen. None of us have put anyone in jeopardy. None of us have infringed on anther's rights.

Think about it.....