Can you quantify this? If I own one gun, I would be 12.5% more likely to resort to murder?
I am talking about the fundamental make up of how I conduct myself occording to what I believe is right and wrong.
Are you saying my thinking is thus: “Damn neighbor. I am so sick of him throwing his trash into my yard for me to dispose of. Every time I mention it to him, he just calls me names. Poo. Oh wait… look at that shiney gun on my table… can’t… resist… urge…”
Poppycock.
Absolutely not. I believe you are more likely to take a human life if you have a gun available than if you don’t; in your case, both possibilities may well remain infitesimal, but some people have hotter tempers, and/or poorer judgment.
Let me put it this way. I have never killed, or attempted to kill, someone. (Hmm. Hard to find a cite for that… lets just take that as a given, ok?) I have never assaulted someone.
Do I own a gun?
It’s a matter of trust, isn’t it?
Heh. Good enough, I’ll leave it at that. 
I’m pretty sure of my own memory, but I’m not selling anything to True and Amazing Stories here anyway.
Even if we take mine as an hypothetical, it illustrates the point we both seem to agree upon: that the overall system is too complex, the variables are too many, for the available statistical evidence to be completely persuasive one way or the other. I have my “druthers” of course, but I’d be willing to be persuaded by factual, unambiguous evidence.
Perhaps that begs the larger question-- What kind of statistical evidence would constitute a proof? And then-- Is it possible to design an investigation to produce such evidence? Finally-- What would that investigation entail?
If you don’t plan on shooting anyone, why do you have a gun?
Hmm, let’s see. What else can you do with a gun that doesn’t involve homicide?
:rolleyes:
I guess that would depend on how you define “plan”.
Let’s stipulate that I owned a gun for self defence. I feel that I should be afforded the right to defend myself against someone who has decided to kill me, and to do so with deadly force. Of course, if it turns out that my judgement of a given situation was poor, I also expect that I will be held accountable for my actions. As such, I realise the profound consequences of using a gun, and those ramifications are indeed sobering to me. It is not a casual or “fun” decision for me to make. (And I continue to reevaluate these concerns from time to time.)
So, I purchase a gun, learn how to properly load, shoot, clean, and store the weapon, on the off chance that someone might break into my home with bad intent. I hope never to use it, and I have no idea on whether or not someone is actually going to break into my home sometime in my life. I sincerly hope that I will never have to be forced, by someone else’s action, to make that ultimate decision to kill them.
But if it comes down to deciding which of us gets to live: little, cute, cuddly me, who obeys all the laws (except exceeding the speed limit on the highway by 10 mph) and pays his taxes, and some nightmare out of a hollywood plotline, I’ll have to go with me.
Does this sound like I am “planning” to kill someone? Do I sound like someone who can’t be trusted with a gun?
(As ExTank points out, there is also the perfectly legitimate reasons of hunting and sport shooting to own a gun.)
I’m pretty sure that if tanks and missiles were available to be cheaply and privately owned, we would see an even bigger drop in crime.
The better and more effect the weapons our citizens are armed with, the safer our communities.
Edit: typo, again. yeah…i know. trolls have fat fingers.
Incorrect. We also have rights enumerated in State constitutions. And almost all of them include, clearly stated, an individual right to keep and bear arms.
True. But you can also be willing to kill someone without a gun – you’re just worse-equipped. If you aren’t willing to kill someone to defend your own life or family – then I just don’t understand you.
One of the valuable parts of my firearms training was when I was told: Don’t pull out your gun unless you’re seriously intending to shoot it. Don’t think of shooting it unless you’re intending to hit someone. Don’t think of hitting someone unless you intend to kill them. It makes for a prudent approach to handling weapons. If I ever brandished my weapon at someone, it would be because he had mis-used his free will in such degree that he had forfeited his right not to be shot. Guess how I would resolve the moral dilemma there? Fortunately, it hasn’t come up.
Some people just really like target practice, though.
Remember the Rodney King riots? Remember that a group of shopkeepers was shown on TV brandishing firearms at the rioters? Guess what? The rioters chose to riot (and loot) elsewhere and the shopkeepers’ properties sufferred much less damage.
Remember Dunblane? How many children died at Hamilton’s hand because the citizenry had to wait for armed officers? How many might have been saved if a citizen had fired on Hamilton?
Rember VT Tech? Remember that they had declared themselves a gun-free area? Fat lot of good it did them. How many lives might have been saved if the students or teachers had been able to return fire?
Given the fact that the only occasion on which I would attempt to take a life is in a case where killing is fully justified, and even beneficial, any increase in the likelihood of success is a net gain to society.
I hate to argue semantics, but in all the extensive firearms training I’ve received I’ve never had an instructor nor any credible manuals use the terminology “intend to kill”
nor anything remotely close to such a phrase in any setting…
Who is/was your instructor(s)?
Obviously, it is quite possible if the only private citizens who own guns are habitual criminals (over and above being “criminals” by violating gun-control laws) who each shoot a large number of people.
I took a handgun course from a retired cop who worked at a range in No. Virginia. I think his point, admittedly hyperbolic, was that you need to think seriously before pulling out your weapon, so as to avoid unintended escalation or accidental shootings. Once a gun comes out, things get pretty serious – which can be for the good, or for the bad.
I think he was also making the point that “shooting to wound” is somewhat unrealistic – if it’s a serious enough situation to pull the trigger, you’re probably going to empty the clip into the guy.
You can’t honestly mean that as a serious argument.
Sure in **Quartz ** rugged world, the teachers, janitors and maybe even some of the hall monitors are all armed. How can you not see the beautiful simplicity of this. Of course an armed society is a polite society. So fights will never escalate to gun violence.
Jim
Are you just complaining about the single word? Because every firearms class/training/manual/discussion I’ve ever attended/taken/read/participated in uses the phrase “intend to destroy” (instead of kill) as in “don’t point your gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy” followed, in self defense type classes, with “don’t pull your gun unless you intend to use it” where “use it” equals “intend to destroy”, and one can safely make the leap that the instructor is making the case that a civilian shouldn’t pull a gun on someone unless they intend to kill that person. There is no “shoot the gun out of his hands” or “fire a warning shot” or “shoot him in the leg” or anything but “if you shoot, shoot to kill”
It’s even in the basic rules of gun safety
Rule I: All guns are always loaded
Rule II: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy
Rule III: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target
Rule IV: Be sure of your target
I think every instructor I’ve had over the last quarter century would rip that guy to shreds. Whatever good he meant to teach you it doesn’t sound like he communicated it very well.
Instructors need to watch what the hell they’re saying even if they just meant it in
hyperbole. Everything that’s said in a training course can and will come up when he has to testify in court.
Some of the things you’ve posted here that he said would not sound good to a jury even if the shooting were 100% justified.