Flying bullets are my responsibility?

Great Debates
21

Yes. Flying bullets are your repsponsibility if you fired them. This was explained to me very carefully while I was in training for this here CCW, and I happened to agree with the concept.

The “stronger walls” idiocy is nonsense. My neighbor should be just as safe from my bullets if he chooses to live in a tent.

To lessen the possibility of my having this responsibility come back and bite me was one of the contributing reasons to my choosing .45 ACP or the “flying ashtray,” as it is called. It goes to the bad guy. Then it stops. One of those 9 mil rockets can make a tiny hole in several people, only one of which was the reason you fired.

Brian, you’ve met several educated gun-carrying owners, on this board. If you refuse to acknowlege their education that’s your business, but you’re straying pretty close to insulting a lot of people who are being pretty patient with you.

22

What is a fact to you? Oh yeah, something you agree with. By the way, we are interpreting rights and responsibilities here, not your idea of facts. If taxing bullets and insuring guns really scares you, that would indicate a refusal to take responsibility for your rights, which I am not proposing we limit. I agree with personal interpretations of the 2nd amendment not for freedom’s sake, but for equality’s sake. Regardless, it was written with muskets in mind, not semi-auto’s, and a police state is relative to imprisonment powers.

The “fact” is, guns are not designed to stop crimes or injuries, because that would be contradicted by the fact that they facilitate crime and injury. You merely imagine that guns are mass produced for you to be more secure, which I disagree with. Both sides of the argument are called interpretations, not facts.

You wrote:

Trust me, very few gun owners relish the notion of possibly having to use deadly force on someone. But when it comes right down to it, I’d rather stay alive and the guy trying to kill me dead.

The first half of the above quote is pure disinformation.

23

I acknowledge your education, but disacknowledge that I’ve ever met you. I was excluding cops also, of course, by implication. “Patient” is the word I use to describe my position and those injured by…nevermind.

24

Bullshit. Prove it. Or, at least, give us some real data to tee off on.

Do you have any idea how many more potential injuries are averted through defensive gun use than actual injuries caused by irresponsible use? I can show you estimates of defensive gun use ranging from two or three hundred-thousand all the way up to a couple million. Per year. Excluding cops.

25

Potential estimates? (laugh here). And you are aware that this “assumes” a world where criminals have guns and others don’t? Here is another fact for you: Charlton Heston is not really Moses, that was only a movie.

26

Ok here we go.

Posted By Brian Bunnyhurt
>Hilander,

Sorry to say this, but I’ve never met an educated gun-carrying owner, and your confusing people with bears proves my point that many gun owners are unstable, insecure and confused and need someone to demonize always to justify their irrational fears.<

First of all you now know one educated gun owner, me. The point I was trying to make in the afore mentioned post is that guns do have a place in society. If you would like to use your superior knowlege to convince a criminal to just go away you are welcome to try. As for demonizing someone, any person capable of life threatning voilence for monitary, or non-self preservation is a demon IMHO. Violence is the last resort of the weak minded. I carry a gun for many reason and assure you that intimidation is not on the list. As a severe asthmatic I am not capable of defending myself in other manners and feel it is my right to defend myself from harm. The only people that are aware I carry a gun is law enforcement. If you think I should take a beating and be victimized without a chance or even a hope of reprieve or defence I would recommend you try it some time. I have and did not like it much.

Posted By Brian Bunnyhurt
>The only gun toters I know are racist rednecks and worried criminals. I know of one guy who carries a gun with him to intimidate people, perhaps you think he is enlighened…Have you ever known anyone injured by bullet fragments or ricochets? I do. He walks with a limp, but is free to walk with a cane if wants to. As for your freedom speech, the record scratched when you imagined that the US (with the highest prison population per person in the world), was a free country. I suppose you think Norway is communist. Of course, I define freedom differently than the NRA, namely freedom from crime and ignorance and hunger and disease and bad ideas and stray bullets, etc. Maybe you think you are only free when you have a gun in your pocket, which means you are really a prisoner of your fears.<

It is sad to hear that the only gun owners you know are like that. As for your aquaintance who carries I would call him dangerous and a prime example of irresponsibility. That does not mean that all of us are ignorant, uneducated bullies. As for knowing people that have been hit by stray fire I must admit I personally do not know any. However I do know several people who’s lives were saved because they were equiped to defend themselves. Primarily from people like your friend who walked away with nothing more than a warning. The last time I had heard of such a thing here the perp went to jail for 30 days lost his gun and the right to own one. It is called brandishing a firearm and is illeagal in most states. I too would relish freedom from crime, ignorance, hunger, and disease. The world doesn’t work that way at the moment but I have to agree it would be nice. As for being a prisoner of my fears they have never stoped me before.

Posted By BrianBunnyhurt
>Your analysis of committing a “crime” with a gun begs the question. What if the crime is merely a civil disobedience, such as simply smoking pot in your living room with a gun? Such actions guarantee more legal hassle and you don’t seem to care. Where is your freedom speech now? And as for the right tool for the job, that is a criminal’s mindset.<

First of all a gun has no place in an arguement. Civildisobedience and people who promote such acts almost allways agree. I don’t see the need for my 357mag at an anti-nuke rally. For the most part nonviolent protest is protected under the constitution so it is not a crime. As for smoking pot in the privacy of your own home it is a fellony (not to say I think it should be) and as such is punnishable under the law. Any time you involve a gun in a crime it get’s worse leagaly and rightfully so. Or do you think that robbing a store clerk with a gun should be classifyed as a strong arm robbery punnishable by only 2 year sentance. As for using the right tool for the job being the “criminal’s mind set” well I guess I should use a screwdriver next time I need to drive a nail.

Posted By BrianBunnyhurt
>I know people who have loaded semi-auto rifles with thirty rounds for home defense<

You should check the FBI statics on close quaters combat engagements with firearms some time. I will try to find them and post them here. High capacity firearms for self defence have a purpose or do you think the cops went to the high capacity 9mm for the hell of it. Most shootouts take place inside of 25 feet and 80% of the time the first 3 shots miss. Of cource the first one to land a shot normaly ends the confrontation as long as the weapon is of moderate calibur. If you are dealing with more than one person you may not get time to reload your weapon. I must agree that a rifle makes a piss poor home defence weapon though, and for the same reasons. If you had paid attention to my last post I said as much. Any gun owner who fails to take a due caution to limit risk to others (innocent by standers) should be punnished accordingly.

Posted By BrianBunnyhurt
>We can’t compare matches or computers with guns, because contrary to your imagination, the bullet that directly hits a bystander was caused by the gun being aimed directly at them.<

Remember that the next time you get a computer virus, or when some homeless man dies in an arson fire.

Posted By BrianBunnyhurt
>. If other people’s cell phones gave us cancer, you can bet they would be banned, obviously.<

Really, I doubt it for several reasons. You don’t see a ban on gasoline and it is a know carcinogen. Or sacirine (god i hope I spelled that right) which is as well.

Posted By BrianBunnyhurt
> Conclusion: Logic works better than guns to back up laws, but it requires education to comprehend.<

It does if the person you are trying to apply laws to is docile and logical. Many in our society are not educated, logical, or rational. I for one refuse to be at their mercy. If I ever have to use my gun for personal defence it will be as a LAST resort. I keep in practice by shooting at a range not out in the gravel pit. Last but not least I don’t kill anything without proper justification. Lastly I am rather well educated and logical enough to acknowlege the world for what it is.

27

Actually, Unc, that’s one of the few things BB got right. Fundamentally, a gun has the same fundamental purpose as a slingshot; both are designed to expel projectiles in a manner such that those projectiles can be directed toward a target. Other design features are secondary to the basic purpose of firing small pieces of metal into something (or someone). Any claim that guns are “designed” to stop crime is fatuous. Of course, BB’s observation that guns facilitate crime has just as little to do with their designed function as the reverse.

However, the contention that guns are designed to facilitate injury must be accepted if one wishes to argue that guns are effective weapons of self defense.
Now, having pointed out the above, I’d like to ask Mr. Bunnyhurt a question:

Do you have a point to make?

Originally it seemed as if your contention was that guns are defective machinery, especially when they work as intended. Then your message seemed to morph into either “guns are tools of the oppressors in class warfare” or “gun rights are necessary for equality, but not for freedom, and oh yeah, gun owners are universally inbred imbeciles.”

Of course, I could be misinterpreting your posts. Obviously, you believe that you’re making sense on some level. Perhaps you’re just trying to say “I missed my medication and I’m waiting by this computer until the nurse returns.”

[sub]BTW — SPOOFE: 43[/sub]

28

Redundant phrasing is redundant (and makes xeno look foolish).

Sorry.

29

Mr. Bunnyhurt, I will thank you to take such comments to the Pit, where I may respond to you in kind. Don’t have the balls for it? Then shut up, little child.

Are you suggesting that a gun is NOT designed to propel a projectile at very high speeds? Because, if you recall, I was denouncing your baseless and unsubstantiated assertion that a gun that goes “Bang!” is defective, which it is not.

More bullshit. My rights are NOT something that I have to pay money to acquire. Your proposal is akin to taxing Free Speech or Free Religion, and thusly, is wrong, baseless, unsubstantiated, and oh, did I say WRONG? Maybe you can provide some evidence, little child, instead of spouting nonsense?

So you’re saying that the First Amendment doesn’t cover computers or the Internet?

You’re assuming that the Founding Fathers were stupid enough to assume that there would be ZERO TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT after the writing of the Constitution, which is, again, wrong, baseless, etc. Maybe you can provide some evidence, little child, instead of spouting nonsense?

Someone is rushing at me with the intent to kill me, take my money, and rape my girlfriend. I pull out a gun and shoot him. The crime has been prevented, injuries prevented.

Chalk up another of Little Child’s arguments in the “wrong, baseless, unsubstantiated” category.

Gun Makers get their money by - surprise! - selling guns. They manage to sell more guns if the guns appeal to the needs of the average Joe. The average Joe does NOT have the intent to kill, rape, or steal.

Gun Makers do NOT get their money by toting their products as “Perfect for bank robbery!” or “Wanna invade a home? This is your piece!” Likewise, the revisions and improvements they put on their products reflect the advertisements.

Or have you forgotten that Gun Makers are capitalists, too? They DO need a profit, you know. Or are you going to suggest they’re financed solely by the gov’t?

Again, bring such accusations to the Pit, where I can respond to you as you truly deserve. Until then, however, I will satisfy myself to say that you are wrong. Or are you suggesting that more than half the population is bloodthirsty and looking forward to the day when they bag their first kill? Because if you are making this assertion, little child, I’d like to see some evidence.

30

Xenophon wrote:

Do you have a point to make?

My point was in your own requote, which you seem to have avoided by claiming that my point was that guns facilitate crime. My point was that the “fact” that guns prevent crime and injury is “contradicted” by the fact that they facilitate crime and injury, which you defended. So, what is your point? My point is also that gun-toters are insecure by definition, which may or may not be justified. If this insecurity is related to racism or elitism, then it is a disease.

Hilander:

My point was that you can’t compound a victimless crime by using the fact that a legal gun was present without contradicting yourself, false analogies don’t cut it here.

Furthermore, my experiences are anecdotal, and have nothing to do with the main argument, but they are relevent to known cases of prevention versus known cases of injuries. I have personally known over a dozen negative incidences involving people and handguns (not counting gun thefts), including a homicide where the good guy lost, and at least six robberies. Three incidences involve accidents, including a cousin learning to “fan-the-hammer” on a single-action, and my own grandmother who was shot in the foot while ranching. I don’t know any instances where handguns saved anyone’s life directly, except my grandfathers, who was a fish and game commissioner, which makes my point again. What I do know from experience regarding guns, however, is way too much disrespect for other people and for the power of guns. It seems to create a false sense of empowerment in certain people to be able to enforce their weak will.

Yet, the most disturbing thing I have ever witnessed involving guns was a jury trial in the town where I live. A meth-head “tweaker” shot his boss in the head, a popular bar owner whom I knew. The cops arrested him later and found the gun on him. Test for the ballistics was positive. Then comes the murder trial. A public defender plays the gun issue to a cowardly jury of mostly provincial arch-conservatives. It seems that the ballistics only proves with 99.1% accuracy the exact probability that the gun was used in the murder. So, there was a .9% chance it wasn’t used, nevermind that the murderer was last seen with the victim and owed him money. So, the guy got off, scot-free, using pro-gun sentiments. (He was found dead a few days later in the desert, because one of the disgusted friends of the bar-owner, I suppose, felt compelled to revenge the murder on behalf of a weak society).

Still, I’m not even anti-gun, just not pro-handgun against society at large. I have no foolish pride in owning my handguns when I know that it popularly lends itself to racism, fear, crime, and misanthropy. I know where to start to eliminate crime, and it is not over-arming scared macho people. That would be another plan altogether. Anyone happy and proud to be carrying a gun is a danger to society.

31

I doubt facts will disabuse Bunnyhurt of anything. Getting angry over his arguements, or even reading them seems kinda pointless to me.

That being said, when I read the title I thought this thread was talking about bullets fired into the air. My grandfather once found a bullet in the floor of a building, stuck into the ground with a clear hole shining through above it. Whose responsibility are bullets that act like meteors?:slight_smile:

32

Hi everyone, I’m an “uneducated, unstable, insecure, confused redneck and need someone to demonize”. But I had a dream last night that I was the opposite of the above and reading this thread, and realized that Bunnyhurt is either arguing for argument’s sake, or is so far entrenched in fantasy land that his mind has been permanently closed to facts. So I’ll go with my dream and not even bother. I certainly wouldn’t want to come across as demonizing.

MGibson, good choice of ammo. Good terminal effects and pretty safe against solids. Unlike the Hydrashock +P load, it is in fact though, a subsonic round. In referring to subsonics, I was thinking more along the lines of high-power stuff. Folks with a .308 really should be using subsonic/near subsonic downloads and softpoints for defense, and practicing with normal ammo isn’t really going to affect anything. Point of aim/impact within 50 feet isn’t going to change with any degree of significance between the two, and commercial subsonics have more than enough juice and gas to operate any type of autoloader. With handguns, except for maybe some odd foreign calibers, I don’t think there’s a caliber out there that Glasers and Hydrashocks can’t be found for.

I would use a line from Johnny Dangerously here, but in light of current news events, that would seem in bad taste and would certainly be of a demonizing nature :slight_smile:

33

Bravo. Gun-lovers are always an amusing bunch, because they often delude themselves into thinking that guns can defend themselves against rational thinking.

34

Other than amusing anecdotes, ravings or discussions of the stopping power of various ammo, does anyone have any actual (that is to say referenceable) facts as to a persons liability if they accidently injure an another innocent person with a weapon fired in self defense? By facts I mean laws or legal precidents.

Does the liability change depending on the type of firearm? (ie a rifle firing full metal jacketed rounds is a lot more dangerous than a .38 special firing hollow points).

35

Brian: sticks-and-stones-may-yada-yada. Your opinion of my rationality will just keep me laying awake at night with worry and self-doubt. But my thumb might, and it’s all your fault. See Below.

Trust xeno to smack a tac with a sledgehammer. Good post, redundant phrasing aside (trivial errors will be overlooked, lest our be thrown back at us; but you’ll pay for the 43!)
:wally

UncleBeer nailed something right on the head, though, and I’ll come to it in a moment (it’s called foreshadowing, Brian; just an indication of my admittedly limited education and intelligence)

Something occured to me today at work; something so fundamental to this debate, so elegant in its simplicity, that in my surprise at my foolishness for not recognizing it sooner I smacked my thumb with a hammer and had to hop around and curse for a while, driving enlightened thought away for a bit. Brian, you have made some fairly outre comments, eliciting much wailing and gnashing of teeth, neurons and electrons. I have one request:

CITE?

msmith: No hard and fast answer, as it can vary widely from one state to another. Basically, it’ll boil down to the cop taking the report. I once had to shove a gun in a person’s face and hold them until the police arrived. I could’ve been charged with Assault; technically, I committed assault. But the cops considered the circumstances, and wrote it up as justified. Their shift commander and Precinct Captain agreed, and sold it to the Asst. D.A. No charges were filed against me. Not quite the same as actually having to shoot the silly bastard, but it was a use of force by a lethal implement.

So, if you use force in self defense, and another person (other than the perp.) gets hurt as well as a direct or indirect result of your actions, the cops may look at your choice of weapon (caliber), choice of ammo, your actions (one round fired, or thirty), and the circumstances of the other person’s injury (clean penetration through-perp., ricochet, etc.), and decide accordingly.

Check with your local police, or Dist. Atty.'s office, for clarification specific to your jurisdiction.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless” :stuck_out_tongue:
[sub]the thumb’s on ice. i may need x-rays. i’m suing brian.[/sub]

36

I’ve stated that I’m ambivalent about gun ownership. My slight lean away from unfettered ownership is reinforced every 4th of July and New Years Eve, although I do realize that laws don’t do much to suppress such idiocy.
I live in a densly populated city. Why these fools feel the need to fire guns into the air is beyond me. I call the cops, and so do my neighbors.
BTW; I’m ignoring a certain fellow’s posts. :wink:
Peace,
mangeorge

37

Maybe guns really do kill people after all. :rolleyes:

Make that “…with a lethal implement.”

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless” :stuck_out_tongue:

[sub]the sound you just heard was my foot being forcibly extracted from my mouth. get used to it.[/sub]

38

I thought this once too, unfortunately it places a consitutional right in the hands of a private company. Not a good thing. Although in theory I think this is a great idea.

39

The average production handgun is far more accurate than any given shooter.

40

Umm hydrashoks, just gotta love em.