So let me get this straight. If you touch the lollipop, you will like the lollipop.
Or is is that if you underdstand how a gun works, you will no longer be concerned about guns being used either intentionally or accidentally to kill people.
I’m not particularly scared of guns, it’s the bullets that bother me.
At this point, there’s not nearly the data to say which way causation runs with enough certainty to make both sides agree. This is part of the problem.
While I appreciate the slippery slope argument here, we have seen so far in this country that those of us on lists of concealed carry holders (and for that matter, people who are legally authorized to own/operate machine guns and other fully automatic weapons) have not had any special official harassment other than occasional making-public of those lists. I am not especially troubled by this.
For that matter, the government already KNOWS I have guns and has that fact noted somewhere–every time I buy one, there’s paperwork associated with it with my name on it. I’m not really averse to one of those pieces of paper saying someone examined me and found me to be competent in the use of the weapon.
Maybe when we have a violent crime rate more in line with the average Western democracy we can consider these kinds of restrictions especially onerous but with the status of our culture as a whole I think it behooves us to consider the impression we and our arms make on the general public. One of the sides has to offer compromise first, and I’d rather it be us just because it would go a long way towards proving we’re rational and polite and capable of solving our problems without resorting to the iron on our collective hip.
I think this is radically over-simplifying it. I know a lot of people who are seriously more intimidated by guns once they see what one can do to a target close-up, for example. While I think certainly that there are SOME folks who need the actual weapons demystified (my wife was one of them, and she went from being fervently anti-gun for no really quantifiable reason except for being brought up to hate/fear all weapons to shooting better than I do when we go shoot holes in paper for bets), the responses in this thread at least are trending towards knowing enough about the weapons, but not trusting the person in possession thereof.
I don’t really think this is necessary either, even though I’m only “conservative” on a few issues–you know as well as I do that both sides have a lot of screaming ninnies and that there’s a lot of misinformation that people are reacting to in good faith, whether the issue is guns or anything else.
:dubious:
I think the reason that this may be is because there simply aren’t that many people packing (legal) heat amongst us, so when an armed crime does occur, it’s with unarmed victims.
Certainly that’s a plausible explanation in the absence of good data.
Part of the problem is that data is necessarily unreliable, because successfully driving off an intruder without firing a shot leaves no/little physical evidence.
Part of the problem is that there’s an honest moral debate on whether shooting a burglar (as opposed to criminal with obviously violent intentions) is a success or failure of good home defense practices.
Part of the problem is the cohort of gun owners likely to exaggerate their successes because like it or not, there’s a cohort of gun owners who ARE using it as a surrogate wang.
Part of the problem is that, as you say, to assess the success of home defense we’d need to seriously determine the statistical likelihood of a break-in happening in a home with a firearm owner who has a firearm in a place and condition that it’s ready for defensive use, and go from there when figuring out if the firearm “helped”.
There’s a subset of people who really want to be the heroes of their own life, and imagine/hope they’d be the guy who responds perfectly in a bad situation they happen to be uniquely prepared for. Some of those guys own guns and that’s what they daydream about. As a gun enthusiast, my hero fantasies all tend to revolve around using my first responder training, to be honest–I was thinking about this (due to this thread :D) and thinking through scenarios and I don’t think I could pull the trigger on a home invader unless he had a ready gun or was actively trying to hurt my wife–if he had a knife but was after me I’d be equally likely to club him repeatedly with the shotgun as shoot.
You’re right. That’s a stupid thought.
You really don’t see a reason to carry knives in public? My son’s 17-year-old friend was helping cook for a charity event. He loves cooking and carried his own kitchen knives to the event because they’re good knives. I carry a pocketknife at almost all times, and I have a hard time coming up with a day where I don’t use it. I wear a dirk and a sgian dubh to Scottish highland games. For goodness’ sake, how do you get a knife home when you buy one?
If having carried a knife in public makes someone “off his rocker and potentially dangerous,” then you can lock up almost everyone I know.
I know I’m in the overwhelming minority here, but when I’m outside hiking, fixing fences, or whatever, a pistol is much lighter and less awkward to carry than a long gun. As I mentioned upthread, I’m not in an urban area. Where I live, we have large, dangerous wild animals that regularly eat livestock, and people are killed by these critters every year.
I firmly believe (no cite, sorry), that if you increased the number of handguns carried by members of the public, you would most likely increase the number of times the guns were used “properly” in self defense or in defense of others. This is undoubtedly true.
However, I also believe that you would increase the numbers of times:
- A gun was accidentally used to kill an “intruder” who turns out to be someone you know. This has happened. It is not a fantasy of mine, or made up by the media.
- A gun was found by someone unfamiliar with guns (child) who hurts themselves or others.
This has also happened. I’m not making it up. - A gun is used by a depressed person to kill themselves before they can seek help for depression. Again, not a media fantasy.
- A gun is used to kill someone known the former law abiding owner in a fit of passion. I think I’m not imagining that this may occur from time to time.
- A gun falls into the hands of a criminal due to theft. Has this ever happened? I think it has.
I really do think that the benefits in the first scenario would be far, far outweighed by the disadvantages of the last 5. The last 5 are not products of my fevered imagination - they are (I believe), likely outcomes.
I’ve owned long guns and have fired them at targets. Argent Towers proposal of more education is not a stupid idea - it may not help people here who dislike handguns, Open and Closed Carry, but it may be useful for those who have a more knee-jerk reaction to guns. Understanding things is good!
So the words’ big kitchen knife sticking out of his pocket’ became invisible to you did they?
And here’s another thought. If chefs need to carry their knives to and from work maybe they could keep them in the proper knife wrap and carried in a bag instead of stuffing them in their belt, pockets etc?
If you or your son think for one second it’s safe for him or acceptable for others to casually stick a large knife in their pocket semi or unconcealed and amble around in public then you’re just proving other people’s point for them.
Weapon-nuts of any ilk are not to be trusted.
I’d say, nuts of any ilk regardless of their apparent armaments, but that’s just me.
It may perhaps not be necessary. It’s quite frustrating though to spend the time to provide the material we’ve been discussing, which empirically forms a sound basis for an antipathy towards the general possession of firearms, and nevertheless continue to come up against the asinine argument that people oppose guns only because they are ninnies. Big, tough guys aren’t afraid of the scary noises guns make, but if you prefer regulation of firearms, it must be because you pee your pants at the mere thought of them. Booga booga booga!
To me, that’s all just part and parcel of the romantic fantasy that people have about guns and about being armed.
My response was also based in the more general frustration I’ve had with conservatives lately. I do think that if any rational person stopped for a moment to think about things, there’d be no persisting suggestion that anyone in their right mind would support death panels, just as a single example.
The problem with guns is that they are designed to very efficiently cause grievous, fatal harm to living bodies. Tire irons and fists are not. You can certainly kill a person with a tire iron or with your fists, but it will generally take considerably more time and effort, and it’s also, for lack of a better term, more “personal.” (I.e., you’re right there hitting the person with your hand or a bludgeon, as opposed to squeezing a trigger.)
Looks incredibly bizarre to a lot of people in the U.S., too.
I guess that’s why the first response to a hostage crisis is for a bunch of law enforcement personnel to charge straight in with guns drawn and shoot all the bad guys.
Oh wait, that’s **not **what they do? That might actually get **more **people killed?
Thanks for that disgustingly patronizing caricature of your opposition. I’d respond in kind with a picture of you performing fellatio on an anthropomorphized gun, but I’m not that good at drawing.
You don’t. You accept it as an ongoing cost of freedom. If someone crosses the border, you separate them from free society for some period of time. It may seem unfortunate that we have to wait until that border is crossed- that a crime has been committed or someone has been negligently injured or killed- but, again, you accept it as an on going cost of freedom, because the alternative- not having to wait until someone has committed some act that requires the due process to begin- is not preferable.
And I’d never suggest that you must carry one. I agree that you, personally, are probably in the best possible position to evaluate your, personal, ability to safely own and operate a firearm. I may come to a different conclusion about myself and my situation. And, until my choices and actions cause a problem I’d appreciate if you’d afford me the same courtesy.
An interesting and ongoing problem with the statistics on this sort of thing is that, when things go right and the bad guy is stopped, it’s still tallied up as another instance of “gun violence”.
In theory those pieces of paper are not retained after a certain period of time (local laws vary, though).
I would point out that widespread civilian arms ownership is itself a check and balance on government illegitimacy. People usually try to take this to a point about discussing the plausible success of a civil war against a tyrannical government, but it the mere possibility of it has the effect of keeping the situation from deteriorating that far.
For example, if the congress knows the president has the power to veto a bit of legislation, they may try to reform a bill so it has a chance of being signed rather than waste time and resources throwing it up there to be vetoed. As a consequence, the President might never actually be presented with anything he feels required to veto.
The fact that the president doesn’t use the veto (or that in some scenarios congress could override the veto) doesn’t mean the the veto power doesn’t affect the dynamic of the system or that removing the veto power would not cause an undesirable shift in that dynamic.
You know the BATFE has declared a shoelace to be a (constructive) machinegun?
Are you sure? It seems plausible that if a violent criminal knew he stood a fairly good chance of being “properly” stopped, he might decide to present fewer opportunities for that happening.
You know that swimming pools are about four time as deadly to children as unsecured firearms? And I mean actual children drowning in pools, not 19 year old gang member “children”. (Cue comment about someone carrying a swimming pool around with them for self-defense).
In defense of Argent Towers, my long-term anecdotal experiences talking with people in real life about guns is that when someone is opposed to “gun violence”, they rarely express it in complete terms. What you hear instead, to use some actual recent quotes from an office discussion, are things such as:
“I don’t like guns.”
“Guns scare me.”
“The thought that anyone who isn’t a cop has a gun terrifies me.”
“I’m afraid of guns. I don’t even want my kids in the same block as a gun. I wish I could get my homes association to take them all away.”
“I hate guns. I don’t even think cops should have them. Doesn’t England get by without them?”
In real life, I never hear people say words to the effect of “I think the risk of violence and increased suicide deaths due to the prevalence of guns is bad, and they should be restricted or banned to address this situation.” What we hear instead is “fear, hate, loathing”. So yes, there is an impression at least that a large number of people are actually terrified of guns. And no, I’m not going to play ring-around-the-citations on exactly how many people fear guns themselves, I’m merely expressing an anecdote.
Sorry, I meant all 5 together. I did not mean to post a singular “think of the children” point. All 5. Added up.
And your mention of the “cost of freedom” is very apt, I think. We can envision the argument 2 ways:
-
Individual freedom is paramount. I know that I am a stable individual, and I want the freedom to protect myself from outside dangers as I see fit. I feel that I will be more safe if I am able to carry a gun with me, and I don’t want my individual freedom restricted in any way. I don’t want to be forced to do anything I don’t want to do, including registering my gun, training with my gun, or being told how to store my gun. I am a responsible person, and will act responsibly without being told what to do.
-
I am willing to sacrifice some of my individual freedoms for the common good of society. I believe that having many guns in society is detrimental, as they will lead to an increased number of deaths (see the 5 points above). Society as a whole, will be worse off if we allow unfettered access to guns. I live in this society, and want it to be stable and functioning. Although I might feel personally safer if I carried a gun with me (as I’m a stable, safety conscious individual), I’m willing to sacrifice that freedom for the greater good of society.
In the continuum of individual freedom to responsibility to society, The United States has historically held individual freedoms to be paramount. Other societies have been much more concerned with an individual’s responsibility to society as a whole, even at the sacrifice of individual freedoms.
And you apparently saw some wording in there that I didn’t, because I didn’t see anything in the original quote about the “big kitchen knife sticking out of his pocket” not being in some kind of sheath. Of course it would be idiotic to stick a non-folding knife in your pocket without a sheath or wrap of some kind.
Why? I don’t ask this facetiously. I really don’t understand. I use my knife every single day. Flattening empty boxes at my bookstore. Cutting baling twine when I feed the horses. Cutting the seal over the cork of a wine bottle. Removing the shrink wrap or blister pack from something I’ve just purchased. Cutting a loose thread off my jacket. Why would I not “amble around in public” with my knife, and why would I go to excess trouble to hide it?
Zeriel said it well. That’s true of any nut. Including the kind of nut that freaks out over a tool because it could also be used as a weapon.
To be honest, I get frustrated with these type of people too–I mean, this is the politest response I’ve got to “we should register all guns” from the pro-private-gun-ownership side in YEARS. I just want you to not confuse “conservative” or “gun rights supporter” with “Republican”, I suppose, since I self-identify as conservative since my general preferences are for smaller government and lower taxes and more individual freedoms, but I’m registered Democrat and would prefer things like “lower taxes by cutting military spending intelligently” and “freedom means freedom for everyone, including people of all genders, orientations, and races” along with my gun-having flag-flying ways.
I concur, this is true. I merely think that knowing something about whether or not having a deadlier array of weapons choices makes these things more LIKELY or just more FATAL would be useful to know when it comes down to how best to craft regulation to combat it–if it’s found that guns exacerbate these kinds of situations then more psych testing of prospective carry permit holders might be in order, for example, or if guns don’t really add anything but lethality then a more generalized program of finding ways to reduce violent confrontation would be more societally beneficial.
If you ask me, I think the ideal solution is somewhere in the middle–my political philosophy is essentially legalizing any behavior that has little or no chance of harming others, and using training and licensing/registration to make as many behaviors and activities that don’t necessarily but might potentially harm others as safe as possible.
Uh huh. Nuts are mostly harmless, until they get a weapon.
Secondly, I’m trying to remember when a gun control advocate ever flipped out and killed somebody. Now, if a gun control advocate ever murdered someone with a firearm, that would be ironic.
Finally, I don’t know anyone who finds this “a gun is just a tool” argument particularly compelling. Seems like a disingenuous euphamism to me. “Oh, it’s just a tool, is it? And here I thought it was a device for rapidly propelling small missiles that results in the death or injury of about 100,000 Americans a year. But if it’s just a tool, it’s like my saw or my hammer.”
One of the nice things about living in a country with more freedom than the USA is that due to handgun restrictons I am significantly more free to live without the elevated risk of being shot that people in the USA suffer from. What it comes down to, is that up here in Kanukistan, my freedom to not be short trumps other people’s freedom to shoot people.
Remember, kids, freedom means both “freedom from” and “freedom to,” so it’s not a matter of there being absolutes – its a matter of finding a balance between different freedoms.