I don't need the State's permission to defend myself (Gun Control)

[Francis_Vaughan]

@Uzi

My wife works at home. She has MS and can’t run.

The scenario is, unfortunatly, this. Unless the intruder is a psychopathic killer, she will be no threat, and he will probably leave taking what he wants. On the other hand, if your disabled wife attempts to pull a gun on him, the chances of her surviving are basically zero. Even if the intruder were unarmed, my best is that your wife will be killed with her own weapon. It’s harsh, and not comforting. But unless you know exactly what you are doing, are well trained, fit, and completely prepared to kill, the chances of your successfully defending yourself, and not being killed are slim.

Really what the argument is about is that the stupid, mentally unbalanced, unreliable people, and the those who associate with them, should be protected, while competent, sane, intelligent and reliable people shouldn’t have the best opportunity to defend themselves, usually from the latter. And thus the gene pool gets shallower.

No it isn’t. It simply that the vast majority of totally sane, balanced, inteligent, and reliable people still can’t be trusted with a weapon, if their only idea is that it is for personal protection. They won’t be trained well enough, won’t have any idea how to react in a true threatening siutation, won’t be prepared for the violence of an attack, and it will all go to shit. Next, world wide experience is that enough of those otherwise sane, intelligent, balanced, reliable people will turn out to not be quite so good as you hoped. And it is pretty to hard to tell who is who. Who is going to suddenly discover their spouse is being unfaithful? Who is going to suffer an acute depressive episode? Who is going come home one day and find their 6 year old kid dead after playing with a weapon. A weapon in no good locked in a safe unloaded. If you are sincere about it as defense, it is close to hand and loaded. Perfect for very nasty accidents. You are suggesting that not just you, but every other “normal” person is totally trustworthy in this respect. The simple sad truth is that they are not.

I expect government to protect me from idiots who think they are smart enough to be trusted with a weapon for their own self protection, despite considerable evidence that they cannot be so trusted.

The thought experiment. Imagine you go to work everyday, and you know that every person in your workplace is carrying a concealed, loaded, weapon. If you travel
on public transport, every person on the bus, train, tram. If you go out in the evening, every single person in the bar, restaurant, sports field. Every single one of them carrying. Do you feel safer or not? Because if you can’t trust every one of those people with a weapon, there is no reason why they should trust you with one.

[Der_Trihs]

@jtgain

The common theme I keep hearing is that while gun ownership is a constitutional right, we need “reasonable regulation” and that permits and licensing are reasonable restrictions on a constitutional right.

Fine. How about also requiring a permit to engage in free speech? Or to go to church?

Or how about those things that have been put into the constitution by judges? Henceforth government permission will be required to have an abortion, engage in sodomy, and interracial marriage (above and beyond the normal marriage license).

Acceptable?

“Reasonable regulation” is a different standard for different things. We don’t need a permit for free speech; but we do have libel laws, copyright, the “no shouting fire in a crowded theater” principle and so forth. Trying to hold radically different activities all to the same standard is unreasonable.

And judges don’t “put things into the constitution”.

[Francis_Vaughan]

@Odesio

You suspect this, why?

Because they are mostly domestic homicides. There is no reason to link them with any other form of crime. Note the point - there was no other crime involved in the homicide. No drugs, no other criminal activity. Just a simple argument at home. We can’t know that they are not all criminals or unhinged. But the general reality seems that they are not. Here in Oz, most of our murders are total out of the blue surprises. Out of character, and utterly unexpected. Passion, money, sudden psycotic episodes. Now sure, we have a little more than one fifth the number of murders for the population than the US, so maybe you have a special demographic we don’t have, one of unhinged, unstable, or criminals, who murder their families. But I doubt it. Is the US so cursed with a some sort of hitherto unidentifed blight of character? One not shared by the rest of the planet? No. The US citizens seem to mostly be like the rest of the world. The biggest threat is from those you know and love. The only difference is the success of the dispute resolution.

[Uzi]

@Francis_Vaughan

The scenario is, unfortunatly, this. Unless the intruder is a psychopathic killer, she will be no threat,

Yes, criminals have a nose for people who threaten them. Kind of like dogs smelling fear. They wouldn’t think of raping her, of course. No, criminals don’t do that sort of thing to defenseless women.
And, btw, people do manage to use guns to protect themselves without killing themselves and their children in the process.

I expect government to protect me from idiots who think they are smart enough to be trusted with a weapon for their own self protection, despite considerable evidence that they cannot be so trusted.

So, how are they doing protecting you from criminals? That working out well, is it? You perceive law abiding citizens as more of a threat than criminals. That explains why you think my wife should place her fate in the hands of one, I guess.

Do you feel safer or not? Because if you can’t trust every one of those people with a weapon, there is no reason why they should trust you with one.

Well given your scenario of how unstable people are, I’m not sure I should trust them with cars, voting, or being able to raise children. They should get licenses for all of them.
When I hunted when I was younger, I always felt safe when I carried a weapon. I never had an accident. I never committed suicide, nor had the desire to. I never felt the need to let small children play with it to see if they’d blow their fool heads off. I never felt like shooting at shadows at night, nor even shooting at deer that I couldn’t clearly identify. The only time I felt unsafe was when I met others out hunting when I didn’t have a weapon on me. You’re miles from anywhere and no phone to call the helpful policeman (50 miles away). There is nothing that generates a polite conversation between two law-abiding people than knowing each are packing.

[Francis_Vaughan]

I have had one friend killed in a hunting accident, and one friend’s nephew commit suicide with a gun. I am happy you feel so safe. Just don’t kid yourself.

The only time I felt unsafe was when I met others out hunting when I didn’t have a weapon on me.

You were really worried that you would meet someone unstable enough, and armed, that your felt vulnerable? Vulnernable enough that you felt you would need to defend youself by killing someone? Your fellow hunters are that evil? And their attitude to you? I think you make my point.

The point about your wife, and other self defense issues is this. Yes, people have indeed managed to sucessfully defend themselves. However your chance of doing so is slim. It depends upon how much you want to play the odds. Very few people have ever experienced the full force of a physical assault. They have no idea of the explosive force and sheer shock that comes with it. If you imagine that you will be able defend youself with a handgun you have been watching too many Hollywood movies. Even if you can find the gun, and fire it, you will almost certainly miss. About now you are dead.

If you had serious training, were continually recertified in that training, in both defense and weapon use, then I might consider that you were not as big a risk. Until I look at the number of police officers that are killed with their own weapons. Their training was not enough. Are you better than them? Is your wife?

Governments should work the odds. How many people will die due to accidents and failed attempts to defend themselves versus the few that somehow manage to defend themselves successfully (most of whom would probably not have been killed.) The answer is always that more people die with lots of guns than not. Any responsible government looks at the outcomes, and works for the maxium benefit. This is what you have a right to expect of government. Sadly many are swayed by vocal special interst groups and they water down their actions. This is abrogation of responsibility. Your right is for a government that is not so swayed. Pity about that.

There is nothing that generates a polite conversation between two law-abiding people than knowing each are packing.

Every day, everywhere? At work, travel, sports events, down the bar? Seriously? Because that is the right that is being argued for. It isn’t just about how sure you are in your own personal stabilty and competance. You must expect that every other person out there is minimally as competent, careful and stable as you. The argument is clear - it is asserted that the governemnt should not control the rights of any of them to carry. Not you, them.

[Der_Trihs]

@Uzi

I never felt like shooting at shadows at night, nor even shooting at deer that I couldn’t clearly identify. The only time I felt unsafe was when I met others out hunting when I didn’t have a weapon on me. You’re miles from anywhere and no phone to call the helpful policeman (50 miles away). There is nothing that generates a polite conversation between two law-abiding people than knowing each are packing.

If so ( and I doubt it ) then they are foolish. Having a gun doesn’t make you safer from another person with a gun. If that other guy decided to shoot you, you’d be shot before you could do a thing to stop him; outside of Wild West fantasies, when both guns are in the holster, the guy who decides to attack first wins. The same goes for anyone lurking in those shadows; all you having a gun means is that they’d have an extra gun if they wanted it after they took it.

[Uzi]

@Francis_Vaughan

You were really worried that you would meet someone unstable enough, and armed, that your felt vulnerable? Vulnernable enough that you felt you would need to defend youself by killing someone? Your fellow hunters are that evil? And their attitude to you? I think you make my point.

Do you feel comfortable being around people with guns? Apparently not. I prefer to be as armed as the next guy. To say I feel safer may be overstating the case. I do feel more comfortable.

The point about your wife, and other self defense issues is this. …

One thing I know for sure is that if she doesn’t have a gun (and she doesn’t nor do I), then she has absolutely zero chance of defending herself. None. Not one chance in a gazillion. As would few people of limited mobility who were surprised in their house by an assailant. But, if she heard someone breaking in and had a chance to get to a weapon then I’d give her a far better chance. As would anyone who has a chance to prepare themselves.

[MichaelQReilly]

@jtgain

The common theme I keep hearing is that while gun ownership is a constitutional right, we need “reasonable regulation” and that permits and licensing are reasonable restrictions on a constitutional right.

Fine. How about also requiring a permit to engage in free speech? Or to go to church?

Of these two examples, only one is anything like guns, the speech issue - in that it can also be very dangerous in the wrong situation. Not surprisingly, we have certain restrictions on speech (including needing a permit for public gatherings). The other isn’t really dangerous in any real way. Ergo no restrictions.

[Der_Trihs]

@Uzi

One thing I know for sure is that if she doesn’t have a gun (and she doesn’t nor do I), then she has absolutely zero chance of defending herself. None. Not one chance in a gazillion. As would few people of limited mobility who were surprised in their house by an assailant. But, if she heard someone breaking in and had a chance to get to a weapon then I’d give her a far better chance. As would anyone who has a chance to prepare themselves.

And a better chance of getting killed, as pointed out above.

[Lightnin]

@Uzi

I prefer to be as armed as the next guy. To say I feel safer may be overstating the case. I do feel more comfortable.

Same here. I’d prefer that neither one of us have a gun.

[Uzi]

@Der_Trihs

If so ( and I doubt it ) then they are foolish. Having a gun doesn’t make you safer from another person with a gun. If that other guy decided to shoot you, you’d be shot before you could do a thing to stop him; outside of Wild West fantasies, when both guns are in the holster, the guy who decides to attack first wins.

Uh, "between two law-abiding people " was my statement. I don’t know how drug dealers interact other than what I see on TV or in the movies.

The same goes for anyone lurking in those shadows; all you having a gun means is that they’d have an extra gun if they wanted it after they took it.

Do you mean that if you are hunting and someone decides to snipe you that you have no defense? Really? I guess I had better hope he is a horrible shot then because before your statement I thought that carrying a gun made one bullet-proof. But how would it be different if you were riding your bike, or taking a walk in those same woods?
My point was that I just don’t fire blindly in the woods at any movement in the hopes that there is a deer there. I’m not Dick Cheney who thinks that his duck hunting partner is a duck. You must clearly identify what you are shooting at before you shoot (well maybe Cheney did, you never know). You should also know what is behind your target because bullets have a tendency to travel further than you’d expect, especially if you miss. That’s just basic hunting safety that should be taught when you take your hunting course. Any hunter should know that. Geez, the last time I hunted was ~30 years ago and I know that.

[Uzi]

@Lightnin

Same here. I’d prefer that neither one of us have a gun.

Mostly, ditto.
But, I guess you’d have to wrestle the deer to the ground to get their meat, though.

[Lightnin]

@Uzi

Mostly, ditto.
But, I guess you’d have to wrestle the deer to the ground to get their meat, though.

You don’t often see people hunting with a pistol.

Personally, I don’t have much against guns. Rifles are tools which *can *be used violently (and I kinda want one- damn deer are driving my dogs nuts lately!). Pistols, on the other hand, pretty much have *one *use. It’s also fairly easy to see if a stranger has a rifle- pistols, not so much.

[Der_Trihs]

@Uzi

Uh, "between two law-abiding people " was my statement. I don’t know how drug dealers interact other than what I see on TV or in the movies.

Apparently just like hunters, judging from what you’ve been saying. And it’s those “law abiding” people you were afraid to speak to unarmed.

@Uzi

Do you mean that if you are hunting and someone decides to snipe you that you have no defense? Really? I guess I had better hope he is a horrible shot then because before your statement I thought that carrying a gun made one bullet-proof. But how would it be different if you were riding your bike, or taking a walk in those same woods?

It wouldn’t. The point I was making is that if you thought having a gun made you safer from the murderous criminals you seem to think are swarming everywhere, you were fooling yourself.

[BrandonR]

@Lightnin

Same here. I’d prefer that neither one of us have a gun.

And I’d prefer that everyone be nice and for candy to rain from the sky, but in the real world, real criminals have real guns and commit real murders every single day.

And for people who ask “where should self defense end” and start talking about if they should be allowed claymore mines or nuclear bombs as self defense weapons, I say stop being ridiculous. A simple gun will likely be able to defend you in just about any situation regardless of what kind of weapon the criminal has. The whole point of self defense is to be able to defend yourself (and possible incapacitate the criminal) while not harming others. You obviously can’t ensure that if you were allowed grenades or fully-automatic machine guns, hence them being illegal or not readily available.

[BrandonR]

@Der_Trihs

Apparently just like hunters, judging from what you’ve been saying. And it’s those “law abiding” people you were afraid to speak to unarmed.

It wouldn’t. The point I was making is that if you thought having a gun made you safer from the murderous criminals you seem to think are swarming everywhere, you were fooling yourself.

Well murderous criminals are indeed “everywhere.” Granted, the probability is on your side that you probably won’t run into them or get murdered in your lifetime, but that doesn’t negate the fact that there are thousands of murders each year in the US. Add to that robberies and car jackings and other forcible felonies that could be prevented by a firearm and you’re looking at a higher chance that an armed person would have to use their weapon at some point during their life.

Regardless, my point is my life is something I only get one chance at and I want to take every precaution to ensure it’s not ended prematurely by some lunatic. That is what self defense is, and the government should not be able to take that most fundamental right away. I’m not like some of the gun rights people who say the government should have no restrictions on machine guns for example, but I do believe handguns have a clear place in our society.

You don’t have to look far to see all the examples of people successfully defending themselves with a handgun: The Armed Citizen (formerly the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog)

[Der_Trihs]

@BrandonR

Add to that robberies and car jackings and other forcible felonies that could be prevented by a firearm and you’re looking at a higher chance that an armed person would have to use their weapon at some point during their life.

Or more likely just get killed actually trying to live out his Rambo fantasies.

@BrandonR

Regardless, my point is my life is something I only get one chance at and I want to take every precaution to ensure it’s not ended prematurely by some lunatic. That is what self defense is, and the government should not be able to take that most fundamental right away.

And what about other people wanting to be safe from you and your gun?

[Uzi]

@Der_Trihs

It wouldn’t. The point I was making is that if you thought having a gun made you safer from the murderous criminals you seem to think are swarming everywhere, you were fooling yourself.

And the point I was making is that I’m not the person who is going to blow off someone’s head accidentally. It won’t happen ever even if I owned a gun. There would never be an accidental discharge. There wouldn’t be loved ones gunned down in the night. I wouldn’t use it to put a bullet in my own head. I wouldn’t leave it out for little kids to play with. Etc. The only reason the government would deny me a firearm is to protect the bad guys, or zombies.
Now you might ask how would the government know I am the type of person to be trusted with a firearm? Maybe they should work on figuring that one out rather than denying me a basic right because of what all the incompetent idiots have done to pad the stats. Because even if you take all the stats of unfortunate incidents you fail to take into account how many weapons are out there and how many people don’t have these incidents.

[Der_Trihs]

@Uzi

And the point I was making is that I’m not the person who is going to blow off someone’s head accidentally. It won’t happen ever even if I owned a gun. There would never be an accidental discharge. There wouldn’t be loved ones gunned down in the night. I wouldn’t use it to put a bullet in my own head. I wouldn’t leave it out for little kids to play with.

I expect that’s what most people who end up responsible for those things think and say.

@Uzi

Etc. The only reason the government would deny me a firearm is to protect the bad guys, or zombies.

Or innocent bystanders, or the public in general. As far as I’m concerned, guns should be a rarity; they endanger everyone by being so omnipresent. Both due to accidents, and because legal gun owners serve as a collective armory for the criminals of the world.

[Uzi]

@Der_Trihs

I expect that’s what most people who end up responsible for those things think and say.

Yes, but for the most part they’d be correct in saying the same thing I said. In all the time I did own a gun, in the three years I carried one in the military, I have never had any of the things happen that the OP is worried about. So, I guess I was correct.