Point well taken here, I also despair of any quick and effective solution to the problem. But we are presented with the proposition that no problem exists, and that is quite another matter altogether.
If we have no other solution but the agonizingly slow process of changing our culture by promoting sane and sensible views, we face a disheartening and tiresome prospect, to be sure. But the rock will not roll itself uphill, we do no one any favors by letting nonsense carry the day.
While I agree with the general gist of your post, I don’t agree (and I don’t have any cites) that firearms or as scarce or as hard to acquire in European countries as you state. Perhaps more difficult than in the US, but I imagine any crook hellbent on getting a weapon can pretty easily obtain one if they have the money to buy it.
What’s that old gag Robin Williams used to do about the bobbies in England trying to catch a criminal?
“Stop!! Or I’ll yell stop again!”
I’m a pro-gun person and I’ve never argued that the most dangerous societies ought to be the ones without firearms. Violence in my mind is a combination of various things, some socioeconomic, some cultural, and some of it being based on government stability.
Combine a weak government with poverty and a culture of violence and you’ll find a blood bath. Look at Juarez, Mexico for an example of what I’m talking about.
Whether or not the people are legally allowed to own guns to me, isn’t an important figure in assessing criminality in a population.
The United States has a higher crime rate than many countries with fewer guns, but we also have a lower crime rate than many countries with less guns.
If you carry a weapon for self defense you should be trained in its proper use, if you’re not then you shouldn’t carry one. If you don’t think being able to return fire is ever useful then I think you should probably (if you’re interested) do some studying, because that’s an asinine argument. You make a lot of assumptions in this thread, like, “If I’m ever shot at, I’ll be hit with a mortal wound first, so what good would a gun do?” Something you’ll be surprised to know is a lot of people who use firearms have horrible aim because they don’t know how to use them properly. There’s a reason that many times when forces of the United States military are ambushed we end up killing more of the ambushers than they kill us, even with them having the first shots and the tactical advantage. In the Army we stressed accuracy, in a lot of unorganized militias the focus seems to be more on maximizing the number of bullets sent flying through the air. With effective cover and superior accuracy boys not far out of high school can kill many times their own number of ambushing insurgents.
For the record though, I don’t carry a weapon for self defense because I don’t think I need one. I feel very safe in the United States, the small chance I’d ever need a gun to me is outweighed by the inconvenience of carrying.
As for your nerves under fire, with proper training being shot at isn’t enough to unnerve you, one issue with people who carry firearms for self defense is of course most of them probably aren’t sufficiently trained to be at that point.
A gun could definitely be used to scare away an assailant if the assailant is unarmed–and I’m definitely sure this is the case in a home defense situation when the assailant is an unarmed burglar who was hoping to find a house unoccupied.
But one must never assume a gun can be carried as a scare device. Years ago after my father died my mother started to get a little uneasy about going out alone sometimes (especially to the bank and such to get money) and about living by herself. It was a bit of an irrational fear, but she asked me one day if I could come show her how to use my dad’s old revolver. The first thing I told her was, “If you’re not willing to kill someone with it, then you shouldn’t even pick it up.” She ended up giving his guns to me instead. Using a gun to scare someone away could just lead to escalation, and at that point if you aren’t willing to use it then it could end up being used against you.
What number of automobile accident deaths per year would you find unacceptable?
What number of accidental poisoning deaths per year would you find unacceptable?
What number of accidental falling deaths per year would you find unacceptable?
What number of accidental choking deaths per year would you find unacceptable?
What number of accidental drowning deaths per year would you find unacceptable?
All of these lead firearms for accidental deaths.
Unless you think that the National Safety Council is in the pockets of the evil gun lobby?
Accidents are, by definition, preventable. Yet with ~300,000,000 million firearms in ~40,000,000 homes, and less than 1,000 accidental firearms deaths per year, I think gun owners are doing pretty good, safety-wise.
So why are firearms given disproportionate attention when it comes to accidental deaths?
I’m sure you know the answer (as your question is rhetorical!): politics. Hot button issue. Guns=bad.
And I thought we where talking about the 20/20 show.
Opps…
We where untill the rabid anti-gun folks showed up.
All very interesting subjects, perhaps we should talk about them sometime.
Huh?
That answers the question. Coulda just said that. So, thousand a year is “pretty good”. Call that C plus, then? Definitely acceptable? So “unacceptable” is somewhere north of there? OK, question answered.
And who’s to say “disproportionate”? I’m even more firmly against drunk driving, there just isn’t ever a debate on that subject. You want to take the opposite position, we could, I suppose…
But far more than that, they are a malign presence in our entire culture. Open your local newspaper to the movie ad page: guns galore, guns a-go-go, hot chicks with guns, slick dudes with guns, Flipper’s got a gun…
Maybe a page full of erect throbbing members and bouncing titties wouldn’t be all that great, but it’d be a damn sight more healthy!
But as said before and saying again: if they’re that important to you, just keep the goddam things, muzzle tov, much good may it do you. Its important, but not that damn important, not to see a huge swath of the population go apeshit.
That works in Narnia. Or at least it did for, like, the first three days Narnia existed. Also it was a Colt, not an S & W, not that it matters much. Anyway, the revolver tree is part of the very sad story about the extinction of the Narnian were-mongoose, a tale Professor Lewis was working on at the time of his assassination.
If the gun had never been invented then yes, I would agree with your position. That isn’t the case. Why is it nutty to want to have the capability to protect yourself, your home, your family members or even your fellow citizens of Country X with the means necessary to do so if it actually came to that?
Dude, 13,500 people die in drunk driving accidents every year, an amount that isn’t changing despite MADD, seatbelts, airbags, etcetera.
Why isn’t 1,000 deaths amongst a population of hundreds of millions an acceptable figure re: guns? Sure, we’d all prefer it to be zero, but that isn’t reality, is it?
FTR, I don’t own a gun and will not as long as I have small children. Risk/reward. But why begrudge those that do so responsibly?
Like on a full moon, they run out and pick fights with cobras?
[hijack]
Of course not. That would be silly. Only in the world of Men is the transformation of the were-creature governed by the cycle of the moon.
You are SO going to get killed if you ever go to Narnia. You’re just operating on all the wrong assumptions.
[/hijack]
Dude, Narnia is ridiculous, no way Jesus was a Leo.
Jesus was SO a cop!
So, we should quit trying? Well, is it ok if we don’t?
'Acceptable" is your call.
I don’t like something, so I try and change people’s mind about it. I know, kinda weird. But I’ve seen some bad stuff get better because of people trying, and I like that. So, maybe zero is impossible, because of “reality”. But then again, maybe it isn’t.
Are you actually *trying *to summon kanicbird and Lacunae Quell to the thread?
…people are going to die before old age strikes them no matter how many precautions we take against health risk “this” or public safety “that”.
I am behind you when it comes to minimizing unnecessary and/or preventable death, seriously, no matter the cause, be it guns, drunk driving or whatever. I mean, who likes that?
But, I don’t think your stance on guns is realistic, for the multitude of reasons already described.
Right.
So back to the subject at hand. The OP and the 20/20 episode If I only had a gun
As I was saying, I think that the test in the classroom was more than just a set up. The ‘student’ was always in the same seat. The ‘gunman’ knew what target to go for as soon as he entered the classroom.
This ‘test’ was interesting, but loaded from the very start. The student never had a chance. The test was designed that he wouldn’t have a chance.
I did say that perhaps there is a ‘gun show’ loop hole. Maybe it is too easy to buy a firearm. I’ll be willing to listen to that argument.
Bigotry?
This is not exactly GD material. Ad homonym attacks and calling people names will not advance your agenda.
Your calm civility is a beacon to us all.
You find gun nut offensive? I thought it was a badge of honor. Then I apologize for the offense.
Horseshit.
Stranger