Thanks for chiming in with some real world data, even if it is anecdotal. I’m not a gun owner but have been to the range a few times, and it was pretty easy to hit a static target close by. My guess is my accuracy would suffer considerably if: a) the target were a living human being and b) he/she were shooting back at me.
A common argument (including in this very thread) are words to the effect of, “you break into my house, I will kill you”. Breaking and entering is a crime, and it has a punishment, and it is not the death penalty. Sure, the homeowner who surprises the burglar in flagrante does not have the inclination to delve into the criminal’s motivation or intent. Neither is he obligated to blow holes in him just because he can.
A lot of gun owners sound like they are just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.
I think you’ll find that’s a cultural thing that’s largely predominant in the US. Gun owners in Australia or New Zealand (for example) can legally only keep their guns for target shooting, hunting (or pest control) or historic/collecting reasons, and so are not generally given to going around hypothesising about “Zombie Apocalypses” or other such activities which can (to the layperson) sound a lot like “waiting for an excuse to kill someone”.
You’re right. It definitely resonates from the US. Along with the “protection from tyranny” meme. Inflammatory rhetoric notwithstanding, losing an election does not equal tyranny.
And I could totally get behind gun ownership to fend off the coming Zombie Apocalypse!
I think that anyone who gets a gun license anywhere should have to do a basic training period before hand .
So that they at the very least know that they should never point a weapon at anyone whether or not it is loaded, or if they even believe it is unloaded.
That they should never leave weapons lying around where children or bad guys can get hold of them.
That they know where the safety catch is located and how to operate it .
Also it worries me that drunks and idiots can own guns.
Note, just having been in the military/leo doesn’t make you an expert weapon handler .
If you have only fired at a stationery target on ranges at whatever distance; then you most certainly are not a weapons expert;for all that you can quote velocities and calibers.
We call weapons enthusiasts (who will most likely kill a member of their own family by accident then they ever will kill someone invading their home)CwGs,Clowns With Guns.
I’ve noticed that a lot of short people seem to be into gun culture.
It’s fairly well documented that people react differently under stress, and yes, accuracy does suffer. So does speed and accuracy. That said, most confrontations with a weapon happen at ranges between 5 and 10 feet, so it doesn’t matter very much. Point and shoot, you can hardly miss at that range.
No, there is no obligation to “blow holes in him because he can”, but should there be an obligation to wait for the demonstrated criminal to attempt to blow holes in me or my family before I may exercise my legal, moral and ethical right to protect myself? After all, he is in my house without permission, is he not? At what point do his rights end and mine begin? I’m not the criminal, he is.
Who is? I want you to think about this for a minute…if you kill someone:
You will be investigated.
You may be charged with a crime, and you may go to jail for a long time based on your actions.
Your actions will be open to criticism, and publicly.
People will call you a killer and your family will bear that burden whether you were right or not.
You may lose a large civil judgment.
Even if you win a favorable judgment in the courts it frequently financially breaks you due to the legal costs of defending yourself.
And, of course…
You have to live every single day for the test of your life knowing that you have ended somebody’s life. Talk to soldiers and ask them how they feel about that even though they had no other choice. I think you’ll find that it’s only taken lightly in the movies.
There is a substantial difference between “waiting for an excuse to kill somebody” and being ready and willing to do so. I am the latter, not the former. And because of the potential consequences of such an action (which I have clearly contemplated), it is an absolute action of last resort. That’s a far cry from what you implied with your statement.
I think that gun debates draw extremists from both sides, and that calm argument is often lost in the chaff. Heck, all you have to do is look at the title of the thread. The OP claimed that he could not think of a better description than “Gun Nuts”. He has already made up his mind about gun owners.
As a gun owner that knows lots of gun owners my knowledge of them is that they are not itching to shoot someone, just that they could if they had to. There is a huge disconnect between those that are against guns and their knowledge about gun owners. This thread with “Gun Nuts” in the title shows that clearly.
The gun owners that I know are not as a group particularly short. :rolleyes: As a group, in my experience, they are generally folks that tend to lean towards self sufficiency. That anecdotal ‘data’ is probably skewed though because of where I live.
On the contrary, factor in adrenaline, terror and panic and I think you can and will miss quite often. Owning a gun makes you a gun owner. It does not make you James Bond.
Wow, I think this is encroaching on reductio ad absurdum territory. You can and should protect yourself and your family, and heck, even your flat-screen TV, from miscreants. But there may be alternatives to lethal force, you know?
Think about it for a minute? I’ve spent considerably longer than that on this issue. My words here are considered. I am not shooting from the hip (oh, the irony…).
As for who is sounding like I described…do I really need cites? I saw a group on Facebook just in the last day or two that called itself something like “How do I feel about gun control? Break into my house one night and find out.” Charming…
Wow, that was a rather long and detailed counter. Did I hit a nerve? Because my post was not directed at you in specific. I don’t even know you.
You say you have thought this through, along with its implications. Good for you. I know a lot of gun owners. In my opinion, there is a great deal of bravado in that crowd, and not all of them have given the issue the same amount of thought.
As for my statement, I was not implying anything. I was stating it. As my considered, though humble, opinion.
Sheess. Hit a nerve? Perhaps yours? Facebook is how you ‘know’ gun owners?
Your post is so full of fallacy and fear that there is really no point in responding. Gun owners try and try again to educate others about guns, and those that are anti-gun. And again and again those that refuse education let it go in one ear and out the other.
I’ll let doors respond point on point if he chooses to push a rope.
Even if I owned a gun, here’s what I’d do during a home invasion: gather my family up, call 911, and cower in a corner hoping to god the invader(s) had the good sense and decency not to come poking around in a bedroom. If I were really concerned about a home invasion (I’m not), I’d install heavy metal doors and whatever else you can do to harden one or more of the bedrooms and have big deadbolts on all of them. Then I’d sit there clutching my gun and hoping I didn’t have to use it. Of course, at that point the gun isn’t really doing a whole lot, and if I had a limited budget I’d rather spend it on beefing up my panic room than on training myself to be able to hit targets in the dark under stress.
Now, some people live in apartments, or don’t have bedrooms close to their kids, or for whatever reason can’t do the whole panic room thing. And I have no doubt that some people (I have friends who live in shitty neighborhoods) honestly benefit from having a handgun for protection. But I also have lots of peers who live in nice safe suburbs like mine who still think that the best protection they can offer their family is a handgun. And I kinda feel like rolling my eyes at those people. Is that wrong?
I think almost every gun owner thinks that way, most of them think that way for sure. I always carry a gun and I dont want to use it. All the cops I know hope they never have to use their sidearms. It is normal. I pay the police a lot of money in my taxes and I expect them to do the work that I pay them for. I should not have to do the job that I pay them for, but as a last resort, only as a last resort, will if I have to.
Oh, contrare…the gun is STILL!!! doing a lot. That gun that you are holding in a corner with your family behind you is your insurance and your protection if the cops dont get there in time. You should be VERY thankful that you are holding a gun, and not a wet noodle.
For someone to say that the gun is not doing a lot , is like saying your home, car, and life insurance are not worth having.
With a gun, I can stop anything mortal. That ain’t necessarily so with other weapons or unarmed. Plus, I don’t know what the intruder is packing, and I’m not inclined to ask him.
Shooting a home invader is not punitive. I’m not punishing him for his crime, I’m protecting my life. I reason thusly: I live in the rural South. It is common knowledge that most homes in this area will have at least one gun in them. A guy that’s willing to break in to an occupied home knowing the residents are probably armed is either insane, drugged out of his gourd, or otherwise dangerous. Such a person poses an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to all inside. I’m going to eliminate that threat by the surest means available. I refuse to cower in my own home, hoping the police arrive in time to protect me and mine.
I do not personally know ANY!! gun owner, not a single one, that is" itching to shoot someone",…and that also includes some of my friends who are police.
All things considered, a handgun is undeniably the best self-defense tool ever invented, cheapest, handiest, easiest to carry, most reliable, most effective, and that is why all American police carry a handgun for self defense.
If “that” is what your peers are saying, then they are absolutely correct, and rolling your eyes at them, or rolling your eyes at your local armed police force, would be juvenile and an uninformed wrong reaction.
Until, and unless, a better personal self defense tool is ever invented, then there is no better protection in the world that you can carry besides a handgun, and cops, and American citizens, will continue to carry our handguns until something better comes along…if ever.
I’d like to sidestep this argument and point out that I still don’t feel that a handgun is the best strategy for self defence. Using one means necesarily making yourself vulnerable to a retaliatory strike, and I would do everything imaginable to avoid the situation. I’m guessing you’d agree. And yet, it seems like a lot of my friends/acquaintances live in flimsy houses in bad neighborhoods with lots of easily stolen stuff hidden behind a $10 lock in a hollow wooden door and then talk about how their handguns are for protection. It can certainly be a useful element in a defensive strategy, but I guess I feel that it’s over-emphasized far too often.
Bottom line: I think it will be a VERY long time before we start to see very many American policemen going to work without wearing their handgun for their own personal self protection.
Nobody yet has come up with a better idea than carrying a handgun.
Hi Enipla, I don’t believe we’ve met. Thanks for taking the time to respond, even if condescendingly. Having a bad day?
I mentioned Facebook as an example from yesterday. A lot of my friends are gun owners. Two of my good friends installed auto seers in their AR-15s. You of course know what this means, but for the rest of those reading along who may not, that means they converted their semi-automatics (illegally) into full auto. I have fired those guns, as well as too many others to list here. And my sister, a sheriff’s deputy, has been kind enough to take me out to the range on occasion where we fire everything from the arsenal she carries in the trunk of her squad car. I am by no means an expert on guns, but I have handled plenty in my day. You needn’t “educate” me, but thanks for your concern.
I’m not sure what you read in my post that you confused with fear. Perhaps you should go back again and read it more closely. I assure you, I am not afraid. Perhaps if I were I would buy a gun…
I stand by my statement, clarified to eschew obfuscation: **in my opinion and experience, **a lot of gun owners sound like they are just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.
The above is not aimed at you – and if it does not apply to you, it should not rankle you, either.
Umm… sorry, but much as I am personally in favor of gun possession, the “Minuteman” myth isn’t born out by history. The British were defeated, if you can call it that, by Washington’s Continental Army who were full-time regulars. And they won basically by not losing- by withdrawing rather than be annihilated by superior British forces. Almost every battle Washington fought was technically a British victory in that the Continentals had to yield to the British. And Washington himself, the general charged with winning the war, is on record as being extremely dubious of the effectiveness of local militia.
As would I. There’s not a television in the world worth shooting someone over. But if he had a weapon? BOOM. Sorry about your luck, criminal. Do you think I would seriously ask him what his intentions were?
If that’s wrong, well, I’m as wrong as can be. But my son is still alive, as is my wife. And that’s the bottom line.
It rankles me because you, and many anti-gun follks try to put me in the same group with your friends that are illegally modifing semi auto weapons to full auto (for the record, that is the stupidist thing you could do to an AR-15, an otherwise fine rifle). And your Sister is a cop. So turn your friends in. Instead, you come down on legal gun owners as wanting to just shoot someone down.
In your words “waiting for an excuse to kill someone”. These are your friends, certainly not mine.
None of my friends use there guns in an illegal maner. Or modify them to make them illegal.
