# What's With The Guns? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 28, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298 "2005-02-28T14:59:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/201 "2005-03-01T23:16:56Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Your problem is that you automatically equate firearms to death, chaos, and destruction. This is implicit in your statement. (“At what _ **cost** _…”) While it’s obvious you view firearms as Evil Tools of Death[sup]TM[/sup], I have an _opposite_ view: firearms are tools of _ **life** _. IMO they help _free_ people from bondage. Do you see the problem now? You equate firearms with death, while I equate firearms with life. We’ve been giving pretty good evidence for showing how the danger of guns being used as Evil Tools of Death[sup]TM[/sup], is in our view not counterbalanced by evidence of the opposite. So yes, we see a serious problem with you equating firearms with life. > [@](#): > > Oh, and by the way: I think everyone should have a fully automatic Barrett .50 BMG in their closet. Seriously. Surely you mean everyone who is _responsible_. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Gee, I wasn’t aware the NRA was around in 1791… :rolleyes: You know what? They weren’t needed then, because back then, it made a lot more sense to own guns than it does now. These days, this right needs to be defended because apparently it is not quite obvious to everyone that it makes sense to own guns, and this is so strange. Thank god we have the NRA to help us fight this silly ignorance. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/202 "2005-03-01T23:17:01Z")
Carrying a weapon for personal protection is unknown here. What price does this foolishness carry? And why are you equating not carrying guns with cowardice? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/203 "2005-03-01T23:18:07Z")
Oops. I should’ve quoted **catsix** in my last post. ---
**Author:** ![trupa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@trupa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trupa)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/204 "2005-03-01T23:27:28Z")
> [@Rebekkah](#): > > And, I’m considering the gun range idea after reading this thread, if I ever find someone to take me. It might be worth it just to learn how a gun works, should I ever come across one. I’ll take the risk of answering right here, without reading the rest of the thread… I would be delighted, **Rebekkah** , if you would do me the pleasure of acompanying me to a fine shooting establishment in Calgary, where, after a safety briefing, and probably firing a .22 caliber firearm for a few rounds to get over the “_gee, I’m actually shooting a REAL gun_” effect, you may chose to try just about any kind & caliber of firearm, rifle or handgun, to shoot, under individual supervision of a trained & qualified range safety officer (RSO) Hec, any other Calgary dopers are welcome too! Maybe this will turn into a uniquely Albertan dopefest! Feel free to PM me for logistics and with questions, if you prefer that to posting. First let me tell you my story: I’m a boringly ordinary 35 yr old French-Canadian engineer, married, with a 2.5 yr old son. Besides playing with my son, I like cooking, reading SF novels, golfing, and have a facination with beautifull and well made instuments that work well. That’s why I love nice fountain pens and top-quality tools. 'nuff about me. Suffice it to say that I don’t consider myself a gun nut. (_well, maybe now a gun nerd._😛 ) About a year ago, my wife and I went to the above establishment on a “date” night, just for something different to do. We had seen an add in “where” magazine. We tried 22’s, then 9mm and a few others. When, for sentimental reasons, I tried a particular pistol my Dad had carried in WWII\*, I got hooked. Speaking for myself only, I found that this gives me a “rush” that doesn’t fade until a few hours afterwards. The concentration, the skills development, the bang, the flash, the recoil… It was a lot like when I used to skydive before marriage, a part-time MBA, and fatherhood came along ::wistfull sigh:: . A weekend of skydiving was an intense experience. When I went back to work on the Monday morning, I felt like I was coming back from a 2 week vacation. An add in a Skydiving magazine said “\*Studies have shown it’s impossible to skydive and think about work at the same time…” \* For me, shooting is like that, in a smaller dose, with a lot less driving, and a lot less time commitment. (_And without the frustration and humiliation of golf_ 😃 ) After a night at the range, I feel pleasantly spent, more serene, and I am much more charitably disposed towards the rest of the world. Worries and frustrations feel more “handleable”. I have more patience with my family. I guess it’s cathartic, in an “extreme-zen” kind of way… Taking the Canadian Firearm Safety course was a real eye-opener for me in terms of learning about the extent of the very strict regulations in Canada. It was also comforting to learn how to be safe with firearms. I’m afraid if you really want to learn about how to be safe around most common types of firearms, which means knowing how to unload them and confirm they are unloaded, you would have to take this course. A few trips to a range are not enough, just a good start. When I was jumping, I used to get kidded about how carefully I packed my rig, and how long I took doing it. The guys would jokingly offer me a steam iron to “finish the job”. (_Moden parachutes can be packed in a remarkably careless manner and still open reliably)_ I have the same relentless, unapologetically anal attitude towards firearm safety, and so do the RSOs at this facility. I woudn’t have stayed there otherwise. I believe you are sincere, and genuinely curious about this, so I would like to offer you a chance to experience this from a first person perspective. I hope you take me up on it. \*Gun/history geekage, for those of you intetested: It was a Kimber .45 1911 Custom Gold Combat. yes. \*that \* was a range gun. Told you it’s a nice place… 😃 They also have Sigs & Berettas. My Dad had traded his Webley .38 revolver to an American major, who only believed in revolvers, for a 1911. When I shot it, I finally understood what all those writers say when they talk about something feeling like a natural extension of your hand. It was incredibly natural, comfortable. Almost effortless. I still have to work on my fundamentals, but I was shooting 4" 8rd groups at 15 yds my first time, vs. shotgun patterns with the double-stack 9mms. It was love at first shot… ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/205 "2005-03-01T23:27:40Z")
Depending on whether you look at the FBI, Kellerman, or Lott’s statistics, the private bearing of firearms prevents anywhere from a quarter million to more than two million crimes a year from ever happening. That far outweighs the number of crimes commited by people with firearms. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/206 "2005-03-01T23:32:35Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > We’ve been giving pretty good evidence for showing how the danger of guns being used as Evil Tools of Death[sup]TM[/sup], is in our view not counterbalanced by evidence of the opposite. So yes, we see a serious problem with you equating firearms with life. During our War for Indepdendence, firearms were used to break our chains of bondage. This is deeply ingrained in me and millions of other liberty-loving Americans. And from my current standpoint, _ **my** _ firearms are tools of _life_, not death. And as I’ve said numerous times already, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about any correlation or causation between firearms and violence. Such abuses have absolutely nothing to do with my natural and innalienable right to keep and bear any type of firearm I want. > [@Arwin](#): > > Surely you mean everyone who is _responsible_. :rolleyes: Nope. If you’re not in prison, then IMO you should have a .50 BMG in your closet. > [@Arwin](#): > > You know what? They weren’t needed then, because back then, it made a lot more sense to own guns than it does now. I believe it is vitally important to own a variety of firearms _right now_, along with _lots_ of ammo and lots of training. This is because history will repeat itself. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/207 "2005-03-01T23:35:58Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 'The prisoner going to jail for ratting on his comrade is still a zero sum game. No. The structure of the game, that is, that it is possible for mutual advantage to be achieved, makes it a non-zero sum game. > [@Malthus](#): > > Unless, magickly, a prisoner decides to work on the outside to free his comerade.’ WTF mate? The Prisoner’s Dilemma has nothing to do with outside action, and for a good reason. Do you not understand it, or are you deliberately obfuscating? > [@Malthus](#): > > What are you trying to prove with this stuff? That you’re wrong. > [@Malthus](#): > > And the beneficial-for-all-parties outcome is _one which doesn’t end with anyone dying_. Right? Again, being deliberately obfuscatory or do you just not get it? **The scenario we’re talking about** is a self-defense. So even if neither die, you still get robbed/hurt. So it’s **still** a zero sum game. Honestly, do you not get this, or are you deliberately trying to cause trouble? > [@Malthus](#): > > You are deliberately missing the point. Um, no, you’re just talking out of your ass. > [@Malthus](#): > > “ratting out a prisoner and getting out of jail” is “still a zero-sum game”. Using your criteria, you’d be forced to conclude that the _original_ Prisoner’s Dilemma doesn’t fit the criteria. The Prisoner’s Dilemma included four outcomes. You are, again, **deliberately attempting to obfuscate that fact.** If the _only_ options were to rat on your partner or have him rat on you, it would be a zero sum game. But there are other options which make it a non-zero sum game. > [@Malthus](#): > > Who cares? This is an exercise in games theory, not a morality play. Who cares? Are you kidding me? Who cares if you set up situations and claim they’re equivelent when they’re totally different? Who cares if your analogies suck? As long as we’re dealing with games theory you can just make shit up? No matter how hard you try, there is an operational, ontological, and societal difference between cooperation and choosing to not use a certain level of force. Sorry. > [@Malthus](#): > > Is it “loaded” to assume that every confrontation with a gun leading to death is a morally absolute situation, Good thing I didn’t say that then. :rolleyes: Want to discuss what I’m actually saying, or try to ascribe a few more strawmen to me? > [@Malthus](#): > > one person is the “good guy” like an innocent shopkeeper, and the other is a “bad guy” like a robber? Like I said, you are **deliberately** ignoring the initial scenario, that of a protection/self-defense. You want to come up with a new scenario and discuss where it fits into game theory? ~grins~ I’m game. > [@Malthus](#): > > I’ll be willing to bet that plenty of incidences of gun violence are of the “drug dealer shoots drug dealer” variety, or the “angry husband/wife shoots wife/husband” variety - rather than _all_ being of the “robber shoots shopkeeper” variety. I’d be willing to bet that it’s really easy to debate someone when you make up, out of thin air, absolutely idiotic positions which your opponent does not hold, and then debate against those strawmen instead of an actual position. > [@Malthus](#): > > Any theory which failed to take this basic fact into account would be pretty useless, right? Games Theory does not neglect the fact that different scenarios are diffent. Simply, that **the one I was disscussing** which is, coincidentaly, **the one you are deliberately ignoring** , is a zero sum game. > [@Malthus](#): > > Again, not everyone who is shot or shoots is a robber or a shopkeeper. Is there a discount on straw today or something? > [@Malthus](#): > > This is infuriating, considering **you** simply _invented_ the whole “robber” scenario - in a post declaring _my_ idea wrong. Bullshit. In your first scenario you were discussing guns used for self defense. This implies that there is a clear cut self defense scenario. You are now attempting to ascribe strawmen to me and distance yourself from your own position. Again, in any self defense scenario, one has entered zero sum territory, and you’re obfuscating. > [@Malthus](#): > > How’s that for “ignoring the situation we’re discussing”? :rolleyes: I don’t know, how’re you liking your attempt to move the goal posts as well as obfuscate the issue? Your first claim was in regards to guns used in self defense, then you tried to talk about ‘angry people’ as if I wouldn’t notice your obfuscation and goal post-moving. Try again. If we’re talking about a self defense scenario, it’s a zero sum game. Obfuscate away. > [@Malthus](#): > > Deal with the situation as originally presented - don’t just invent emotionally-loaded examples and claim that they are the general rule! > [@Malthus (bolding mine)](#): > > It seems to me that gun ownership \*\*specifically for protection \*\*(as opposed to hunting or target-shooting as a sport) In other words, you’re full of shit. You were talking about gun use for protection, self defense, etc. So that was the issue I raised. And now you’re attempting to shift the goal posts. > [@Malthus](#): > > Two can play at that game - but it isn’t a fun or meaningful game, so why bother? If you don’t want to take the intellectual excercise of attempting to use games theory to examine this question seriously, just say so! ~yawn~ When come back, bring consistency. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/208 "2005-03-01T23:36:40Z")
Tell you what. Let’s try a social experiment to see if your ideas will work. First, we’ll identify the players-the Pro Gun or PGs will include folks like **Crafter Man** , **catsix** , and me. The Anti Gun or AGs will include **Rebekkah** , **Arwin** , et. al. Finally, there are the Perps. When a Perp approaches a PG wishing to threaten person or property, we’ll hand then a _See an AG_ card, and on the back of same we’ll indicate how much cash we had in our purse or pocket, and the value of the DVD player, and other property that the Perp wanted to take. When a Perp presents that card to you, as an AG, you have to give it up and satisfy what the Perp would have taken from the PG. As such, you AGs are happy because no Perps are getting shot (except presumably by other Perps), the Perps are in reduced danger of getting capped, and we PGs are happy because our persons and property are unharmed. Sound good? You AGs may want to identify your homes, cars, and persons with perhaps small white flags to make it easier for the Perps to find you. Meanwhile, I’ll keep my guns, because I bet you AGs run out of good natured warm and fuzziness within a short while. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/209 "2005-03-01T23:37:41Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > I’m a bit sceptical of the InfoPlease statistics, but it might be how they are manipulated/catagorized. Yes, there are some important distinctions to be made that are sometimes left implicit, and you ask some good questions below. > [@](#): > > In the “guns” link above, it says roughly 30K/yr in 2001 died from firearms. > > But in [This Link](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html) it says for the same year there were only 20K homicides. So if 100% of homicides were by firearm, that’d leave 10K to divide up between “accidents” and “suicides”. And there may well be 10K accidental shootings, or 10K suicide by firearm a year (or a portion to each). I suppose 5K/yr suicide and 5K/yr accident might be plausible. Suicides make up a much bigger part of that number than accidents. I’m not sure in what link it was, I think it was the breakdown of suicide statistics, showing that a gun is very popular for that purpose. > [@](#): > > But, automobiles are not the “leading cause of death”, either. According to the same link I posted, more people die from Alzheimer’s than automobiles (per your cite). And Alzheimers is 8th on the list. Automobiles are the leading cause of death only to a certain age, around 44. [http://www.panix.com/~danielc/usa/lcod.htm](http://www.panix.com/~danielc/usa/lcod.htm) > [@](#): > > And more tellingly, 27K/yr die from “Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis”. This is more than likely largely due to alcohol consumption, yet alcohol is totally legal. Factor in the deaths attributed to being under the influence of alcohol, and I would imagine it would overshadow the 30K/yr from guns. Factor in the 41% of traffic deaths that are alcohol related (from your cite), and you get about 16.5K alcohol related traffic deaths on top of the liver disease deaths. The chronic liver disease and cirrhosis become more prominent at a later age. But unlike someone suggested earlier, it is clear that the alcohol / car combo doesn’t kill as many as guns do - in reality only just over half. > [@](#): > > So there are things out there killing us at least as much as guns, yet only guns get such a bad rap. A pistol = bad, Pinot Noir = good. One of the reasons is that the pistol has no clearly discernible benefits. You might say this of the Pinot Noir, but that does in fact help to prevent vascular diseases. > [@](#): > > So by juggling the statistics, alcohol is killing either directly or indirectly at least as many people each year as guns. Couldn’t we save more lives/yr by banning alcohol? Didn’t we try that once before? Yet guns kill less people and they must be banned ASAP?? I must be missing the reasoning… Other countries indicate that banning guns might actually help prevent a lot of deaths. That fact alone is, I think, more interesting than a pissing contest to determine which cause of death is more macho. > [@](#): > > Whether or not any of the cited statistics are credible or accurate, I don’t know. In a cite a couple of posts up, from the FBI, it’s saying that there were only 9.6K homicides by firearm (in 2003, not 2001 as the other cite) out of 14.5K homicides. So 2/3 of homicides are by firearm by that account. So the firearm is the preferred weapon of choice in cases of homicide. Hence it’s bad reputation. Undeserved? But assume, just for the heck of it, that the statistics are in fact accurate. > [@](#): > > While I respect your views, I’m not going to stop drinking, or driving an automobile, or give up my guns. I might take up skydiving, as my mother succumbed to Alzheimer’s and I’d rather hit the ground a high velocity as die from that. Yet I take it that you’ll be nice enough not to combine too many of these habits - drinking while driving, or carrying a gun for that matter? If you’re a gun owner, you must be a responsible one after all. Problem with guns is, and remains, that the costs simply no longer seem to outweigh the benefits of owning one (a few remaining hunter-gatherers in rural areas perhaps excepted). And the same with the sky-diving. No crashing down where someone I care about stands, ok? I might start to dislike skydiving. And if too many people I know die as a result of skydiving, don’t be too surprised if I start to lobby against it. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/210 "2005-03-02T00:02:24Z")
> [@](#): > > **Arwin** said: > > Suicides make up a much bigger part of that number than accidents. It’s also been proven, time and again, that those intent on committing suicide will not be deterred by the lack of availability of a firearm. They will choose another method. As for accidents, someone in this thread already quoted that in 1998 there were less than a thousand accidental deaths due to firearms injury. > [@](#): > > One of the reasons is that the pistol has no clearly discernible benefits. If that’s true, then why the hell do cops carry them? > [@](#): > > And if too many people I know die as a result of skydiving, don’t be too surprised if I start to lobby against it. How many people do you personally know that were shot to death? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/211 "2005-03-02T00:13:09Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Depending on whether you look at the FBI, Kellerman, or Lott’s statistics, the private bearing of firearms prevents anywhere from a quarter million to more than two million crimes a year from ever happening. > > That far outweighs the number of crimes commited by people with firearms. In your opinion, maybe. Trading fewer muggings for more homicides doesn’t seem like a very good deal to me. The homicide rate due to firearms in Anchorage, Alaska in 1995 was 6.4 per 100 000. Calgary, a city with a much larger population and I imagine a much less laid-back attitude than a sleepy little town like Anchorage, had a homicide rate of 2.22 per 100 000 for the same year, and one third of those were committed with firearms. That one third figure is a national statistic, but I think it can be safely applied locally without introducing a lot of error. The total personal crime rates for each city in the same year were 899 per 100 000 in Calgary and 2181 per 100 000 in Anchorage. Whatever it is we’re doing, we seem to be doing it right and we don’t need guns to do it. We don’t seem to be paying much of a price for our not being able to carry personal firearms, and I reject the idea that the benefits would outweigh the costs. I would think the risk of encountering a mugger with a stolen firearm is much, much greater in your neck of the woods than in mine just because there are more guns to be stolen and used in crimes. Which is why I’d carry one if I lived where you do and why I don’t even consider needing to carry one where I live now. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/212 "2005-03-02T00:44:12Z")
> [@Rebekka](#): > > For example, the assault weapons ban - there was an acknowledgement, while it lasted, by the government that certain subsect of firearms was responsible for elevated levels of gun violence and should be banned. **catsix** answered this. My .02. The Assault Weapon ban got passed because the anti-gun folks propagandized the law with mis-information. The people that don’t know much about guns passed it because they feel that any gun law is a good one. > [@Rebekka](#): > > If the government and your constitution hold no sway for the rules and regulation of society, you have lawless chaos. Sure, everyone can a 50 calibre rifle, but at what cost? Same as the AWB. It got passed because anti-gun folks know nothing about guns. But they believe any gun law is a good one. I haven’t heard of a .50 BMG **EVER** used in a crime. Have you? This is part of the problem. And why so many pro-gun folks are very wary when anti-gun folks claim they only want to pass reasonable laws. IMHO, many, if not most of the anti-gun folks are just that. Anti-gun. Any gun legislation, control or laws that restrict ownership outright, or to a certain class of gun is reasonable to them. Therein lies the slippery slope. It’s kinda funny, I never considered my self ‘pro-gun’ until I started reading these threads on the SDMB. It is now apparent to me that most of the ‘anti-gun’ folks don’t know enough about guns to make informed decisions about gun laws. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/213 "2005-03-02T00:56:10Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > And the same with the sky-diving. No crashing down where someone I care about stands, ok? I might start to dislike skydiving. And if too many people I know die as a result of skydiving, don’t be too surprised if I start to lobby against it. Just where in the hell do you get off interfering in other people’s lives like that? Just who the fuck made you God? Try minding your own business for a change. If people want to do something dangerous, risking their lives to do it, **it is none of your fucking business if they do!** Meddlers like you are the source of most of the world’s problems. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/214 "2005-03-02T01:03:20Z")
> [@](#): > > **The Tooth** said: > Trading fewer muggings for more homicides doesn’t seem like a very good deal to me. The vast majority of defensive firearms uses end with no shots being fired and no one injured. I don’t see where you’re pulling this ‘trade-off’ from. > [@](#): > > **enipla** said: > I haven’t heard of a .50 BMG EVER used in a crime. Have you? Because who’s going to use a 30 lb rifle that’s more than 3 feet long and costs thousands of dollars to commit crime? It makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/215 "2005-03-02T01:08:29Z")
> [@Tooth](#): > > I would think the risk of encountering a mugger with a stolen firearm is much, much greater in your neck of the woods than in mine just because there are more guns to be stolen and used in crimes. Which is why I’d carry one if I lived where you do and why I don’t even consider needing to carry one where I live now. Well, I’ll tell ya **Tooth**. I don’t feel any need to CCW either. I live in a place that I feel is very safe. At least in ‘Town’. I will say, however, that as I do live in a remote area, having a firearm to protect myself and my Wife at home is not unreasonable. We’re pretty much on our own when it comes to any type of emergency services. So, as a long time firearm owner, and as someone that enjoys shooting them, I don’t like the idea that others, that don’t feel THEY want a firearm should be able to dictate what is best for me. ---
**Author:** ![trupa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@trupa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trupa)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/216 "2005-03-02T01:37:39Z")
> [@trupa](#): > > I’ll take the risk of answering right here, without reading the rest of the thread… > > I would be delighted, **Rebekkah** , if you would do me the pleasure of acompanying me to a fine shooting establishment in Calgary, where, after a safety briefing, and probably firing a .22 caliber firearm for a few rounds to get over the “_gee, I’m actually shooting a REAL gun_” effect, you may chose to try just about any kind & caliber of firearm, rifle or handgun, to shoot, under individual supervision of a trained & qualified range safety officer (RSO) > > Hec, any other Calgary dopers are welcome too! Maybe this will turn into a uniquely Albertan dopefest! I have been asked to let **Rebekkah** and any other interested Calgary dopers, particularly the ladies, know that Mrs Trupa has kindly volunteered to chaperone me on this outing to make sure I keep the bad puns down to a minimum. Well, that’s what \*she \*says. I think it’s because she wants to try out those new fluorescent marking paper targets I just bought… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/217 "2005-03-02T01:55:37Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > The vast majority of defensive firearms uses end with no shots being fired and no one injured. I don’t see where you’re pulling this ‘trade-off’ from. More firearms among the general population means more accidental deaths, more crimes of passion ending in fatal injuries instead of just fistfights, more that sort of thing. I don’t think we have a crime rate that justifies whatever mitigating effect arming everyone would have. We manage to keep our crime rates lower than American cities with one third the population without carrying guns, so I would assume there are either fewer attempted crimes, or the crimes are being prevented without the use of a gun. I suppose I should have been more clear and asked “What price does not carrying a gun cost _us_?” The general perspective on firearms is different here, and we don’t seem to need them to prevent crime. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon, just that we seem to do fine without. So the attitude that there is an absolute necessity for firearms is generally sort of, well, foreign to the average Canadian. They are tools, like **featherlou** said. Or sports equipment. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/218 "2005-03-02T02:08:46Z")
> [@Tooth](#): > > I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon I think there is a really, really big misconception going on here. I don’t know anyone that carries a firearm… The CCW in the US is really pretty rare. Maybe 1 in 1000 people, 10,000 people? Don’t know anyone myself. But we are not all packing. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/219 "2005-03-02T02:10:40Z")
> [@](#): > > **The Tooth** said: > More firearms among the general population means more accidental deaths, more crimes of passion ending in fatal injuries instead of just fistfights, more that sort of thing. You’re going to have to prove this, because the rate of accidental deaths is extremely low here, and those states that have enacted laws to allow concealed carry have not seen the kind of carnage of ‘fistfights that turn into gunfights’ that anti-gunners are always railing about. > [@](#): > > **enipla** said: > I think there is a really, really big misconception going on here. I don’t know anyone that carries a firearm… I’m licensed, and I do carry. I don’t carry all the time, but there are occasions when I do. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/220 "2005-03-02T02:16:34Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Well, I’ll tell ya **Tooth**. I don’t feel any need to CCW either. > > I live in a place that I feel is very safe. At least in ‘Town’. > > I will say, however, that as I do live in a remote area, having a firearm to protect myself and my Wife at home is not unreasonable. We’re pretty much on our own when it comes to any type of emergency services. > > So, as a long time firearm owner, and as someone that enjoys shooting them, I don’t like the idea that others, that don’t feel THEY want a firearm should be able to dictate what is best for me. Having a gun or three handy on the farm pretty much goes without saying. Even if they’re just for pest control, it would be silly not to use it when you need it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298.md?page=12)