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.
Surely you mean everyone who is responsible. :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:
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…
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.
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.
Nope. If you’re not in prison, then IMO you should have a .50 BMG in your closet.
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.
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.
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?
That you’re wrong.
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?
Um, no, you’re just talking out of your ass.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Is there a discount on straw today or something?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, there are some important distinctions to be made that are sometimes left implicit, and you ask some good questions below.
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.
Automobiles are the leading cause of death only to a certain age, around 44.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If that’s true, then why the hell do cops carry them?
How many people do you personally know that were shot to death?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
I’m licensed, and I do carry. I don’t carry all the time, but there are occasions when I do.
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.
)
) 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…