Why do you need a gun?

[R3d_Anonymous]

@solosam

Did you even read the case? I dont need a hypothetical because this happened on real life. These girls were raped for fourteen hours straight because they called 911 and the police did squat.

Maybe I should be allowed to make my own decision about my safety instead of letting Feinstein make the decision for me.

Do you need a gun for your safety?

[ed_anger]

@solosam

Did you even read the case? I dont need a hypothetical because this happened on real life. These girls were raped for fourteen hours straight because they called 911 and the police did squat.

Maybe I should be allowed to make my own decision about my safety instead of letting Feinstein make the decision for me.

I read the case. The police came when called, they were dumb and didn’t see anything happening and left. The court basically ruled they can’t be sued. Yeah, shit happens, this means we should let 300 million guns float around the country uncontrolled.

Did you answer my question?

[ChickenLegs]

@ed_anger

Here’s a thought experiment. Let say you call the police right now and say “someone is attacking my house.” What will happen? I’ve called the police and know what happens, I’m just curious if you do.

Where I live, the response time will probably vary from betwen 5 and 30 minutes, depending on if the county deputy sheriff who lives in my small town is nearby or not. We have no city police force.

I have been in many areas where it’s impossible to call the police: no cell phone service. I have also been in many places that are more than an hour’s drive on dirt before you hit a paved road.

Most violent attacks are decided very quicly, hence the old saw “When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.” or my favorite “Call for a pizza, call for the cops. See who gets there first.”

This is typical of police response times, even in a populated area:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/238138/158/Intense-911-Call-Of-Ga-Mom-Who-Shot-Intruder-Released

[solosam]

@Anonymous User

But is the purpose of guns to kill people? You do not necessarily have to kill the person if you are just defending yourself. Even if you don’t kill them, you can still defend yourself by just calling the police because if you even shoot one or two bullets, that will seriously injure the guy or at least hurt real bad, and in that time, couldn’t you just call the police? Remember we are not trying to kill the intruder, but defend ourselves from them. And worst case scenario, just reload your gun. So do you really need more than two or even three bullets if you ar just using it for self-defense?

I can’t believe you seriously wrote this. Have you ever shot a gun in your life? Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Obviously you don’t, so let me fill you in:

YES, the purpose of guns is to incapacitate your enemy.

NO ONE… not the police, or military, or any competent marksman, shoots to wound. It does not happen. First, any injury (even to an arm or leg) can be fatal. Second, aiming for the center of mass increases the chance of scoring a hit. EVERY SINGLE INSTRUCTOR who has ever taught firearms (with the possible exception of trained police snipers) directs the student to shoot for the center of mass.

In every state I’ve ever lived in, you cannot even draw your gun if lethal force is not justified. Let me say that again: You CANNOT draw or brandish your gun if lethal force is not justified. If it is justified, you draw and shoot to kill. There is NOTHING in between those two options.

Lastly, are you so oblivious that you genuinely believe a person can be expected to win a gunfight with one or two bullets? Have you ever been in a gunfight? Have you ever even watched one on TV? Police (allegedly trained marksman) routinely empty their magazines. Policemen have been murdered because they ran out of ammo before their opponents.

If I am justified in using lethal force, I will not shoot once or twice and then retreat BECAUSE if retreat was possible I would have retreated already (as I have a moral and often legal obligation to do). If I am justified in using lethal force, I must have as many bullets as possible because I want more bullets than the person who is trying to KILL ME.

And that’s the bottom line that keeps coming up on this message board… another human being is trying to KILL ME RIGHT NOW… not five minutes from now, not ten. It is not fair, or just… it is competitive. If I run out of bullets I DIE.

It is abjectely terrifying to me that the future of firearms in this country is being decided by people who have no concept of how they are realistically or properly employed.

[solosam]

@ed_anger

I read the case. The police came when called, they were dumb and didn’t see anything happening and left. The court basically ruled they can’t be sued. Yeah, shit happens, this means we should let 300 million guns float around the country uncontrolled.

Did you answer my question?

As above. If I am under attack by someone using lethal force and I call the cops, I will probably be dead before 911 picks up the phone.

I am sure the police will do a very good job of cleaning up my corpse and apprehending those responsible… when they get around to it.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

And while it is true that we SHOULDN’T let 300 million guns float around, the fact is that they do. No amount of legislation is going to change that. So we can either live with the reality of our situation, or we can try to punish law-abiding citizens by confiscating their property and let the criminals have a field day. I know what I’m going to do.

[ed_anger]

@ChickenLegs

Where I live, the response time will probably vary from betwen 5 and 30 minutes, depending on if the county deputy sheriff who lives in my small town is nearby or not. We have no city police force.

Then I agree you should have the option of a registered, safely-stowed firearm.

I live in the city, the police come quickly, we have strict gun control. I’m not particularly worried.

[ed_anger]

@solosam

As above. If I am under attack by someone using lethal force and I call the cops, I will probably be dead before 911 picks up the phone. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Again, this is not a justification for no gun control. You would be safer with fewer unregistered weapons floating around.

@solosam

And while it is true that we SHOULDN’T let 300 million guns float around, the fact is that they do. No amount of legislation is going to change that.

Wrong, if guns are registered then over time there would be fewer and fewer illegal weapons. Which would make you safer if you owned a gun or not.

@solosam

punish law-abiding citizens by confiscating their property

Has you sanity been questioned? Are you a felon? What are you worried about then?

[ChickenLegs]

@solosam

It is abjectely terrifying to me that the future of firearms in this country is being decided by people who have no concept of how they are realistically or properly employed.

Me too. The solution? Educate. Take non-shooters shooting at every opportunity. Show them safe gun handling. Show them how guns really work. Show them a range full of people with guns, none of whom accidently or intentionally shoot them. Show them the myriad of laws with which gun owners in many jurisdictions must comply. The truth is a powerful thing. Many, if not most, people want to learn.

[solosam]

Then I agree you should have the option of a registered, safely-stowed firearm.

Define “safely stowed.” As in, a lock on it? As in, I am trying to put the key in my gun while somebody beats my head?

“Ow! Stop doing that! Can’t you see I’m trying to unlock my gun here? Please, Mr. Criminal, if you just wait for a second and let me put my brain back in, now stand over there while I attempt to apprehend you…”

shit happens

…and I own guns BECAUSE shit happens.

[R3d_Anonymous]

solosam, answer this: what would happen if guns were completely outlawed except for the military?

[ed_anger]

@solosam

Define “safely stowed.” As in, a lock on it? As in, I am trying to put the key in my gun while somebody beats my head?

“Ow! Stop doing that! Can’t you see I’m trying to unlock my gun here? Please, Mr. Criminal, if you just wait for a second and let me put my brain back in, now stand over there while I attempt to apprehend you…”

…and I own guns BECAUSE shit happens.

Yawn. Yours is under your pillow perhaps?

[ChickenLegs]

@ed_anger

Then I agree you should have the option of a registered, safely-stowed firearm.

I live in the city, the police come quickly, we have strict gun control. I’m not particularly worried.

Two problems with that:

1. There are many people (pro-gun control people) who see registration as an incremental step towards a total ban. See Diane Feinstein for example, who said "“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” She now seems to be working for registration. As gun owners are apt to say “registration leads to confiscation.” See Canada, Australia, or the U.K. for examples.

2. What consitutes “safely-stowed”? As has been pinted out repeatedly, if you need a gun for self defense, you very often need it very badly and RIGHT NOW. I usually carry concealed inside the waistband in areas where I may frighten the populace if they see my gun, or outside the waistband on my belt in more rational areas, or if I need a big gun, like in grizzly country. Is that OK?

[DrCube]

@ed_anger

Wrong, if guns are registered then over time there would be fewer and fewer illegal weapons.

How is this true? What possible mechanism would cause that to be true? It doesn’t make any sense. Can you spell it out for me please?

[solosam]

If guns were completely outlawed except for the military:

1. Criminals would acquire guns illegally and refuse to surrender the guns they already possess,

2. I would be deprived of my property and my ability to defend myself from harm, even though I have not committed any crime. (Isn’t that also in the Bill of Rights?)

3. The government would be free to impose any rule it pleases, because we would no longer have the ability to resist.

4. Criminals who could not acquire guns would resort to any blunt or edged instrument available.

5. Massacres would not be stopped, as we saw by the recent knife massacre in China.

[ed_anger]

@solosam

The government would be free to impose any rule it pleases, because we would no longer have the ability to resist.

Thank god we have checks and balances in our government then, and don’t have to go in pistols blazing. And by “the government” I suppose you mean those people who are elected in and out of office. We elect.

[solosam]

@ed_anger

Yawn. Yours is under your pillow perhaps?

It’s hanging on the wall, if you must know.

[Nars_Glinley]

@jasg

.As an example, the right to freedom of religion carries a mandatory responsibility to respect the religious traditions of others. If you caught burning a cross in front of a temple, synagogue or mosque you will get arrested. In some jurisdictions you might find yourself facing charges of a hate crime.

Your right to vote carries a voluntary responsibility to be informed on the issues and to vote.

2nd Amendment responsibilities might be a good topic for another thread.

I agree that you should respect others religious traditions but not that you should have to. I agree that you should be informed if you want to vote but not that you have to be. If the government were to adopt a voluntary registration program, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

[solosam]

@ed_anger

Thank god we have checks and balances in our government then, and don’t have to go in guns blazing.

Well, so do lots of countries but that hasn’t stopped anybody in the past.

BTW, here’s an interesting cite: List of school attacks in China - Wikipedia

I suppose living in a totalitarian state with little access to firearms is great comfort to these people.

[pancakes3]

I’ve shot guns. I’ve gone skeet shooting with a shotgun, fired pistols at a gun range, and let off a full round on an automatic in Vegas. At zero point in any of those awesome, awesome experiences have I thought “Damn I’m glad guns aren’t illegal.”

Recreational use of guns is solely that - recreational. I have never contemplated getting a gun for self defense or home defense. Locking the door is enough for me and I’ve lived in downtown Richmond and DC (2 pretty rough cities).

No amount of gun education will sway me of that and no amount of meeting cool guys with guns will either. Having guns is a privilege, not a right - that much should be intuitive. The idea that we have an inherent right to own tools whose sole intent is to kill is sick, twisted, and asinine.

Solosam’s abject terror is objectively terrifying to me. The matter-of-factness with which he’s telling us not only that he fully expects to shoot to kill, but then explain why he shoots to kill is chilling. It’s not naive of me to think that way. It’s twisted of him. Seriously, for fuck’s sake, what the fuck is wrong with gun owners?

Why can’t you get your jollies at a range? Why take it home with you? To protect yourself? If you need a gun to keep you safe, you’re living a fucked up life and it’ll take more than a gun to solve your problems.

[R3d_Anonymous]

@solosam

If guns were completely outlawed except for the military:

1. Criminals would acquire guns illegally and refuse to surrender the guns they already possess,

2. I would be deprived of my property and my ability to defend myself from harm, even though I have not committed any crime. (Isn’t that also in the Bill of Rights?)

3. The government would be free to impose any rule it pleases, because we would no longer have the ability to resist.

4. Criminals who could not acquire guns would resort to any blunt or edged instrument available.

5. Massacres would not be stopped, as we saw by the recent knife massacre in China.

Alright, I will get back to you tomorrow because I have to sleep. I will continue this debate with you tomorrow.