I wish it were possible to divide the United States into two equal sections with similar demographics, the only difference being: in one section private ownership of guns was completely banned, and in the other there were no restrictions on gun ownership at all (and, that somehow by magic, it was impossible to smuggle guns from the allowed side into the forbidden side). Then see how each section fared over twenty years. I would pick the armed side without question.
Because you think the seedy underbelly of society would pounce on the gun-free land turning it into a nightmarish warzone where the citizens are helpless and at the mercy of criminals at every street corner? Whereas criminals in gunland would be afraid to change lanes without signalling lest they be gunned down by someone with a ccw? Do you honestly believe that’s how your hypothetical will turn out? Because if so, you’ve fetishized guns to the point where it’s bordering on insanity.
I suppose there’s no point to law enforcement carrying weapons, then.
Since you’re the only one in the thread who’s said this, I think you are the one who is bordering on insanity. You are imagining that gun owners think this and then getting all worked up about how crazy gun owners must be in order to think it.
I suppose it is easier and less mentally taxing to just assume your opponents are completely insane than to spend any time actually understanding their position.
Sanity,
Interesting - do you have a link to anyone who actually** defended **themselves from a snake?
It’s not possible.
Crane
Ok, why else would lumpy choose to live in guntopia? I hope the answer isn’t the blindingly obvious “because it’s the one with guns”
Attractive nuisance is pretty much only applicable where the nuisance in question is actually “attractive”, meaning visible. That’s why putting a fence around your pool is a defense- otherwise people can see it and be tempted.
The only time I can think of where a gun would be an attractive nuisance is if they were displayed in the window or something.
Going to all that trouble because some drug-addicted thief might break in is absurd. It’s a totally flawed assessment of risk- you’re better off overall spending that money and time making your house more secure than worrying about one particular part just because the thief might use them in an irresponsible way or might sell them to someone who will.
Don’t mean to interject, but killing snakes in your yard is a means of defense. Would you not agree?
I’ve never had to kill snakes, but I have had to scare of bears that where getting way too curious. Banging pots and pans would not do it. Shooting a firearm towards the bear would. That’s defence.
I agree that guns are not an attractive nuisance in the traditional sense. I brought that up to show that you can be required to take steps to hinder illegal access to your property. It’s not enough that it’s illegal to access it. You must take additional steps to prevent someone from accessing it illegally.
It’s not just a matter of looking at guns as an attractive nuisance if a stranger can see it. What about all the people who have already have access to your household? Perhaps your teen or one of their friends is going through some emotional or bullying problems. Maybe a neighbor or friend is going through some problems and steals the gun when you invite them over. Anyone in your circle of family or friends could gain unauthorized access to your guns. By keeping the gun secured, that kind of easy access is prevented.
It would be a total change in how people view guns. They would need think of them like C4 explosives or something. It is kept locked up at all times because it can cause great harm either accidentally or maliciously. Right now guns are not thought of in that way. It’s unlikely to change through public education, either. If the law were changed, then you would see more guns be secured at all times.
Links I don’t have, but I do have an aunt who lived in rural Arizona who bagged four or five assorted rattlesnakes a year from on or near her back porch with a short-barrel shotgun loaded with birdshot.
My old Boy Scout handbook says make a couple of “X” shaped cuts on the rattlesnake, and then suck the blood out. Then apply a tourniquet. To the snake.
Or, you could maybe leave it alone? Just sayin’, is all.
Your extreme hyperbole aside, I think the gun-forbidden (not “gun-free”) side would have an uneradicable base level of gun crime, violence and murder, while the gun-permitted side would demonstrate the truth of the “more guns, less crime” claim.
Some of us don’t live in the suburbs or match the right socioeconomic bracket to be looked at by the police as a customer rather than an enemy. It’s unfortunate that you are incapable of getting outside of your own experience to see why weapons are as necessary as oxygen for some people to survive.
How many times have you used your gun to defend yourself?
Three times.
Twice. Neither of which went beyond me pointing the weapon, fortunately.
EDIT: Against people. Used against aggressive poisonous snakes roughly half a dozen times, I’d guess.
I must lead a sheltered life, or have a different toolset for dealing with danger. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I don’t think you can simultaneously argue that America is under siege from the all-powerful “gun nuts” to the extent that it justifies ripping up the Constitution to immediately pass new restrictions, and that anyone who thinks their safety might be threatened is a paranoid idiot because there is no crime. You gotta pick one.
Well, there needs to be context around all these claims. When the other posters say they defended themselves, were they facing physical attack or simply brandishing a weapon to forestall an argument? When YOU say dealing with danger, are you saying you’ve faced a physical attack (armed or unarmed) or just priding yourself on never encountering danger in the first place?
I don’t carry or own a gun and don’t plan to. Despite leading what most anyone would call a sheltered life, I’ve had a gun pulled on me 3 times, and I disarmed each assailant, which is pretty much why I don’t worry about people with guns. In each case, the gun owner grew belligerent about an issue and decided brandishing a weapon was a good substitute for logic or fairness (in one case, the person wanted stripes after I’d sunk two on the break). In two cases, the guns were in such poor repair I wouldn’t have risked firing them myself.
OK. Perhaps you do life a sheltered life. Do you have a point? You asked a question.
I’m not generally afraid of Black Bears. They will usually run.
But when they stalk the house, and won’t leave the area I like to scoot them along. Banging pots and pans together does not work. I’ve tried it. Having a bear sit down and watch you and your house while you try to scare it away is a bit eerie.
I have replaced the door on my tool shed twice because bears have ripped them off. We don’t have trash pick up (thank god) where I live so I keep trash bags in the shed until I take it into the transfer station. That’s twice a month.
I crush moth balls and spread them in the trash and around the shed to discourage them and to cover up the smell of any trash. That does not always work.
So. I have used my .357 twice, and a 30-30 once to scare bears away. I fire into the ground or a tree near them.
I consider that to be DGU.
Some people may not consider that a DGU. I don’t really care.
The moose that wander the yard in summer at least don’t try to break in. I don’t expect them to. But I keep a very, very close eye on them.
What toolset would you use FearItself?
(for those that know firearms, I understand that the .357 or 30-30 are a little bit light for bears, and completely inadequate for moose. If push came to shove, I’ve a Marlin 336 ER chambered in .356).