Poll: Let's settle something right now, can you defend yourself with a gun?

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
Aaron Sylvester said:
I know your country is far older and has had a far more violent past compared to NZ, but I think it's time people put the past behind them and focus on the present/future. If Wiki is to be believed the "US Constitution" or whatever it's called was adopted in 1780-1790. Those guidelines were made for a completely different world and era, and it boggles my mind how people can still defend the 2nd amendment today.
the first ten amendments to the US constitution are the bill of rights. the bill of rights doesn't grant rights it recognizes them as what the government is intended to protect.

if the 2nd amendment is a remnant of the past so is the 1st because there is no way they could have imagined the internet and the 4th because it keeps police from enforcing laws

comparing gun ownership to killing is wrong on more levels than you can imagine and is deeply insulting
 

Fasckira

Dice Tart
Oct 22, 2009
1,678
0
0
I've always been taught to never point a gun at someone unless you have the intention of shooting them - don't make idle threats with deadly weaponry.

Over here in the UK however, guns aren't exactly commonplace in most households so "can I" becomes moot as I lack a weapon. If I had a gun and someone broke into my house though... its hard to say. Having not been in that situation personally I have no concrete idea of how I'd handle that. I'd like to think I'd only fire if I felt my life or my partner's life was in danger.
 

Killclaw Kilrathi

Crocuta Crocuta
Dec 28, 2010
263
0
0
FelixG said:
Aaron Sylvester said:
Seconded. Alright so NZ population is very low, but nevertheless it is an example of a place that is doing damn fine without people owning guns. Hunting is a popular sport here given all the lush forests we have here, but I would still say less than 1% of the population here own firearms - and probably 0.00001% of that 1% are stupid fuckin' nutters who feel they need a firearm to "defend" themselves.

The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.
it is rather cute that you dont seem to know your own nations firearm statistics yet you try to whine about the US. xD

Really? Only 1% of your population owns firearms?

I suppose the fact that there are about 22.6 firearm owners per 100 citizens missed your notice huh? and that out of 179 nations surveyed that NZ ranks 22nd in number of personal firearm ownership?

Whoops
Can you give me a source on that? Wikipedia implies that there are about 230,000 gun owners and 1.1 million actual guns in New Zealand. With a population of 4,451,017 according to the latest census, that would be a little above the 5% mark that actually own firearms.

I'm happy to admit that it's not the best source of up to date, factual info though so I'd like to know where your statistics came from for comparison.
 

dementis

New member
Aug 28, 2009
357
0
0
If you're trained to effectively deal with stress and use a weapon defensively the only person who's going to get hurt is your attacker. So I couldn't defend myself with a gun, my only experience with projectiles is paintball and that in no way prepares me for the use of a real gun.
 

Killclaw Kilrathi

Crocuta Crocuta
Dec 28, 2010
263
0
0
FelixG said:
That Hyena Bloke said:
FelixG said:
Aaron Sylvester said:
Seconded. Alright so NZ population is very low, but nevertheless it is an example of a place that is doing damn fine without people owning guns. Hunting is a popular sport here given all the lush forests we have here, but I would still say less than 1% of the population here own firearms - and probably 0.00001% of that 1% are stupid fuckin' nutters who feel they need a firearm to "defend" themselves.

The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.
it is rather cute that you dont seem to know your own nations firearm statistics yet you try to whine about the US. xD

Really? Only 1% of your population owns firearms?

I suppose the fact that there are about 22.6 firearm owners per 100 citizens missed your notice huh? and that out of 179 nations surveyed that NZ ranks 22nd in number of personal firearm ownership?

Whoops
Can you give me a source on that? Wikipedia implies that there are about 230,000 gun owners and 1.1 million actual guns in New Zealand. With a population of 4,451,017 according to the latest census, that would be a little above the 5% mark that actually own firearms.

I'm happy to admit that it's not the best source of up to date, factual info though so I'd like to know where your statistics came from for comparison.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

This is where I got my info, though their source is a hard copy book that you would have to send away for from another group as its not available online.
No problem, the statistics are actually nearly identical anyway. Kudos on finding such an unbiased source by the way, definitely much more so than any wiki.

The confusion I think was that it's not saying 22.6 firearm OWNERS per 100 people, just firearms. New Zealand seems to have a fairly small percentage of owners, but the ones who do have them own about four or five each and are enough to put NZ on the map when it comes to ownership.

Of course this is me being a layman when it comes to these sorts of statistics, which tend to be a lot more complex and probably shouldn't be broken down into one or two factors like I'm doing.
 

squidface

New member
Jun 3, 2012
96
0
0
I picked no; it's illegal to own guns here without a license and/or reason (see: farmer). I can't shoot one, but in the event that I had to bludgeon someone to death with one... probably.
 

EtherealBeaver

New member
Apr 26, 2011
199
0
0
Xan Krieger said:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.

My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.
Using a gun to protect yourself means using said gun after you were attacked first. If you were attacked with a gun, you will probably have a severe case of "the deadsies", which means you cant really fight back anyway. If you use said gun without getting attacked first, you were the one initiating it and thus, you didnt really "defend" yourself.

Fact is that the US have the most guns per capita and the most gun related deaths per capita. Denmark who has strict gun control, has a number of gun related deaths of 1.45/100,000capita/year. Compared to that, the US has a number of gun related fatalities of 10.3/100,000capita/year. In other words; gun restriction lowers gun fatalities. Even if we rule out all the suicides (many of which would have been prevented because it takes a lot longer time time to kill yourself with pills for instance than with a gun - giving you opportunity to regret your decision), it is still a death count of 6.2/100,000/year - which is more than 4 times the number of deaths in countries with gun control.

The number of crimes involving guns is extremely low because they are so hard to get a hold of and when guns are involved in crimes, the police sets them as a very high priority which makes it much easier and faster to solve said crimes.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that "if you were burglarized in the middle of the night, would you not want a gun to defend yourself?" to which I can only answer that less than 1% of all burglaries end up in fights because thieves will almost always try and escape if discovered rather than fight. And even if they did stay and fight, gun control would prevent most of that 1% of even having a gun, making it much less likely that it will ever come to that.

Gun laws are the product of a time when invading bandits were a real danger and when politics meant "who has the superior firepower" rather than actual negotiation. It was in a time just after a civil war when invasion was a very real possibility and when they could not know if England would suddenly go to shore and attack. That is why it was considered a right to bear arms because it was a right to defend your country or your self against marauding bandits. Invasion from England now a days seems a tad far off and marauding bandits are, as far as I know, not a concern either apart from the occational gang which the police hopefully takes care of. So what is left besides complaining about "my rights"? It doesnt seem to be an issue when it comes to full body cavity searches in airplanes so why is it a problem here?

Edit: I guess I will be demanded to provide sources so here you go:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/denmark
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Well, for whatever reason, home invasions are rare here (New Zealand). In a country of 4.5 million people, we get a home invasion, maybe once a year or so.

I can only assume that it's because guns are scarce here, and difficult to get your hands on.
Launching a home invasion with a knife, sword, machete, axe, etc, just takes too much effort.
Not having the ability to point a metal barrel at someone and pull the trigger (or threaten to pull the trigger) is apparently enough of a deterrent for most people to not bother trying to 'home invade'.

Giving everyone here guns would be an extremely bad idea. It would only lead to more gun violence, accidental shootings, guns falling into the wrong hands, etc.
This "solution" to home invasions would actually be worse, and end up with more deaths, than the problem it's trying to solve.
Ah! The fairy wonderland of Braindead/Dead Alive and other Peter Jackson fare, then.

I know nothing about your country except that your handling of the English language always felt like a proper time machine trip to me. I haven't met a single badly behaved citizen of New Zealand and just the notion of wanting to picture any of them getting into whatever legal trouble seems pretty ludicrous to me.

OK, sorry, I was somehow under the impression you hailed from Australia, so I think it's obvious as to why I got instaconfused proper.

The first thing that sprung to mind was Martin Bryant, but that was in Tasmania. Googling a bit revealed the Aramoana incident. Anything better than watching Out of the Blue to get a clear image of what happened there? It looks like that one was the decisive moment that lead to stricter laws and radical changes in counter terrorism.
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
EtherealBeaver said:
Xan Krieger said:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.

My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.
Using a gun to protect yourself means using said gun after you were attacked first. If you were attacked with a gun, you will probably have a severe case of "the deadsies", which means you cant really fight back anyway. If you use said gun without getting attacked first, you were the one initiating it and thus, you didnt really "defend" yourself.

Fact is that the US have the most guns per capita and the most gun related deaths per capita. Denmark who has strict gun control, has a number of gun related deaths of 1.45/100,000capita/year. Compared to that, the US has a number of gun related fatalities of 10.3/100,000capita/year. In other words; gun restriction lowers gun fatalities. Even if we rule out all the suicides (many of which would have been prevented because it takes a lot longer time time to kill yourself with pills for instance than with a gun - giving you opportunity to regret your decision), it is still a death count of 6.2/100,000/year - which is more than 4 times the number of deaths in countries with gun control.

The number of crimes involving guns is extremely low because they are so hard to get a hold of and when guns are involved in crimes, the police sets them as a very high priority which makes it much easier and faster to solve said crimes.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that "if you were burglarized in the middle of the night, would you not want a gun to defend yourself?" to which I can only answer that less than 1% of all burglaries end up in fights because thieves will almost always try and escape if discovered rather than fight. And even if they did stay and fight, gun control would prevent most of that 1% of even having a gun, making it much less likely that it will ever come to that.

Gun laws are the product of a time when invading bandits were a real danger and when politics meant "who has the superior firepower" rather than actual negotiation. It was in a time just after a civil war when invasion was a very real possibility and when they could not know if England would suddenly go to shore and attack. That is why it was considered a right to bear arms because it was a right to defend your country or your self against marauding bandits. Invasion from England now a days seems a tad far off and marauding bandits are, as far as I know, not a concern either apart from the occational gang which the police hopefully takes care of. So what is left besides complaining about "my rights"? It doesnt seem to be an issue when it comes to full body cavity searches in airplanes so why is it a problem here?

Edit: I guess I will be demanded to provide sources so here you go:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/denmark
the statistics you used are wrong due to the gun deaths including suicide and justifiable homicide the actual number of gun related homicides is about 8.5 per 100,000

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

recently i was on a jury here that involved self defense, now i don't have the exact penal code with me but its along the lines of a person may use any force they feel is necessary to stop the perceive threat even if no threat currently is present
 

darron13

New member
Jul 30, 2008
152
0
0
I've only ever seen real guns a few times in my life, and I've never held one. I have basic knowledge on how to use one, yeah, but as for if I could shoot someone, unless I really have no choice, I can't say I could.
 

DarkSpectre

New member
Jan 25, 2010
127
0
0
Yes of course you can use a weapon for self defence. It is no different than any other weapon ever invented by mankind. A gun is just the premier and best weapon we've developed. Before we had guns we used swords and bows. Are those in some manner inherently more righteous and moral than a gun? Before swords we had clubs, before clubs we had fists. You can easily kill a man with your barehands. A single bat strike to a man's head can kill him in an instant. Shall we ban all weapons besides fists? Do you know what that means? It means the tyranny of the strong.
You know what guns do? Guns level the field. Firearms give the weak small nerd a chance against the strong tall thug. Guns don't care if you can bench 300lbs and smash a man's face in with a bat. A gun doesn't care if your exceptionally wealthy and can afford the best sword and years of training on it. The gun is the weapon that secured freedom and equality for the common man. A gun allows the 100lb woman to protect herself against the 250lb rapist. Before firearms she didn't stand a chance. Now that assailant must think twice because his life can be ended swiftly and shortly.
Also there is no such thing as a purely defensive weapon. You can wear armour but without an offensive weapon to retaliate you will loose eventually. Armour only prolongs the conflict. To end a conflict the threat must be removed. The determined assailant will continue to attack until they get past your armour.
 

AlexanderPeregrine

New member
Nov 19, 2009
150
0
0
Waffle_Man said:
Ok, let's do a realistic simulation of what it's like to be in a active shooter situation. First, we're going to have the students engage a threat from a seated position, never mind the fact that this is something that most cops would have trouble doing. Second, since safety gear is trendy these days, we should give everyone the most cumbersome eye protection money can buy and introduce a threat before the student can orient themselves to it. Lastly, we'd better prepare for a worst case scenario, so the shooters will be informed of both the presence and location of the only armed individual in the room, and we will have them completely ignore the dense flow of students out of the room. Sounds legit.
The safety gear is the same stuff that SWAT officers use during their operations and while nonlethal, these are still rounds that could blind a person. Even assuming no headgear, you still don't get to decide the terms of engagement and even then, the test subjects had an advantage in knowing they're going to be in a public shooting simulation (if not immediately). The whole "oh, but if this variable was changed, the bad guy would be the only casualty!" reasoning doesn't work in the real world. The shooter is not going to call in saying "I'm going to burst in and shoot all of you in five seconds. All you concealed carriers, please draw your weapons and prepare to gun me down before I can kill any innocent people."

What makes public shootings like this so bleak and devastating is that nobody can ever be prepared for it. It's an extremely rare event (as in literally one out of a trillion when you consider every new person entering or leaving a crowd), the shooter is the only one that knows this is going to be the time when shots will be fired (also known in the military as "taking the initiative"), and all control over who or what gets hit immediately goes out the window. And if you did know with 100% certainty this is going to be the time a shooter is going to start a massacre, why the hell didn't you call the authorities to go arrest that guy long before the incident?

The only way I can imagine a shooting being averted with no innocents harmed is if every gathering has armed guards with high-powered weapons drawn and pointed towards all entrances and at each individual person... and who the fuck would ever feel safe with paranoid guards watching them for the slightest suspicious move with their finger on the trigger? The death toll from misreading threats would make the actual massacres look like a joke in comparison.
 

EtherealBeaver

New member
Apr 26, 2011
199
0
0
gufftroad said:
EtherealBeaver said:
Xan Krieger said:
another snip
the statistics you used are wrong due to the gun deaths including suicide and justifiable homicide the actual number of gun related homicides is about 8.5 per 100,000

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

recently i was on a jury here that involved self defense, now i don't have the exact penal code with me but its along the lines of a person may use any force they feel is necessary to stop the perceive threat even if no threat currently is present
Wait so your counter argument is that gunrelated homicides in the US are "only" 8.5 per 100.000 which is 580% of the Danish example? The Danish example also includes every and all the gun relatd deaths so they are very much comparable even without the US counter "only" being 480% higher.

Ignoring every single other argument I made, that still makes it almost 6 times as likely to die in the country with no gun restrictions compared to the country with gun restrictions. If guns really did make it all safer, should those statistics not be reversed?
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
I don't understand the nature of the question.
Like just a gun? It helps if you have some bullets to, and a clip. Unless you're just going to pistol whip the attacker.
An operational loaded gun is pretty much the best way to defend your self.

I have a friend who's probably alive today because she always carries a loaded gun.
 

EtherealBeaver

New member
Apr 26, 2011
199
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
I don't understand the nature of the question.
Like just a gun? It helps if you have some bullets to, and a clip. Unless you're just going to pistol whip the attacker.
An operational loaded gun is pretty much the best way to defend your self.

I have a friend who's probably alive today because she always carries a loaded gun.
I have a friend whos dead today because it was so easy getting a gun. So yeah, there you go.
 

Raytan941

New member
Sep 28, 2011
28
0
0
A Smooth Criminal said:
Great, and after all that you still only hit your exact target 1/10th of the time. Don't know why you're arguing this... I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that pistols are made to be compact, not accurate.
No insult intended but you really don't know what your talking about. The majority of handguns are very accurate out to about 50-100 yards, of course a good deal of that accuracy depends on the person using it. But your average person should have little trouble hitting a 10 inch target at 25 yards using lets say a full sized 9mm glock with little training or practice. I have personally taught a few novices who had never handled a gun in their lives to shoot handguns and within a few hours they were hitting 10 inch targets at 25 yards with little difficulty. Yes there are some handguns that are really only accurate a few dozen feet but that is reserved to the ultra compact guns like derringers, pretty much if the entire gun is small enough to lay in your open hand then it's probably not going to be very accurate but those are the exception not the rule.