Question for people Pro-guns....

[easternflame]

I'm not saying they are. That's why I said, if GOOD people want to collect them, they will have to hold back.
Although that's pretty much what I can counter from this. You sir, have convinced me. And that is not an easy thing to do. You earn an internet.

why should we punish good people for the misdoings of bad people

For fucks sake, all I'm saying is, I don't mean that ALL PEOPLE who buy assault rifles are psychos

 

[Biosophilogical]

-snip-

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us or give us an unfair advantage. After all, rapists and home invaders deserve a fair fight!

Holy flying donkey-genitals! I kind of expected this many responses though, so I shouldn't sound (read?) so shocked.

I do think you are allowed to defend yourself. And I do think you are allowed to do so at the expense of the safety of your assailant(s). What I do not consider acceptable is putting anyone else in danger to do so. So unless you and your assailant are alone in the middle of a street, with no openings (alleys, windows, doors or the like) that could hold other people (within reasonable firing range, after all, a person in an alley fifty metres behind you isn't at risk if your assailant is in front of you), then any use of a firearm could potentially harm people not involved in the conflict (and more than likely not responsible for it). And honestly, I don't give two shits what the other person did, because when you endanger someone who isn't responsible for your current situation, you overstep the line, you do exactly what the person causing you problems is doing, so by your logic, if you used a firearm for self-defense, anyone else in the vicinity who is potentially endangered by your actions could stop you from doing so, even if it meant endangering another person to do so, because by endangering someone not responsible for your predicament, you've created a completely new scenario of victimisation, and you are most certainly not the victim in that one.

Short version: You can defend yourself. You can do so at the expense of the one responsible for the problem (provided such action would actually relieve the problem in any way). What you cannot do is defend yourself at the expense of people not responsible for the problem.

so what you are saying is the tweaker with a rusty knife pointed at me has more of a right to safety then a law abiding citizen

and most of the time guns are used in self defense roughly 91%of the time not a single shot is fired i got this information from the National Crime Victimization Survey

Okay, please use punctuation next time ... please?

Now that I've got my anal side out of the way (I'm going to be unable to poop and eventually explode), I have no idea what you are saying with the first bit. Honestly, I haven't the foggiest idea, so could you please quote me back and elaborate a bit?

The second bit, what you've basically said is that guns are symbolic protection? At which point, you might as well start a market of water-guns that are indistinguishable from the real thing (apart from the lack of bullet-shooting), because simply the threat of a gun is enough. And besides, saying "I have a bomb, but I won't use it, I just want it for symbolic self-defense" is just insane. If your intention is to use a gun[footnote]Obviously for self-defense outside of your private property.[/footnote], then you shouldn't have it (because you risk the safety of everyone around you), and if your intention is to simply have the 'threat' of a gun, but not use it, then you don't need a real weapon in the first place (just a very convincing fake, maybe a tazer-in-disguise), neither of which is an argument in favour of firearms as self-defense.

 

[Augustine]

That is very much a slippery slope kind of argument. You will find precious few (if any) people arguing for the legality of grenades, bombs, and sarin gas. There is a limit to those freedoms, and it generally stops at firearms - up to full-auto.

Destructive devices are already impractical as they require expensive liscencing and are EXTREMELY (I can't stress this enough) cost-prohibitive.

Explosives/Incendiaries/Poisons can be made quite easily by anyone with little determination and enough cash for a short shopping trip. Ban of them is an inconvenience, not an insurmountable obstacle.
Certainly, home made items may not be as reliable or effective as the real thing - but that's semantics.

 

[Raesvelg]

The second bit, what you've basically said is that guns are symbolic protection? At which point, you might as well start a market of water-guns that are indistinguishable from the real thing (apart from the lack of bullet-shooting), because simply the threat of a gun is enough. And besides, saying "I have a bomb, but I won't use it, I just want it for symbolic self-defense" is just insane. If your intention is to use a gun then you shouldn't have it (because you risk the safety of everyone around you), and if your intention is to simply have the 'threat' of a gun, but not use it, then you don't need a real weapon in the first place (just a very convincing fake, maybe a tazer-in-disguise), neither of which is an argument in favour of firearms as self-defense.

Fallacy.

If everyone is carrying fake guns, then the notion of symbolic protection is meaningless; criminals will know the guns are fake and rob/rape/kill you anyway.

It's the the sight of a gun-shaped object that repels a criminal. They're not some weird sort of vampire. It's the prospect of getting shot that frightens criminals. If the faux-firearms are not dangerous, they're no threat.

If you want to defend yourself with a gun, you have to have one that works, and be willing to use it.

 

[spartan231490]

The following are the facts as copied from the sited sources. Do with them as you will( the per 100,000 stats mean that for every 100,000 people in the country that is how many fall into said category) :


Total homicides us 2005: 16,740

Total homicides with a gun 2005: 10,158

Unintentional gun related deaths 2005: 789

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 5.66

Total gun related homicides per 100,000 people: 3.43


US Population in 2005: 296 million








Total homicides in the UK 2005: 764


Total homicides with guns 50

Total unintentional gun related deaths 2005 unavailable, last available year 1999: 6

Total homicides per 100,000 people: 1.3

Total homicides with a gun per 100,000 people: .1

England and Welsh Population in 2005 53.4 million


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Customs/questions/population.html


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

This means absolutely nothing. Comparing one country to another doesn't accomplish shit statistically. Statistically, there is no evidence whatsoever that increased gun control reduces gun crime. These are the results of my attempts to find evidence real scientific evidence that increased gun control reduces crime, I was unable to find even one such piece of evidence.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I just wanted to point out that I did not in fact make any argument one way or the other, I simply felt that it would help the debate if some reference-able facts were available, and you proceeded to get offended by the facts and started swearing at me.

Also, if I cannot compare a country to another country, what can I compare a country to? A tree?

I didn't get offended by the facts, I was not offended at all. I curse a lot, I wasn't cursing at you, "doesn't accomplish shit" is just the phrase I use when something doesn't accomplish shit.

I misspoke myself, you can compare one country to another all you want, but the results won't be significant because you have no way of controlling for other variables such as population density, cultural background, and economic stability, just to name a few. If you want to draw any meaningful conclusions about gun control, you need to look at how the implementation of gun control has effected the area that implemented it, or examine a very large number of nations in a statistical analysis. Every single one of my sources did one of these things. Also, why did you cut out the greater part of my post? It had some of the most relevant information, including links that would have told you all this.

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

Those similarities are superficial when compared to our cultural differences, otherwise, your violent crime rate wouldn't be so much higher than ours. You have a monarchy, even if it's mostly or entirely for show, it still impacts your culture, as does being a part of Europe. I imagine being on the receiving end of so much bombing in WW2 impacted your culture too. You can't just compare two countries and draw meaningful results. It is exactly like the thing news stations do saying how since one guy who went psycho played video games it obviously means playing video games makes you psycho. It's not even enough data to establish correlation, let alone causation.

And that's fair, I was just curious why you went through the effort of cutting out a large chunk of my post, but that makes sense.

I'm sorry but I am a bit confused.... Are you British or American? Your last post makes that unclear, I was born and raised in the USA.

As far as smuggling goes, if Wikipedia is to be believed the USA has absolutely no need to smuggle guns INTO the country as Canada is ranked 14 on the fire arm production list and neither Mexico nor any South American nations even list.... On the other hand, the USA ranks 1st. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Granted things do get smuggled in and out of the country but the firearms used by the smugglers have a higher chance of coming from this nation than any other, with the exception of maybe Russia, if only because we still have large numbers of unaccounted for cold war stocks... but those are depleting as that was over 20 years ago now.

I'm from the USA, and smuggling has nothing to do with where it's produced. However, smuggling isn't a big issue in the US now because we can buy guns, but if you tried to ban guns in the US, smuggling would become a huge issue because of our open borders.

 

[spartan231490]

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Emotional hyperbole has no place in a discussion about legal policy. I will once again say that there is absolutely 0, none, nada, the big goose egg, zilch, zip, zero evidence to suggest that more guns means fewer crimes. Further, yeah, those 2% might have been better off without guns, but the victim would have been a lot worse off the other 98%. That's 98% of at least 1.5 million people that use a firearm to defend themselves who would be unable to if you banned guns.

 

[spartan231490]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

Like what? Knives? Won't help if you're opponent has a gun, or even if he just has a longer knife than you, or longer arms. It takes months and months of specialized training to actually be able to defend yourself with a knife, and that's assuming there's only one attacker.

Pepper spray? Ever seen that stuff in the wind, it doesn't work. I know a woman who tried to spray a dog and the wind blew the spray back into her face, literally. She ended up in the hospital. It wasn't even windy. What are you going to do: ask your attacker to move downwind so you can defend yourself?

Tazer? A person with drugs or alcohol in their system(like the majority of assailants) isn't likely to be stopped with just one taze, and civilian issue are either one shot, or rely on direct contact where you run into the same problems as with a knife.

Further, why on earth would I not want to resort to a lethal method? This person is attacking me for no reason, I see no reason why I should put myself, the innocent one, in greater danger just to spare the attacker's life.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

None as certain as a lethal weapon though.

I've seen people hopped up on drugs ignore tazers, pepperspray, even rubber bullets.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

But in my best case scenario: No-one's dead. That's my point.

In less than 10% of cases of self-defense involving a firearm in the US is the firearm actually fired at the assailant, just waving it or firing a warning shot is enough to end most attacks. This, combined with the fact that there are conservatively 1.5 million incidences of self-defense using a firearm in the US every year, mean that guns save more lives here than they cost.

It's kinda funny, how every time a story about some gun-involving massacre comes out from the US everyone's doing the whole "we need guns so that criminals are scared to shoot someone" routine. Somehow the possibility of "ANYONE in his immediate area and beyond packing" never stopped all those people.

That's why these people tend to shoot up schools or other places where guns are banned, because none of their law abiding victims will have a gun. The most deadly massacre in US history before the Virginia Tech shooting was in a restaurant in Texes(which at the time were gun-free zones) where several of the victims had legally carried hand-guns in their vehicles.

 

[tsb247]

That is very much a slippery slope kind of argument. You will find precious few (if any) people arguing for the legality of grenades, bombs, and sarin gas. There is a limit to those freedoms, and it generally stops at firearms - up to full-auto.

Destructive devices are already impractical as they require expensive liscencing and are EXTREMELY (I can't stress this enough) cost-prohibitive.

Explosives/Incendiaries/Poisons can be made quite easily by anyone with little determination and enough cash for a short shopping trip. Ban of them is an inconvenience, not an insurmountable obstacle.
Certainly, home made items may not be as reliable or effective as the real thing - but that's semantics.

I agree. They can be made by anyone who puts their mind to it, and it would do little to attempt to regulate them.

As for how effective they can be...

Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that a sick criminal doesn't need a firearm to cause incredible destruction and anguish. A well-constructed bomb, grenade, or chemical device can be far more effective if constructed correctly. The worst part is that the construction of such devices is almost common knowledge these days.

 

[tsb247]

Accidental double post due to internet issues. Please disregard.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Tazer? A person with drugs or alcohol in their system(like the majority of assailants) isn't likely to be stopped with just one taze, and civilian issue are either one shot, or rely on direct contact where you run into the same problems as with a knife.

Er...do you have a source for the alcohol/drugs thing? As I understood it, the Taser isn't affected by things like that.

That's not to say that there aren't any number of disadvantages to Tasers, just that I didn't think that was one of them.

 

[senordesol]

What is this ridiculous misconception that "criminals will get a gun"? Who are "criminals" ? Every criminal person out in society? Is this some faceless blob that encompasses everybody who's ever broken the law? Remove guns from the circulation in society and most of them will disappear from the streets. Anybody who's truly devoting their time and resources will eventually get a hold of a weapon, but it erases a whole deal of accidents, heat of the moment issues and poor guys making mistakes that last lifetimes. If getting a hold of a gun becomes an expensive affair then that changes the circumstances for most criminals that any idiot would feel the need to be "protected" from.

It naturally does nothing to prevent those people from being born into poverty and kept there by true criminals, but it would at least sort out of many of the perceived dangers that the media has programmed into the minds of most plebs out there.

*Sigh* And how, pray, is this magical 'removal from circulation' going to occur (with regard to the United States)? What on Earth would give you faith that our government is even remotely capable of that given its abject failures with prohibition, drug control, municipal gun bans, and border control (to name a few)?

See, that's the thing: if a gun ban could even have a remote possibility of working, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't, in fact it would only create a boom for the criminal element. Who are these criminals, you ask? Well we don't rightly know one until he manifests his plot. They tend not to wear uniforms, you see. Which makes an encounter with one all the more dangerous; you don't know who he is, what he wants, or how far he's willing to go. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is best to be as prepared as you can reasonably be to deal with him -- up to and including ending him if the situation calls for it.

Now this is where a lot of people tend to misinterpret a gun owner's stance. I bet upon reading that last paragraph you assumed I meant killing every criminal I come across - despite the fact that I included a qualifier at the end of my provision. It's happened before and if you were smart enough to catch that, rest assured: there's someone out there who wasn't. However, the gun is merely an OPTION, one of several means to an end. The end, in this case, being a resolution to this violation that keeps myself and my family safe.

If, when confronted with the weapon, the man chooses to surrender or flee; then there is no need to fire. If I am placed in an imposition where I will not be able to reach my weapon in time, but may yet resolve the situation by capitulating, that too is an acceptable (though not desireable) solution. If, however, the assailant decides to press the attack and I am forced to defend myself; I'd rather be assured that the tool with which I am defending is the most effective option available to stop the assault. If my assailant dies in the process; that's his own doing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It is a curious thing that so many people here seem to think the various US law enforcement agencies and government departments would not fuck everything up terribly in regards to this issue.

That doesn't seem to be the general opinion of this forum in regards to most other issues.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Emotional hyperbole has no place in a discussion about legal policy. I will once again say that there is absolutely 0, none, nada, the big goose egg, zilch, zip, zero evidence to suggest that more guns means fewer crimes. Further, yeah, those 2% might have been better off without guns, but the victim would have been a lot worse off the other 98%. That's 98% of at least 1.5 million people that use a firearm to defend themselves who would be unable to if you banned guns.

Did you mean less guns not more guns?
Anyway those statistics are only accidental shooting of people. If you were mugging someone you wouldn't want to have to shoot. If they pull a weapon you are probably going to shoot. Them having a weapon in my opinion makes it more likely for them to die. I would prefer to live and not be able to defend my wallet thanks.

 

[k-ossuburb]

I'm British too, but I honestly think that you should have the right to choice. The fact of the matter is you can have as many checks, waiting periods and whatever other safety measure you like but whether you're getting a gun illegally or legally you can never really know for certain how that gun will be used.

If this is about that recent shooting then I'd say that there should be no argument about gun control, the entire argument should be about the health system. It's mental illness that needs to be tackled, not guns. Guns aren't the problem here.

 

[spartan231490]

Tazer? A person with drugs or alcohol in their system(like the majority of assailants) isn't likely to be stopped with just one taze, and civilian issue are either one shot, or rely on direct contact where you run into the same problems as with a knife.

Er...do you have a source for the alcohol/drugs thing? As I understood it, the Taser isn't affected by things like that.

That's not to say that there aren't any number of disadvantages to Tasers, just that I didn't think that was one of them.

Can't find as good a source as I want but:
One extreme case: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/tasered-times----and-still-alive/article_beaa8785-d918-52ad-a113-7b984e6d6608.html
The guy was handcuffed and tazed over 70 times and he was still struggling so badly it took 8 men to force him into the police cruiser.

Here's one police couldn't stop with tazers and then shot: http://www.myrecordjournal.com/meriden/article_4f7b04d0-97c2-11e1-80a4-001a4bcf887a.html

Here's one guy they had subdued on the ground who stood up and ran away while they were tazering him and he wasn't even high:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80645852/

This guy shrugged off a tazer and then lost a fist-fight with the officer(on Meth):
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/06/01/Man_who_shrugs_off_Taser_but_loses_fist_fight_with_officer_d/

This guy wasn't slowed down by a single tazer, it took 3 at once to bring him down:
http://www.sakonnet.com/news/2012/may/25/suspect-struggles-despite-pepper-spray-taser/

One of the "cannibal attacks" the guy was tazed and pepper sprayed and kept struggling against the officers:
http://thebeaconsglare.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/facing-facts/

This guy was only on synthetic weed and tazers didn't take him down:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-631628.html

I can't find the source I found years ago, it was about tazer deaths and had several incidences listed. They aren't as good, but there are quite a few of these individual sources.

 

[spartan231490]

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Emotional hyperbole has no place in a discussion about legal policy. I will once again say that there is absolutely 0, none, nada, the big goose egg, zilch, zip, zero evidence to suggest that more guns means fewer crimes. Further, yeah, those 2% might have been better off without guns, but the victim would have been a lot worse off the other 98%. That's 98% of at least 1.5 million people that use a firearm to defend themselves who would be unable to if you banned guns.

Did you mean less guns not more guns?
Anyway those statistics are only accidental shooting of people. If you were mugging someone you wouldn't want to have to shoot. If they pull a weapon you are probably going to shoot. Them having a weapon in my opinion makes it more likely for them to die. I would prefer to live and not be able to defend my wallet thanks.

Statistics show that you are right in general. Carrying any kind of self defense weapon makes it more likely that you will be injured in an attack, with one exception: firearms. Pulling a gun on a mugger is most likely to make him run away, not start a gunfight with you. You are over 4 times more likely to be injured or killed if you do nothing when being assaulted than if you defend yourself with a gun
"Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates are:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%"
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-control-myths
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

Further, this isn't about just muggings. This is about murders, rapes, home invasions, kidnappings. Are you saying people should just let themselves get murdered/raped/kidnapped because defending themselves might get them hurt? 1.5 million people defend themselves every year using firearms, if this really put them in more danger, we'd have a lot more murders than we do.

A survey of felons in prison found that: "34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
? 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
? 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""

"42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives
? 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime
? 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once"
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Why deny them the right to defend themselves when it doesn't reduce crime rate, doesn't lead to fewer people dying, and doesn't put them at greater risk.

 

[senordesol]

snip

Not only did you not respond to the part that was aimed at your quote, but you construed an argument of your own to respond. That's a sidetrack and a strawman in one move, that's impressive.

But let's get into this anyway and see if we can't turn on the light behind another vacant stare.

*Sigh* And how, pray, is this magical 'removal from circulation' going to occur (with regard to the United States)? What on Earth would give you faith that our government is even remotely capable of that given its abject failures with prohibition, drug control, municipal gun bans, and border control (to name a few)?

First off, you presume to understand or know about my stance on gun regulation when I have not shared it with you.

Getting guns out of circulation needs more than a change of laws, people's mindset would have to change and the cowboy attitude would have to change. Most importantly the need for guns would have to be dealt with, the actual problem. I notice that you didn't pick up on this earlier when I addressed what I consider the "real" criminals, but I'll reiterate just for you.

Your perceived problem and "criminals" are of course born out of poverty and ignorance and all that jazz. So attacking the gun-laws in themselves does not necessarily change anything in your government and your people do not want them to change. Which brings me to one of your first questions and the lacking examples within;

I have no faith in your government, gun bans won't happen.

"War on drugs" was not a war on the actual problem that causes drug abuse, nor any real attempt by your government to actually clamp down on drug-import (not to mention offshore military actions and coups that actually help INCREASE drug trafficking on an international level) but rather to go after low-level distributors and fill up privately owned correctional facilities. While simultaneously do nothing to alter the conditions that create drug abuse and maintain a steady flow of drug-import.

I have no problem with armed border-patrols. Which brings me back to the first comment about you not knowing anything about my stance on gun control. I brought up European countries and highlighted the Scandinavian ones (where the police do not carry weapons) as examples of people whose attitude have matured far beyond your own colonial-day ideas. Removing guns from police-officers is not something I think would help get guns off the streets, the idea of police bringing guns into the lower echelons of the socio-economic ladder not withstanding. But like I said, it would have to come from a desire to change, and that does not exist so the aforementioned corrupt servicemen might leak firearms into poverty-stricken neighbourhoods.

Short answer: These did not work because nobody in power wants to combat the actual problems, which is why "war on drugs" didn't work well and why "war on guns" wouldn't work either.

See, that's the thing: if a gun ban could even have a remote possibility of working, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't, in fact it would only create a boom for the criminal element. Who are these criminals, you ask? Well we don't rightly know one until he manifests his plot. They tend not to wear uniforms, you see. Which makes an encounter with one all the more dangerous; you don't know who he is, what he wants, or how far he's willing to go. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is best to be as prepared as you can reasonably be to deal with him -- up to and including ending him if the situation calls for it.

This is just some desperate attempt to separate yourself from the perceived "faceless criminal blob" and is mostly a product of media-induced fear, poorly done research and a narrow-minded personality. I can do little to remedy this enormous misconception other than tell you to stop watching so much CNN and lay off the action-movies for a while. You sound like a republican-superhero from the 70s.

If, when confronted with the weapon, the man chooses to surrender or flee; then there is no need to fire. If I am placed in an imposition where I will not be able to reach my weapon in time, but may yet resolve the situation by capitulating, that too is an acceptable (though not desireable) solution. If, however, the assailant decides to press the attack and I am forced to defend myself; I'd rather be assured that the tool with which I am defending is the most effective option available to stop the assault. If my assailant dies in the process; that's his own doing.

Have you ever been maced? or stungunned? I haven't had the pleasure myself, but I've witnessed it first hand, and anybody short of paul bunyan should drop like a bag of potatoes. Options that are far less threatening to those around you, barely susceptible to accidents, legal to conceal and can be used guilt-free without having to pull some desperate rationalization that the decision has been removed from your hands and that whomever you shoot is completely responsible for your actions.

The idea that killing a man might impact you somehow (legally or mentally) was freely ignored. But I will bring it up once again. You are lying to yourself if you are saying that shooting a person would come easy and even more deluded yet if you think that the guy who might break into your home and steal your TV is the real problem here.

Finally, I just have to ask. Are you satisfied with people being poor? Do you feel that the way to combat crime is to arm up, ignore the cause and simply keep building prisons?

When you look to your Scandinavian overmen and see high-standard of living, low crime, no guns, etc etc, do you believe that this is because they have less "evil people" in their country? Why do you think that is?

First: I owe you an apology. I made several erroneous assumptions about your stance, which puts me in the wrong with regard to my previous response.

Sorry about that.

Second: It sounds as if your stance is that you would rather there not be a need for guns than a law against them. I agree with that.

Third: As an individual, however, there is very little I can do to eliminate that need. Social changes are all well and good, but the pace and degree in which they occur is frankly out of my hands and until they do, there will still be desperate people who do desperate things.

Fourth: And this is the crucial thing: until such changes come to pass, I'm stuck with the society I have. As such, I still need to be prepared for those same desperate people if and when they come to my door. Tazers and Pepper Spray (one needs a license for mace) are all well and good if your assailant is close enough for those to be effective, as well as other mitigating factors -- for example: if he happens to be weaing a thick jacket, tazers will not be effective. If he's wearing a mask (particularly if it protects his eyes): pepper spray will be less effective. Bullets, on the other hand, will be effective in either case.

With regard to how a shooting will affect me either legally or personnally: Those are valid concerns, but not a compelling argument to dispense with a firearm in the first place. With the assumption of the responsibility of ownership of a firearm, I know that I also assume all risks inherent. Any fallout from that is my problem.

 

[Alexnader]

however that does not mean you've won the main point of contention which is that Australia is just too damn big.

1/100th of 1% of an area with 5,000 people was enough to effectively control the pig population. That is about 30 people. Once again, if you cannot find 30 people in an area of about 100 square miles, then the pigs are irrelevant anyway.

Did you even read the rest of my post? Did you not look at the map? We were not arguing over the relevance of pigs to other people but of the difficulty in reducing their numbers significantly. You said originally that we had more pigs than people and blamed that solely on the lower number of semi-automatic weapons dispersed amongst the population. I've just shown you that a vast amount of pigs live in the middle of bloody woop woop and now you say "oh but those pigs don't count". You have presented to me no data about the density of pigs around higher density populations of people. Show me that people can't keep the pigs out of their back gardens. Also keep in mind the size of Australian cattle ranges can be ridiculous, many of those areas would have the lowest population density and be some of the worst effected by pigs. The only thing you've said that wasn't anecdotal was that there are more pigs than people and that number is aggregate over the entire continent, it does not help your new claim that we can't control pigs close to larger population centres.

And keep in mind you need 30 hunters, not 30 "people". My grandma lives out in the bush and I doubt she could go shooting pigs, would you count her in your numbers? Because others like her would certainly be counted in the census that frequently shows a population density of less than 0.1 people per square kilometer.

Furthermore read this document [http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/FPFS3_feralpig-control.pdf] which claims that ground shooting is inherently very much a secondary means of population control due to factors beyond the hunter's control (pigs are sneaky) and is far behind aerial shooting (done by professionals with semi automatics), trapping and poisoning. If valid this presents another blow to your claim that Australia would have much less of a pig problem if we had more relaxed gun laws.

Actually I have done aerial hunting and it is not effective. Pigs are sneaky, they do not stick around when helicopters start flying over. Which is why the paper said that it is only valuable when hunting large numbers of pigs.

BTW you think poisoning is a good idea? You realize that things eat the pigs once they die, and when they die their bodies decompose and the fluids go where (takes finger and points down)?

I'll weigh the cited claims in the article higher than your stories about "pigs being sneaky". Aerial shoots are only economically sound when hunting large numbers, so what? One thing you have made pains to stake out is Australia has no shortage of high density pig spots. Aerial shooting is economically viable, having hunters go out and wander around in the bush for a while is generally not unless it's being used in areas where pig numbers are low.

Also do you seriously think the toxins used in pig baiting pose a threat to groundwater of all things? Threats to groundwater come primarily from industrial scale processes such as frakking. Catchment threats likewise come from things like farm run-off and industrial discharges. Not relatively small doses of poison strategically placed in low risk areas. I profess a fair amount of ignorance here so please point me to any hard evidence you have for baiting threatening water supplies. Primary and secondary poisoning of other species is the main risk, one that's carefully managed. The people using these poisons are professionals and the bait they use has been developed to target pigs. It's not without risk but risk is something to be managed, not avoided.

Your state with your cowboys were the ones harping on about open prairies, not my fault it's a stereotype. Also you could well live in a pretty area so congrats.

YOU accuse me of not knowing about your country and you talk about my country in the form of stereotypes.

I accuse you of ignorance to facts pertaining to our discussion. I will gladly wallow in the self-delusion that you all wear white cowboy hats and fire six-shooters into the air when celebrating because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. As far as I'm concerned only Austin is free of crazy cowboys because I've seen the Rooster Teeth crew and with the exception of Jack I can't picture them rustling cattle.

I don't care how many automatics you own, I'm trying to be something that was once known as "on topic" but has long been lost to us. The point is they may be tightly regulated but they're not illegal for civilians in America and that seems quite crazy to me. In Australia only collectors can have them provided they have been permanently disabled.

There has never been a crime committed with a legally owned Class III Firearm by a civilian in American history. I do not see the problem.

A few minutes of google did not avail to me the definition of a class 3 firearm but only brought me websites gleefully showing off assault rifles and the like so I'll assume you mean automatic weapon. Please limit the country-specific jargon, I don't go around calling semi-automatics "Class D weapons" now do I?

I love the way you snuck that truth out so carefully, massacres have been done with automatic weapons however if you're not lying then those weapons weren't legally owned. I daresay the criminals would've had a harder time getting those weapons if there wasn't a legal excuse for those weapons to be in the country.