Question for people Pro-guns....

[Death God]

I don't agree with nobody having a gun but I also don't agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun lying around to play with. I think there are certain situations that require a gun like police (to SOME extent) and hostages but I don't agree with my country that everyone should have a gun. They are nice for hunting but I think our forefathers intended people to have guns because of wars and our minute-men but now-a-day is significantly different. So it is purely a situation-based judgement.

 

[BaronIveagh]

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

Gonna stop here for a sec and respond, have not read the last 2 pages yet, but...

10 killed and 50+ injured is actually the record for that, IIRC. And some of those were actually armed.


I'll throw in that pigs are an invasive species and it does not matter if they're in a populated area or not, they're doing damage.

 

[BaronIveagh]

Purchase PEPPER SPRAY or in the worst case a STUN GUN, and you can immobilise just about any adult man without scarring yourself (+ any onlookers) and possibly crippling/killing yourself or another person. Think you're just gonna cap some guy breaking into your house and move on your merry god damned way? are you john wayne? Shoot someone and you're going to hurt yourself, one way or the other.

Um, not really. Capsaicin hurts like hell, true, but it also fails utterly against certain people or people under the effects of certain substances (or if it's, you know, windy out). Both pepper spray and stun guns are fairly short range weapons. They only really work against an unarmed assailant.

And, in my experience, sometimes it's a good thing to shoot them dead. One of the men I did not kill later got out on parole and murdered a two month old baby on his next home invasion.


Edit: Amusing capcha 'easy as cake'

 

[Owen Robertson]

Because a 236 year old document says we can have them.

The guns are meant to empower the civilian population in extreme cases of governmental strife, like say if Obama decided to disband the senate and what have you and make America into an autocratic state. It might not be likely, but the possibility is always there. That's what the right to bear arms is about. It has nothing to do with preventing them damn redcoats from invadin'! It's about making sure the government doesn't try to take over our lives by providing a deterrent and a means of fighting back should they ever try. Really the fact that people don't seem to understand this is dumbfounding to me...

I only left that part of my quote to emphasize it. I have an understanding that it is not only your right to overthrow an invasive and/or authoritative governments, it is actually your duty as an American citizen. (I think it's a Thomas Jefferson quote)

So why doesn't it happen? When SOPA and PIPA were close to success, were you ready to murder in the name of your freedom?
When the Senate nearly disbanded because of the budget disagreement, how close were you to the President so you could rise up, gun in hand?

You weren't because most citizens only want guns because they're afraid. It may be subconscious, but it's there. You're afraid of burglars, rapists, kidnappers, and ne'er-do-wells. You think that the gun will save you. I'm not psychoanalyzing the American public, but I've watched your "news". CNN, MSNBC, and FOX fear-monger like it's going out of style.

I'll leave you with some math. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot the more time spent in proximity to a gun. If you don't have one, your chances are slim. If you own one, the chance increases. If you're a cop, soldier, firearms instructor or gunsmith, your chances are significantly higher due to the time you spend around firearms.

 

[Owen Robertson]

I don't agree with nobody having a gun but I also don't agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun lying around to play with. I think there are certain situations that require a gun like police (to SOME extent) and hostages but I don't agree with my country that everyone should have a gun. They are nice for hunting but I think our forefathers intended people to have guns because of wars and our minute-men but now-a-day is significantly different. So it is purely a situation-based judgement.

You know, I think you placed out one of the most reasonable and fair arguments I've ever heard. Please have as many children as possible and teach them to debate like that. Please. I'm worried for the future.

 

[Owen Robertson]

Purchase PEPPER SPRAY or in the worst case a STUN GUN, and you can immobilise just about any adult man without scarring yourself (+ any onlookers) and possibly crippling/killing yourself or another person. Think you're just gonna cap some guy breaking into your house and move on your merry god damned way? are you john wayne? Shoot someone and you're going to hurt yourself, one way or the other.

Um, not really. Capsaicin hurts like hell, true, but it also fails utterly against certain people or people under the effects of certain substances (or if it's, you know, windy out). Both pepper spray and stun guns are fairly short range weapons. They only really work against an unarmed assailant.

And, in my experience, sometimes it's a good thing to shoot them dead. One of the men I did not kill later got out on parole and murdered a two month old baby on his next home invasion.


Edit: Amusing capcha 'easy as cake'

Wow. Are you a cop? Or are you a private citizen who has really shot multiple people and killed some of them? Respond via message please. I'd like to have a few private words with you.

 

[Owen Robertson]

Like what? Knives?

No. Knives are very lethal in the right hands. And in the wrong hands. And in no hands at all. Knives aren't "less-than-lethal".
Less than lethal alternatives include: Pepper spray, extendable-nightsticks, stun-guns, hand-to-hand combat training, shit-kicker boots and of course hitting male assailants in the groin.

 

[Death God]

I don't agree with nobody having a gun but I also don't agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun lying around to play with. I think there are certain situations that require a gun like police (to SOME extent) and hostages but I don't agree with my country that everyone should have a gun. They are nice for hunting but I think our forefathers intended people to have guns because of wars and our minute-men but now-a-day is significantly different. So it is purely a situation-based judgement.

You know, I think you placed out one of the most reasonable and fair arguments I've ever heard. Please have as many children as possible and teach them to debate like that. Please. I'm worried for the future.

Well, thank you. Between my country saying I am wrong for not wanting more freedom and the rest of the world saying I am wrong for not wanting stricter laws, it is nice to hear someone agree with my thought process.

 

[Raytan941]

I'll leave you with some math. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot the more time spent in proximity to a gun. If you don't have one, your chances are slim. If you own one, the chance increases. If you're a cop, soldier, firearms instructor or gunsmith, your chances are significantly higher due to the time you spend around firearms.

Imagine that if you own or work with or around guns your more likely to be shot, I salute you sir on your amazing powers of deduction. Hey, do you think if you drive a motor vehicle on a regular basis your more likely to be involved in a car accident then if you never drive or ride in a motor vehicle? How about if you have unprotected sex? More likely or less likely to contract an STD? What do you think the likely hood is that if you jump in a pool your going to get wet vs staying outside of the pool?

Alright enough of the obvious here is a set of some real statics, I didn't write this so I salute the person who crunched the numbers, if nothing else it's great for the lol factor.

"In 2008 there were an estimated 9,369 Homicides with firearms. There are approximately 270,000,000 privately owned (not gov't owned) firearms in the united states. In 2009 there were 73,448 forcible (not statutory or any other type) rapes with a male aggressor. There are 151,781,326 males in this country per the 2010 census. Sooooooo: The chance that any firearm you see will be used in a murder is: 0.0000347%. The chance that any random penis will be used in a rape is .0004839%. Thus: any random penis is 14 times as likely to be used in a rape, as a gun in a murder. Obviously we should outlaw penises in this country since they are 14 times as likely to commit violent crime as guns. Or at least have to license and regulate their use. Or, we can realize that both guns and penises are tools, and the person wielding the tool is the one who commits the crime, not the tool itself."

 

[spartan231490]

Like what? Knives?

No. Knives are very lethal in the right hands. And in the wrong hands. And in no hands at all. Knives aren't "less-than-lethal".
Less than lethal alternatives include: Pepper spray, extendable-nightsticks, stun-guns, hand-to-hand combat training, shit-kicker boots and of course hitting male assailants in the groin.

None of which will reliably decrease your chances of being injured or killed in an attack. The only weapon that does is a firearm.

 

[PZF]

You weren't because most citizens only want guns because they're afraid. It may be subconscious, but it's there. You're afraid of burglars, rapists, kidnappers, and ne'er-do-wells. You think that the gun will save you. I'm not psychoanalyzing the American public, but I've watched your "news". CNN, MSNBC, and FOX fear-monger like it's going out of style.

Afraid, no, just smart enough to know there are bad people in this world. I do not live in fear, I enjoy life. I also don't think my gun will save me, I only hope it will should a situation arise. I don't know if it ever will, but I will not be leaving this world on my knees begging for my life.

Also, watching our news isn't really a good argument, they're pretty much publish whatever they want and often get facts wrong. They are quite biased and are more likely to print stories that will help their cause, whatever it may be.

I'll leave you with some math. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot the more time spent in proximity to a gun. If you don't have one, your chances are slim. If you own one, the chance increases. If you're a cop, soldier, firearms instructor or gunsmith, your chances are significantly higher due to the time you spend around firearms.

Just like if you drive a car, you're more likely to be in a car accident, or if you swim a lot, you're more likely to drown. But still, some people live their whole live without ever being in a car accident or drowning or being shot. Also, statistically, shooting sports/hunting is one of safest hobbies to have.

http://nssf.org/PDF/research/Hunting%20Safe%20Activity%20Chart%20NSSF%20branded.pdf

 

[Biosophilogical]

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.

No you don't, and that's my point. If your statistic is that most uses of firearms are as symbolic protection (you draw it, they go "Ah, a gun!", problem solved), then you only need to to look real. It's not like I'm saying "Start a profitable, well-publicised business for fake guns, and make it so everyone has one and cirminals realise this. You don't even need laws that allow you to carry guns. If a mugger (or rapist, or whatever) sees someone pull a 'gun', do you really think they are going to think "Oh, it's illegal for them to have that, therefore it is fake."? No, they're going to go "Oh shit, they have a gun, I was not expecting that, RUNRUNRUNRUN!". If you then had a taser that looked like a gun (or pepper spray, or something else that would actually do something if you used it), you wouldn't be stuffed if they tried to mug/rape/kill you regardless of your 'gun'. Ta-da, problem freakin' solved, fallacy my hairy, white body.

 

[Raesvelg]

]No you don't, and that's my point. If your statistic is that most uses of firearms are as symbolic protection (you draw it, they go "Ah, a gun!", problem solved), then you only need to to look real. It's not like I'm saying "Start a profitable, well-publicised business for fake guns, and make it so everyone has one and cirminals realise this. You don't even need laws that allow you to carry guns. If a mugger (or rapist, or whatever) sees someone pull a 'gun', do you really think they are going to think "Oh, it's illegal for them to have that, therefore it is fake."? No, they're going to go "Oh shit, they have a gun, I was not expecting that, RUNRUNRUNRUN!". If you then had a taser that looked like a gun (or pepper spray, or something else that would actually do something if you used it), you wouldn't be stuffed if they tried to mug/rape/kill you regardless of your 'gun'. Ta-da, problem freakin' solved, fallacy my hairy, white body.

No, I'm afraid the idea of fake guns just doesn't pan out.

Look at it from an evolutionary standpoint.

Defensive coloration only works if a reasonably high percentage of the creatures that display it are actually poisonous. And even then, you'll run into predators that are willing to take the chance under sufficiently dire circumstances.

A line of fake guns is only successful if there are other people out there carrying real guns. And, periodically at least, using them.

A fake gun containing pepper spray and/or a taser drops you into a totally different category. If your bluff is called, yes, you do at least have some recourse other than squirting water in the assailant's face, but you've also substantially upped the stakes.

If you run into someone who isn't deterred by the threat display, you're just substantially raised your chances of the encounter ending in you getting murdered, and if there's more than one assailant, a taser will do you precisely zero good, and pepper spray is, frankly, manageable for someone who really wants to see you dead. It also has a surprisingly high chance of backfiring depending on wind conditions; I've seen that happen in a rather humorous demonstration.

And again, if everyone carries fake guns, then guns are no deterrent. Hence, fallacy.

 

[Biosophilogical]

]No you don't, and that's my point. If your statistic is that most uses of firearms are as symbolic protection (you draw it, they go "Ah, a gun!", problem solved), then you only need to to look real. It's not like I'm saying "Start a profitable, well-publicised business for fake guns, and make it so everyone has one and cirminals realise this. You don't even need laws that allow you to carry guns. If a mugger (or rapist, or whatever) sees someone pull a 'gun', do you really think they are going to think "Oh, it's illegal for them to have that, therefore it is fake."? No, they're going to go "Oh shit, they have a gun, I was not expecting that, RUNRUNRUNRUN!". If you then had a taser that looked like a gun (or pepper spray, or something else that would actually do something if you used it), you wouldn't be stuffed if they tried to mug/rape/kill you regardless of your 'gun'. Ta-da, problem freakin' solved, fallacy my hairy, white body.

No, I'm afraid the idea of fake guns just doesn't pan out.

Look at it from an evolutionary standpoint.

Defensive coloration only works if a reasonably high percentage of the creatures that display it are actually poisonous. And even then, you'll run into predators that are willing to take the chance under sufficiently dire circumstances.

A line of fake guns is only successful if there are other people out there carrying real guns. And, periodically at least, using them.

A fake gun containing pepper spray and/or a taser drops you into a totally different category. If your bluff is called, yes, you do at least have some recourse other than squirting water in the assailant's face, but you've also substantially upped the stakes.

If you run into someone who isn't deterred by the threat display, you're just substantially raised your chances of the encounter ending in you getting murdered, and if there's more than one assailant, a taser will do you precisely zero good, and pepper spray is, frankly, manageable for someone who really wants to see you dead. It also has a surprisingly high chance of backfiring depending on wind conditions; I've seen that happen in a rather humorous demonstration.

And again, if everyone carries fake guns, then guns are no deterrent. Hence, fallacy.

I'm not saying "Everyone carries fake guns". I'm saying that if your wish is self-defense, then you don't actually need a gun. I mean, if you are worried about authenticity, you could have a real gun, just no bullets. And the thing about gun-fear is you don't need them to be legal weapons. All you need is those 'criminal elements' that apparently have 6 kajillion guns (or more!) to have guns, and the fear is there (they would become scared because they know that they, or other criminals could have guns, so you could too, which would be even more intimidating if only the baddest of the bad had them, because what mugger would risk pissing off the biggest bads around by killing you?). And if criminals didn't have guns, then sure, the intimidation wouldn't work, but criminals wouldn't have guns!

So either the fear is there because they have them (in which case fake-guns would be more than enough for most scenarios anyway[footnote]And if there is more than one assailant, so that a taser wouldn't work, opening fire might just get you killed anyway, and if it is only one that wouldn't be deterred by a real gun-threat, what makes you think they wouldn't just shoot you for drawing a weapon anyway?[/footnote]), or they don't have them!

Whichever way you spin it though, the point still stands that while defending yourself at the expense of your assailant is fine, defending yourself at the expense of innocent people (relative to your situation at any rate) is not. Fake guns are a happy medium that have the symbolic strength of a real gun, yet are a perfectly acceptable and safe method of defending yourself (given that you aren't going to accidentally shoot an innocent with a something that only looks like a gun).

 

[senordesol]

I'm not saying "Everyone carries fake guns". I'm saying that if your wish is self-defense, then you don't actually need a gun. I mean, if you are worried about authenticity, you could have a real gun, just no bullets. And the thing about gun-fear is you don't need them to be legal weapons. All you need is those 'criminal elements' that apparently have 6 kajillion guns (or more!) to have guns, and the fear is there (they would become scared because they know that they, or other criminals could have guns, so you could too, which would be even more intimidating if only the baddest of the bad had them, because what mugger would risk pissing off the biggest bads around by killing you?). And if criminals didn't have guns, then sure, the intimidation wouldn't work, but criminals wouldn't have guns!

So either the fear is there because they have them (in which case fake-guns would be more than enough for most scenarios anyway[footnote]And if there is more than one assailant, so that a taser wouldn't work, opening fire might just get you killed anyway, and if it is only one that wouldn't be deterred by a real gun-threat, what makes you think they wouldn't just shoot you for drawing a weapon anyway?[/footnote]), or they don't have them!

Whichever way you spin it though, the point still stands that while defending yourself at the expense of your assailant is fine, defending yourself at the expense of innocent people (relative to your situation at any rate) is not. Fake guns are a happy medium that have the symbolic strength of a real gun, yet are a perfectly acceptable and safe method of defending yourself (given that you aren't going to accidentally shoot an innocent with a something that only looks like a gun).

My God, these are like the ravings of a madman.

Bluffing is not self defense. Bluffing is what you do when you're not capable of defending yourself. Just the same as being unarmed, you can only HOPE your assailant decides no to hurt you.

 

[Raesvelg]

I'm not saying "Everyone carries fake guns". I'm saying that if your wish is self-defense, then you don't actually need a gun. I mean, if you are worried about authenticity, you could have a real gun, just no bullets. And the thing about gun-fear is you don't need them to be legal weapons. All you need is those 'criminal elements' that apparently have 6 kajillion guns (or more!) to have guns, and the fear is there (they would become scared because they know that they, or other criminals could have guns, so you could too, which would be even more intimidating if only the baddest of the bad had them, because what mugger would risk pissing off the biggest bads around by killing you?). And if criminals didn't have guns, then sure, the intimidation wouldn't work, but criminals wouldn't have guns!

Ugh.

You're arguing the free rider problem at this point, the idea that since other people have real guns, you can get buy with a fake gun and just use it in threat displays.

The problem remains. Enough people with real guns have to issue real threats in order to cover your fake firearm and fake threat. If too many people start doing the same thing that you're doing, the system collapses and no threats are taken seriously.

Even in your fantasy world where criminals instantly buy into the idea of a fake gun being real even if guns are extremely hard to acquire legally, the fact of the matter remains that not all criminals are terminally stupid, and your fake guns would receive a fair amount of publicity.

Criminals would figure it out.

And, while it apparently entertains you to utilize the footnote feature, it's best not to put portions of your argument there.

And if there is more than one assailant, so that a taser wouldn't work, opening fire might just get you killed anyway, and if it is only one that wouldn't be deterred by a real gun-threat, what makes you think they wouldn't just shoot you for drawing a weapon anyway?

This returns to the statement that if you want to carry a firearm for self-defense, you need one that works and one that you're willing to use. Your hypothetical fake-gun/taser instantly ups the stakes to lethal force, and if you're faking that, yes, you might well get killed.

But an actual pistol can shoot more than once.

And, as for a single assailant who is apparently crazy enough to push the issue on someone who's got the drop on him, that's why you shoot them. This isn't rocket science.

Guns used in threat displays are generally not used when someone has a gun to your head. They're used in response to threatening language, threats with a knife or other melee weapon, threats with a gun that is not directly pointed at the potential victim.

Trying to pull a gun on someone who has one pointed at something important is a really excellent way to get yourself killed, but the fact remains that most criminals don't really want to escalate the situation into that kill-or-be-killed level. Muggings are taken in stride by the local constabulary, murders typically less so.

 

[Owen Robertson]

Imagine that if you own or work with or around guns your more likely to be shot, I salute you sir on your amazing powers of deduction. Hey, do you think if you drive a motor vehicle on a regular basis your more likely to be involved in a car accident then if you never drive or ride in a motor vehicle? How about if you have unprotected sex? More likely or less likely to contract an STD? What do you think the likely hood is that if you jump in a pool your going to get wet vs staying outside of the pool?

You made your point, but made it rather dickishly. Sarcasm doesn't help your cause.

 

[Owen Robertson]

None of which will reliably decrease your chances of being injured or killed in an attack. The only weapon that does is a firearm.

I was never arguing that less-than-lethal are a ore successful alternative. I was correcting you on your use of the term less-than-lethal. Perhaps that wasn't clear.