[mike777]

Since reality is no one here is suggesting taking away guns and the number of legal guns are increasing rapidly, lets start from that point in stopping gun violence.

Gun violence is down for some reason, lets find out why and perhaps do more of whatever works.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 17:36, said:

Criminals have stated, over and over again, that the possibility that a potential victim is armed gives them pause - they would much prefer to let that one alone, and go find someone safer to rob. So if I (or anyone else) am carrying, and the criminal knows it, I'm likely "never to get robbed in the first place". You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

This seems to encourage arms-escalation. From a selfish view-point, however, blackshoe's kind of argument is hard to counter. e.g.

Softies who disagreed with Capital Punishment could wear a badge which said:

If you kill me you won't be executed

Whereas those made of sterner stuff could wear a badge which said:

If you kill me you may suffer rendition and anything left will be executed

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2013-January-23, 18:39, said:

Since reality is no one here is suggesting taking away guns and the number of legal guns are increasing rapidly, lets start from that point in stopping gun violence.

Gun violence is down for some reason, lets find out why and perhaps do more of whatever works.

There are a number of theories about why gun violence is down.
Two of the most prominent are the aging population and banning lead as a fuel additive.

With this said and done, no one here has suggested completely banning guns, however, and number of us - myself included - favor much stricter limits on what can legal by carried. I'd go so far as to ban private ownership of hand guns.

I also would have zero problems banning most popular calibers of ammunition.
(The half life of a bullet ain't all that long and banning the sale of 9mm rounds, etc would render a lot of those 300 million guns near worthless)

Of course, this should be accompanied by gun buyback programs, as well as the option to switch over to approved weapons.

As I noted before, I favor a system in which

1. Private citizens can own almost anything they want, so long as the weapons are permanently stored at licensed gun ranges
2. Private citizens can store shot guns and long rifles at home for hunting and self defense (with strict limits on magazine size)

[blackshoe]

dwar0123, on 2013-January-23, 18:03, said:

This painting is a self portrait and your agenda is terrifying.

What agenda? I have no agenda. As for "self portrait," you see what you want to see - and what you see does not exist.

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 21:42, said:

What agenda? I have no agenda. As for "self portrait," you see what you want to see - and what you see does not exist.

That's really amazing. You are suggesting to completely do away with the criminal justice system, replacing it by an improved civil justice system and deterrence via individual self-defence. Yet you claim not to have an agenda.
You are the radical in this discussion, and you aren't even aware that you are out of the mainstream. It's truly mind-boggling.
That's so far out there, I couldn't even make fun of it if I wanted to.

[cherdano]

So here is gun advocacy for dummies:

• If everybody had a gun, criminals would be deterred, we wouldn't even need our criminal justice system and could essentially do away with the police. You are imposing your own view ("I want to be able to defend myself with a gun") on anyone else, who may not want to have to own a gun in order to be protected from criminals. In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda.
  
• Given my circumstances, I don't trust the police to adequately protect me from criminals. Even with the strictest gun laws possible, criminals will continue to be armed, and all I am asking for is to be able to defend my self on equal footing. If there are enough well-trained, responsible citizens with a CC permit like me, this will also help to protect anyone else from mass shootings. That's a position many non-gun owners may disagree with. But it's not idotic, and you may be taken seriously.

[Fluffy]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 17:36, said:

Criminals have stated, over and over again, that the possibility that a potential victim is armed gives them pause - they would much prefer to let that one alone, and go find someone safer to rob. So if I (or anyone else) am carrying, and the criminal knows it, I'm likely "never to get robbed in the first place".

You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

This gives me the same feeling as when a local goverment on a region in Spain pacted with the terrorists to avoid terrorists acts on their region, probably allowing terrorists free pass to atempt on the rest of the country.

I wonder if you'd feel guilty if you are armed, people know you are, and then somene kills someone you love who isn't armed.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2013-January-23, 17:34, said:

The notion of being able to kill people who act against you may appeal to some: frankly I think of such an attitude as sick.

In my country, I think almost everyone would feel as sick as you do.
But there is also the fact that people have gone to jail for shooting assaulters that were 'only' carrying knives in his own home, meaning that your history would be really rare.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 15:11, said:

the best case scenario is that the perpetrator of the ADW is dead, because his intended victim killed him.

So, if someone threatens your life, you are allowed supposed to kill him?

Where do you draw the line?
How about if someone threatens your life in a less direct way? Picture yourself in a desert with another guy with a bottle of water who refuses to share. Would you shoot him? Or think of a medical insurer that refuses to pay for your life saving treatment. Their 'No' is certainly a deadly weapon. Would you be willing to use your gun to force them into making it a 'Yes' and let you live?

Rik

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2013-January-23, 22:47, said:

In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda

IMO, remarks like this are out of place in a rational discussion. (Also patently untrue). Keep going and the moderators could lock this thread as they did the Theology thread.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2013-January-24, 06:55, said:

cherdano, on 2013-January-23, 22:47, said:

In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda.

IMO, remarks like this are out of place in a rational discussion. (Also patently untrue). Keep going and the moderators could lock this thread as they did the Theology thread.

I think you are overreacting and/or misreading cherdano's post and quoting unfair.

If you reread his post, you will realize that his "you" is not referring to a particular person. It is "you" in the meaning of "one": "How do you make apple pie?" could mean "How do you make apple pie?" (I follow my grandmother's recipe) and it could mean "How does one make apple pie?" (One would look in a cookbook.)

While I wouldn't use the words cherdano uses (because I don't use those words in general), I doubt that you would have written your reply if he would have explicitly written "in short, one (i.e. he who thinks we shouldn't have police because he can defend himself) is an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda". I won't comment on the mental capacity of anybody who thinks like that, but I think it is reasonable to classify this train of logic as "radical".

Rik

[TimG]

Quote

The house where the recent New Mexico family shooting occurred had a security-style sign outside saying ‘‘Protected by Smith & Wesson Security Services.’’

The teen confessed to shooting his mother because he ‘‘had anger issues’’ and was annoyed with her, the records say. The teen had no history of mental illness, and drugs and alcohol didn’t appear to be a factor.

His plan was to ‘‘shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement.’’

A few things stick out to me: the shooter expected to be killed, as often seems to be the case in mass shootings, the shooter has no regard for his own life, the potential for armed opposition is not a deterrent, in some cases it may actually be hoped for; the shooter was not under the influence (so that he might be more likely to over-react to something) or confronted by an unexpected situation that might have set him off in a rage, this was something that an apparently normal kid contemplated and carried out; and the house was well protected with arms, but far from "protecting" the house and the inhabitants, the arms were used against those that lived there, there were "innocents" killed as a side effect of someone exercising their individual right to bare arms.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-24, 03:31, said:

[/size]

In my country, I think almost everyone would feel as sick as you do.
But there is also the fact that people have gone to jail for shooting assaulters that were 'only' carrying knives in his own home, meaning that your history would be really rare.

You should study what happens in the US. I don't doubt that what you say is correct in many countries, and maybe even in some states, but in the US, the right to defend one's property (never mind one's life) is sacrosanct in many states. Hence the 'free kill' story I related earlier.

I once encountered two young males breaking into my car. It was the second break-in in a week, and I had just had the window/dash repaired, so I was really pissed. I picked up a golf club and ran at them, which was stupid on all kinds of levels. Fortunately for all concerned, they ran away. I am really glad I didn't own a gun...I like to think that even in my anger I wouldn't have used a gun, but I am fairly sure I would have wanted/been tempted to threaten them with it, and once that sort of confrontation starts, it can escalate out of control very quickly. Imagine me doing that and the thieves pull out their own guns rather than run away?

[hrothgar]

TimG, on 2013-January-24, 09:30, said:

A few things stick out to me: the shooter expected to be killed, as often seems to be the case in mass shootings, the shooter has no regard for his own life, the potential for armed opposition is not a deterrent, in some cases it may actually be hoped for;

I have seen claims that killers like the Aurora shooter deliberately choose targets where they are less likely to face an armed target. (As I understand the theory, the shooter isn't some much worried about dying, but rather not being able to kill as many people before he is shot).

I know that I saw specific claims that the theater in Aurora may have been deliberately chosen because the Cinemark chain banned guns and there was less chance of meeting an individual with a concealed weapon.

This line of argument is typically associated with John Lott.

[billw55]

Gun crime is not the only thing that guns defend against. Far from it. Often, a gun will be the only way to effectively defend against a substantially stronger attacker using only his hands.

Just recently in the news, a woman was at home with her children when her home was invaded. She gathered the kids and her handgun, and went to hide in a closet. She called her husband who called 911; but response was not fast enough. The intruder hunted through the house and finally found them. Cornered and out of options, she fired, hitting. God help her and her children if she did not have that gun. And a single shot weapon might not have been enough - what if the first shot missed?

[kenberg]

Mikeh's story rings very true to me. . My life, and I assume/hope the life of mikeh and most on this forum, has mostly been free of violence and threats of violence. Mostly, but not entirely. Most of these experiences I would not feel right about putting up for discussion. Rather i would say that the sum total of my experience makes it clear to me that we have to step back, way back, from our reliance on guns as a part of life.

I have thought more about what billw said. The school where his wife teaches has an armed policeman in full time attendance and he, although I hope not his gun, is much used. We didn't need this when and where I was growing up. I can't help but wonder about the interaction of causes here. No doubt the presence of an armed policeman could at some point be useful. But in preparing for that need, it also sends a message about what we regard as possible. When I was 15 I had a very intense interaction with a classmate. He, with intent, almost caused me grievous injury. I responded forcefully. In rage, actually. Neither of us brought a gun to school the next day. Neither did anyone else at any time that I know of. Things happen. If we could somehow get past the idea that when things happen we should go get a gun, that would be very good.

Perhaps where I really find fault is not with guns, but with gun culture. There is far too often an idea that guns are the solution. Occasionally that is true. Usually, however, guns are the problem.

Bottom line: We cab do better, and it is past time to do so. Eff the NRA.

[dwar0123]

The problem Bill, is that while we acknowledge that in a country of 300 million people in which a large portion of the population owns gun, that there are 100's of examples when guns were used successfully for their intended purpose. You, however, do not seem to acknowledge the vastly larger number of times that guns ended in unnecessary tragedy.

That woman and her children were saved by the gun. How many innocent woman and children have died due to this countries gun culture?

And let us not forget, no one is talking about banning the type of gun she used nor banning her possession of it in the place she used it.

There is a sane middle ground, people have just got to stop following in line with the NRA's insane pro gun culture. Something the NRA supports mostly for the profits it generates for them.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2013-January-24, 12:47, said:

Just recently in the news, a woman was at home with her children when her home was invaded. She gathered the kids and her handgun, and went to hide in a closet. She called her husband who called 911; but response was not fast enough. The intruder hunted through the house and finally found them. Cornered and out of options, she fired, hitting. God help her and her children if she did not have that gun. And a single shot weapon might not have been enough - what if the first shot missed?

I am probably one of the more extreme gun control advocates on the forum (Certainly one of the most extreme from the US)

I have stated multiple times that I am strongly in favor of allow individuals to own long arms to defend themselves at home.

Please note my use of the expression "long arms". (I have very real issues with concealed carry, to the point that I favor banning hand guns and other such weapons that can be easily concealed).

FWIW, if worst came to worst, I'd much rather have a short barreled 12 gauge with buck shot than a pistol...

Then again, I don't personally keep any kind of firearm at home (though my office is doing a team building out at a local firing range next month)

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2013-January-24, 12:47, said:

Gun crime is not the only thing that guns defend against. Far from it. Often, a gun will be the only way to effectively defend against a substantially stronger attacker using only his hands.

Just recently in the news, a woman was at home with her children when her home was invaded. She gathered the kids and her handgun, and went to hide in a closet. She called her husband who called 911; but response was not fast enough. The intruder hunted through the house and finally found them. Cornered and out of options, she fired, hitting. God help her and her children if she did not have that gun. And a single shot weapon might not have been enough - what if the first shot missed?

There are undoubtedly examples where the availability of a gun saved a life or lives. This may have been one such, although I don't know how safe it is to rely upon such incomplete information, let alone a news broadcast. I have been involved in a number of events that ended up 'in the news' and my experience has been that the print media usually gets it wrong, and the television/radio gets it even more wrong, maybe due to time constraints, in terms of how thoroughly they can report. Also, and a lesson it took me a long time to learn, commercial media is really in the entertainment/sale of advertising business rather than straight, objective news reporting.

How do we know, for example, what the intruder was going to do?

But, I give you that, as I said, some situations are ameliorated by the availability of a gun to the otherwise defenceless.

As a society, the hard question is one of balancing the undoubted good that comes from wide availability of guns against the undoubted harm that also comes from the same availability.

I can't see any rational argument against free possession of firearms by citizens IF we knew that nobody was ever killed or seriously injured by accident, and that all gun-owners would always be calm, rational, mentally and emotionally balanced, and never intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.

Since we know that such isn't the case, and that thousands of people are killed by gun violence in the US every year, the question becomes whether more people are saved than are hurt, and I ignore the bad guys who are 'rightfully' shot. Btw, I don't know where the intruder, in your example, lies in that regard. If he was simply going to threaten, then while he deserved punishment, being shot to death seems disproportionate to me, but if he was going to rape/torture/kill anyone, then shooting was appropriate, imo.

I do know that studies on stand your ground laws suggest that the increased 'right' to use firearms results in more killings. I do know that we read, everyday it seems, of children shot and killed by accident, and I doubt that most such are so widely reported that I, in Canada, would learn of them when they happen in the US (or here, but they rarely happen here, presumably because we don't have a societal fetish for guns).

It's not a case of arguing that saving a few lives justifies gun ownership. It is a question of whether a society should prefer to see thousands of innocents slaughtered or maimed every year in order that some others have enhanced safety. Are more people saved than harmed?

My understanding, which is not by any means infallible, is that the number of the dead innocents is far greater than the number of the 'saved' innocents, so that makes it easy.

As for the solution, Richard's notion seems sensible to me, with exceptions to those who can prove that they possess a legitimate need to have a private firearm on them, and those people should undergo psychological evaluation, and the permit should be reviewed on a regular basis.

Obviously the US isn't about to do this in the short term, but take a look at societal attitudes towards inter-racial marriage, gay equality, smoking in public, and one can see that attitudes can shift in fundamental ways within a generation or two. Anyone advocating overnight wholesale change is being counter-productive, imo.

[billw55]

dwar0123, on 2013-January-24, 13:03, said:

The problem Bill, is that while we acknowledge that in a country of 300 million people in which a large portion of the population owns gun, that there are 100's of examples when guns were used successfully for their intended purpose. You, however, do not seem to acknowledge the vastly larger number of times that guns ended in unnecessary tragedy.

That woman and her children were saved by the gun. How many innocent woman and children have died due to this countries gun culture?

I realize that. But if my wife and children are raped and murdered, I would not be consoled by the fact that a few people I don't know, and cannot even point to, did not die in criminal or negligent gun incidents. I do not believe that the government has the right to make that trade for me.

dwar0123, on 2013-January-24, 13:03, said:

And let us not forget, no one is talking about banning the type of gun she used nor banning her possession of it in the place she used it.

There is a sane middle ground, people have just got to stop following in line with the NRA's insane pro gun culture. Something the NRA supports mostly for the profits it generates for them.

I agree and I am for controls on some kinds of weapons. I do think that semiautomatic handguns should remain legal for home defense, subject to exceptions (criminal record, mental health, etc). Magazine limits are ok. Limits on total number of weapons owned by one individual ... etc. All very sensible.