I think they think it's crazy to ever have a gun out otherwise.

I don't have time to respond to the rest in detail right now, and probably won't all weekend. I have to ask, though...How in the hell does anyone think that there is any danger of a legitimate visitor showing up in the house when I'm home alone with all the doors locked?

I'm not talking about answering a late-night ring of the doorbell by emptying a magazine at the door, haha. If anyone forces entry into my house while I'm home alone, with the doors locked, asleep in bed, I feel confident enough that they are up to no good to shoot them, no questions asked.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM. Reason : nobody has a key except for me. nobody.]

1/24/2013 7:18:00 PM

Apparently all of JHCs friends and family have keys to his house and often show up unannounced in the middle of the night without calling or knocking first.

1/24/2013 7:26:09 PM

I mean, three grown-ass men did come to visit me without warning the day I was born.....so yeah..


But in all seriousness, that probability seems just as likely as being awoken by a maniac trying to rob/hurt you. Thank god my dad didn't have a gun in the house, because he would have shot me a million times in high school.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 7:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 7:35:24 PM

Honestly a visit like that is just as (un)likely as an intruder

1/24/2013 8:00:00 PM

^^ the probability that people you know enter your locked house without a key in the middle of the night is as likely as it being an intruder? WTF kind of friends and family do you have?

1/24/2013 8:23:09 PM

^^ ...but we're not talking about a highschooler in the household. Hell, we're not talking about a kindergartner in the household. We're talking about ME in the household. As stated earlier, any number of people >1 is a totally different situation where you need to ID the target. Any possibility of an unexpected visitor is a different situation, too.

1/24/2013 8:23:58 PM

^^^and yet, several years ago, i had a next-door neighbor who's apartment was randomly broken into in the middle of the night, who had their bedroom door kicked in by the intruder, and who was stabbed multiple times in the neck by the intruder with a butcher knife from the kitchen. it ain't likely to happen, but it still happens all the time to unfortunate people.

like the dude in the oakwood neighborhoold who's house was recently broken into in the middle of the night by two thugs, who's wife was raped, and he's paralyzed from the waist down after being shot in the spine. could it have been prevented if he had access to a gun? who knows. but if it ever happens to me, i'd like to know that if i have the time to get my gun, i would, and i'd keep my girlfriend from being raped and i wouldn't be dead or in a wheelchair.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 8:24 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 8:24:16 PM

I hear you, but I also took math classes

1/24/2013 8:28:40 PM

And I hear you, but I submit that my approach is more in line with math class than your abstinence-only method, which is just as dumb as the dudes who won't mow the lawn unarmed.

1/24/2013 8:30:56 PM

it'll never happen to meeee, and if you prepare for such an event, you're just being paranoid!

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 8:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 8:31:08 PM

Quote :

"but we're not talking about a highschooler in the household. Hell, we're not talking about a kindergartner in the household. We're talking about ME in the household. As stated earlier, any number of people >1 is a totally different situation where you need to ID the target."

So will you still keep the gun on the nightstand when your daughter is in highschool?

Quote :

"and who was stabbed multiple times in the neck by the intruder with a butcher knife from the kitchen."

sounds like your neighbor won the shit-lottery. If someone comes into your home and just starts blasting, your odds of survival are probably only marginally better if its some surprise attack like what happened to your neighbor.

I'd also like to point out, that in your example, your neighbor was attacked with his own weapon. Just imagine what would have happened if he had a gun in the house for the intruder to find.

1/24/2013 8:32:14 PM

^^^ I wonder how many people have been murdered by the gun you left unsecured in a hotel room?

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 8:33 PM. Reason : y]

1/24/2013 8:32:56 PM

Quote :

"your odds of survival are probably only marginally better"

This is what I don't get. You even admit that, but you don't see why some people would like to increase their chances of survival, even if it's marginal? Why?

Quote :

" I'd also like to point out, that in your example, your neighbor was attacked with his own weapon. Just imagine what would have happened if he had a gun in the house for the intruder to find."

the knife was taken from the kitchen counter downstairs. i keep my gun in a safe beside the bed. so you're not really making a good point. like many of your points, it's not a very logical one.

1/24/2013 8:35:04 PM

^^^I don't know, but I sure as shit wouldn't shoot at an unexpected person in my house in the middle of the night (or otherwise, assuming forced entry), just like I wouldn't now during the 50% of the time she's with me.

^^ they were locked up in my truck, hidden under other stuff, parked directly under a light, in the front parking lot near the front door of the hotel.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 8:39 PM. Reason : How about levying the blame on the criminal(s), here?]

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 8:36:01 PM

Quote :

"This is what I don't get. You even admit that, but you don't see why some people would like to increase their chances of survival, even if it's marginal? Why?"

Because of the ample evidence of people being killed by members of their own family who have access to a gun.

Quote :

"the knife was taken from the kitchen counter downstairs. i keep my gun in a safe beside the bed. so you're not really making a good point. like many of your points, it's not a very logical one."

Hey, champ, let's break down your neighbors situation: If you woke up in the middle of the night to a man stabbing you, do you seriously think you'd have enough time to get to that gun that you have in a safe? Or do you think that you would need to keep it on your nightstand, where it could potentially be used against you/stolen/accidentally fired on a family member.

The paradox of having a gun for safety is that you would need immediate access to it at all times in order to fight off a surprise attack (coupled with adequate and sustained training). But that immediate access also makes it a liability to those around you. The danger it poses to an assailant is one in a million, but the danger it poses to you and your family is constantly present. This is why I don't see a net-benefit to having one for protection.




[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 8:36:15 PM

i don't have family living with me, except my girlfriend, who won't touch my gun.

1/24/2013 8:39:58 PM

Nobody else has access to my gun on the nightstand.

(*i wonder if that stat includes suicides...)

1/24/2013 8:41:02 PM

Frankly, this reminds me a lot of the Republicans who just "know" that there is no man-made global warming or evolution. There is no reasoning with them; they made up their minds and then found a few things that they can construe as support.

The lack of objective, critical thought goes on (with even far greater severity) on the opposite side of the gun debate, but EVERYONE acknowledges that except for that slice of crazy in question.

1/24/2013 9:05:28 PM

You say that as if there's hard science in your corner definitively showing households with guns to be less susceptible to burglaries/murders/etc.

Is there?


Or is this more in line with your "if everyone drove like me, there'd be less accidents!" logic?

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 9:13:37 PM

>drives recklessly and puts everyone at risk, brags about it
>wants to be trusted with a gun

1/24/2013 9:21:00 PM

Quote :

" Or is this more in line with your "if everyone drove like me, there'd be less accidents!" logic? "

Most people in most cars driving that way would cause lots of wrecks.

People staying the fuck out of the passing lane except to pass would result in fewer accidents, if that is specifically what you're referring to.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:22 PM. Reason : Not recklessly. Not always within posted speed limit by any means.]

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:23 PM. Reason : although I must say, in almost every other country I've been to, my driving would not be abnormal]

1/24/2013 9:21:48 PM

C'mon, man. Are you Mario Andretti?

I only bring it up because I see a similarity in attitude and confidence in each topic. Your reasoning boils down to, "well, most people shouldn't be trusted in activity X, but I'm exceptional."

I have no idea what you drive and how good of a driver you are, and I don't really care. You have tremendous confidence in yourself to handle something that could realistically hurt yourself and other people, and my suspicion is that many people who accidentally shot a family member had a very similar outlook on their own abilities.

1/24/2013 9:27:15 PM

Quote :

"do you seriously think you'd have enough time to get to that gun that you have in a safe?"

in multiple posts, i've made it clear that I realize that some situations might not allow people to get to their gun before an intruder gets to them. i admit that. but if i hear them in the process of breaking in, or hear them in the house before they get to my bedroom, i will have time. just because I may not have time, doesn't mean i shouldn't prepare for situations where i would have time. i don't understand how you don't get that.

Quote :

" The danger it poses to an assailant is one in a million,"

Gonna call BS on this "stat".

Quote :

" but the danger it poses to you and your family is constantly present."

I don't have family in the house, and if the only time i even take it out is the very rare occasion of bringing it to the range, or the very rare occasion of an intruder, then it doesn't pose much threat to me either.


[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 9:33:44 PM

Quote :

"but if i hear them in the process of breaking in, or hear them in the house before they get to my bedroom, i will have time. just because I may not have time, doesn't mean i shouldn't prepare for situations where i would have time. i don't understand how you don't get that."

I do get it. But you keep using the examples of your neighbor who had no time as a reason to justify owning your gun. So you can admit that you don't have a blanket level of security (which is something I'm sure even you would be willing to concede). So you've essentially traded a level of security for practical purposes, which renders you just as vulnerable for the situations you seem to be the most afraid of.

Quote :

"Gonna call BS on this "stat"."

Wooooowwwwww, really? No shit, I was using a figure of speech. I don't actually think the statistic is EXACTLY one in a million. Pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel better.

Quote :

"I don't have family in the house, and if the only time i even take it out is the very rare occasion of bringing it to the range, or the very rare occasion of an intruder, then it doesn't pose much threat to me either."

You're right. And it really doesn't pose much of a threat to an intruder unless they are fat, slow, stupid, and very loud. You have a gun that you don't practice with, or use. It's really just in that safe for peace of mind.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 9:39:04 PM

that's just one example. and just as there are thousands of examples where that's the case, there are also thousands of examples where the home-owner would or did have time to get to their gun.

1/24/2013 9:41:26 PM

Jesus H. Christ, you are insufferable (and illogical)

1/24/2013 9:58:35 PM

no, i'm not mario andretti, and I don't drive like that. jesus, i don't drive like that on a racetrack.

By what metric could I possibly not be considered way, way, way more adept than the average driver? Surely you have driven recently and seen the average driver. I have read books on driving, been to driving schools on racetracks, competed in autocrosses (and won my class for my region one year), have a degree in mechanical engineering (and therefore understand the basic physics), have 20/15 vision, and drive a car that so vastly eclipses the capabilities of the average car that most people don't even have a frame of reference. Most importantly, I fucking think about what's around me when I'm driving...what might happen next, etc (a skill/habit that I credit to years of motorcycle riding). Hell no, I'm not God's gift to driving or anything, but I don't think it's delusional to assess that I'm in the top percent or two (and maybe even in fractions of the top percent). There are everyday people who are much, much better than me--there are a few on TWW who are--but I mean, fuck, you're probably in the top half if you always stay sober and don't text and drive, and top third if you can parallel park with a modicum of skill.


Similarly, there are people out there who are much, much, much more skilled in weapons handling and marksmanship, but they are a relative handful when you consider the general population. Hell, they're a relative handful out of the gun-owning half or whatever of the population. I mean, I'm a Marine officer who has shot everything from BB guns to .50-caliber machine guns and rifle-mounted as well as belt-fed grenade launchers. I have disassembled and set the timing on .50-caliber machine guns, and for that matter, have experience shooting, taking apart, and reassembling every small arm in the USMC inventory. I have never shot less than "expert" on either the USMC's rifle or pistol qualifications, and have qualified on the Army test, too, just for fun (pretty much fucked off and still shot expert on those, too). Particularly on the pistol test, I usually shoot in the 380s out of a possible 400 points on the USMC test (345 is expert, the highest ranking). I have probably shot tens of thousands of rounds out of dozens of different firearms spanning 4 different decades. I am a casual, recreational shooter--not a serious competitor (just like with driving)--there are people who would make me look like a scrub--there are probably a few just on TWW--but guess what? By and large, they aren't the ones fucking shooting themselves or their families in their own houses, and to any extent they are, I will bet that they are just really, really proficient members of the batshit-crazy faction of the gun-owning community--not someone like me who very much considers the calculus and strives to make the objectively smartest decisions I can on when/where/how I have firearms...from when I have a gun out, to which gun it is, to what bullets it's loaded with, etc. Again, just as important as my ability to blow-out X-rings is that there is nothing haphazard about my approach--to the best of my ability, I have thought through and researched things and made judgment calls (that yes, sometimes--even often--yield a decision to leave guns at home and locked in a safe).


I didn't want to make this into a personal dick-measuring contest, but since you are questioning that maybe I'm delusional about my own abilities, I think it's worth establishing that these really are a couple of things that I'm good at (again, not to say that there aren't people a WHOLE LOT better than I am at both--just that they are very few and far between). I'm probably like a golfer who scores 80 (I hate golf, but it's the best analogy that's coming to me). Miles behind a PGA pro; significantly behind a serious golfer or your local course pro, but in the grand scheme, still very good.

Quote :

" and very loud."

Anyone who breaks a window or crowbars a door open is going to be "very loud".

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 10:13 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 10:06:30 PM

Sound reasoning and logic were not calibrated around the ideas of Bullet.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not immediately make them illogical. Either present a more logical alternative, or stop abusing the word.

Quote :

"I didn't want to make this into a personal dick-measuring contest, but since you are questioning that maybe I'm delusional about my own abilities"

I'm not questioning it. I just am personally of the opinion that accidents happen...even to the best of us, which is why I personally wouldn't take the risk.


[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 10:12 PM. Reason : And I can parallel park like a G...I've lived in big cities for years...]

1/24/2013 10:07:23 PM

Sure, they certainly do. Without a doubt. I assure you, I'm as aware as anyone that I could fuck it away with either a sports car or a gun or a jet or a motorcycle or an open-water swim or a jet ski or SCUBA gear or my skis (headed to Vail in the morning) tomorrow. I base my behavior around that, not despite it.

It is not lost on me that I partake in a very wide variety of activities that can very easily be very dangerous. I'm not perfect; I misjudge things and I fuck up to varying degrees in every one of those activities. I do my best to account for those errors and leave leave enough margin that it hopefully never bites me.

Quote :

"which is why I personally wouldn't take the risk."

and that's fair enough, but I will go out on a limb and guess that you do something unnecessary that poses a risk you wouldn't otherwise face. I'm saying essentially 2 things:

1. Guns are no different than scores of other things that aren't strictly necessary that we do anyway, despite their inherent dangers to varying degrees. You don't want to have a gun, I don't want to ride anything in a rodeo; whatever, we all have different tolerances for risk and specific things that we judge "worth it" or not.

2. Not talking about recreational shooting, which is absolutely an unnecessary risk to some degree that I take because I enjoy it (see my aforementioned comments)...but with respect to my approach to guns for defense, I make a very conscious effort to make the risk I take smaller than the risk I mitigate. So do you. That is, we both are seeking a net optimization of safety. Maybe one or both of us is wrong due to errors in our respective assumptions, but we very well both may be right in our respective situations.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 10:19:53 PM

Jesus, am i presuming correctly that the ultimate conclusion of your arguments is that no private U.S. citizen should be allowed to own a handgun (or rifle)?

I'm all about "gun control", a very vague term that i don't have a clear definition for. But I understand that gun violence is a serious issue that needs to be addressed (although I realize it's not unique to the present, it's always been an issue). I wish there were ways to keep them out of the hands of felons, "criminals", the "mentally unstable", the "irresponsible", the "young". I don't know exactly how that could be done, but I don't think a viable solution is to ban all guns to all u.s. citizens. Basically, (like all social and political problems) the only total solution would involve an overhaul of the entire system, and that's just not possible, it's too big and too late (fatalistic?). but i'm not saying that nothing should be done:

I'm all about harsher penalties against irresponsible gun owners, against people who own guns who "shouldn't own guns", for seriously harsh penalties for gun related "crimes". I'm on the fence about the amount of guns one should be able to own, the type of guns, the amount of rounds the they can hold, the requirements for being able to carry a weapon in public, etc. etc. etc. I can't draw a definitive line on where I stand on many of the intricate details. But I'm definitely on the side of allowing responsible U.S citizens to own firearms.

Quote :

"I'm not questioning it. I just am personally of the opinion that accidents happen...even to the best of us, which is why I personally wouldn't take the risk."

Fair enough, I understand why you choose to not have a gun, I understand that guns are primarily killing machines, and on the rare occasions where accidents occur, they're usually tragic.

But what other risky behaviors do you routinely engage in that are statistically more dangerous to others than owning a permitted gun? Drive in a car by yourself or with your family? Talk on the phone while driving (or TEXT?)? Speed? If cars didn't travel over 25 mph, 10s of thousands of lives would be saved in the U.S. every year. Should the government mandate that if you choose to travel in an automobile, you cannot exceed 25 mph? Do you drink alcohol? How many innocent lives are taken every year by irresponsible drunks? Should alcohol be banned so dumb-fuck drunks don't kill people? Even if you don't partake in any of these activities, where do you draw the line?

(and no, i'm not endorsing theduke's opinion that since he's a terrific driver, he should be able to travel as fast as he wants in his sweet ride , and i'm not supporting the gun-nut argument i see all the time that "people are killed in cars, ban cars!!!!" )

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:38 PM. Reason : ^and now i see that some of my points have already been made]

1/24/2013 11:36:04 PM

All I'm saying about driving is that I drive based on the situation, not some near-arbitrary number on a sign (that at best, is tailored more to the lowest common denominator). I'm not talking about going 150 through a school zone and being like "FUCK YOU I'M GOOD AT THIS SHIT". There are times where I'm not speeding at all, and times where I'm going 90 and feel like that's still very conservative.

1/24/2013 11:57:44 PM

Quote :

"Jesus, am i presuming correctly that the ultimate conclusion of your arguments is that no private U.S. citizen should be allowed to own a handgun (or rifle)? "

No.

Quote :

"where do you draw the line? "

Somewhere between cars and guns. A huge majority of traffic fatalities would be solved if we had better infrastructure for mass transit, but I'm not about to open up that debate in a gun thread.

Quote :

"I wish there were ways to keep them out of the hands of felons, "criminals", the "mentally unstable", the "irresponsible", the "young". "

You're approaching the "No True Scottsman" fallacy. We continuously niche out portions of gun owners and gerrymander our language so that we never disturb the classification of "responsible gun owners." At some point, we need to do an analysis of guns in circulation vs. the number of "responsible, law abiding gun owners" before we can even begin to use these terms responsibly. Of course, anything like this would require registration and oversight, so that's a non-starter in this country.

Quote :

"I'm all about harsher penalties against irresponsible gun owners, against people who own guns who "shouldn't own guns", for seriously harsh penalties for gun related "crimes"."

Until we clearly define the difference between a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible gun owner, we'll never be able to begin the conservation you want to have.

Quote :

"But what other risky behaviors do you routinely engage in that are statistically more dangerous to others than owning a permitted gun? Drive in a cars, cars, cars........cars, cars.....cars...."

There's a huge system in place to maintain road safety. You have to have a license, renew it from time to time, have insurance, wear your seatbelt, etc. In many states (like mine, California) it is illegal to talk/text while driving. And the penalties are fucking expensive, too. And speeding tickets can get up to like $500 after all the fees are paid. And on top of all that, there are highway patrolmen, road safety regulations, etc. That same system is not in place when it comes to guns.

So to your basic premise: "How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice for safety?"

I dunno. But I'll say this, I take my right to Amendments 1, and 3-10 a whole lot more seriously than number 2, and those rights get trampled on all the fucking time, and nobody uses their guns to stop that encroachment. So when people reflexively claim that registration/etc. is an encroachment on their liberties, I can't help but roll my eyes.

Anyway, cue the Benjamin Franklin quote.

1/25/2013 12:16:02 AM

Quote :

"No."

Then what is your ultimate agrument, jesus h. christ? I've gotten the impression that you don't think anyone of us who have been arguing against your "points" should be allowed to own a gun. Am I wrong? Where do you draw the line?

Quote :

"Somewhere between cars and guns. A huge majority of traffic fatalities would be solved if we had better infrastructure for mass transit, but I'm not about to open up that debate in a gun thread."

and the vast, vast majority would be solved much, much cheaper if speed limites were set at 25 mph. Where do you draw the line?

Quote :

" Until we clearly define the difference between a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible gun owner, we'll never be able to begin the conservation you want to have."

Why don't you start the conversation by laying out what you think the difference is? I've admitted that i don't know exactly how to draw the line and how exactly that should be enforced.


[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 12:23 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2013 12:18:47 AM

I don't know. The cat is already out of the bag, and that stupid cunt keeps having babies.

1/25/2013 12:20:04 AM

Any solution I would propose would require registration, which would obviously not sit right with gun owners.

But an even more effective solution (and therefore less feasible) would be to reduce our militarism and security state. Our gun culture is merely a shadow of our foreign policy. Gun manufacturers need war in order to justify their profits. Those always trickle down to the civilian ranks (the arms, not the profits).


But more than anything, I'm pretty apathetic to anything happening to seriously diminish gun violence in this country.

[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 12:40 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2013 12:34:18 AM

Quote :

"The cat is already out of the bag, and that stupid cunt keeps having babies."

and you can't even fucking shoot it.

Quote :

"and those rights get trampled on all the fucking time, and nobody uses their guns to stop that encroachment. So when people reflexively claim that registration/etc. is an encroachment on their liberties, I can't help but roll my eyes."

Truth.

Not saying that we need to jump straight to more shooting of those who trample on the Constitution and civil/individual liberties, but I get really goddamned tired of vehemently 2A people who line right up to actively suppress other rights.

(just like I get really goddamned tired of those who are otherwise advocates for civil liberty who for whatever reason don't value the one regarding arms).

Broadly, I hate it when people on either the left or the right aren't hesitant in the slightest to cite the Constitution when it suits them, but find some tortured-ass way to "interpret" it (from the left) or just say "Fuck it, don't care, not what the Bible says" (from the right) when it's contrary to what they want. It's right along with decided what you want to do, and then seeing what the evidence and justification is for it.



Like I tell my dad, "If you want to discriminate against gays, don't get pissed that the government usurps States rights. If you really think it's a good idea to wage combat fucking everywhere, then don't get pissy about the tax increases. If you think that we should teach Creationism or "intelligent design" in schools, don't get mad about some wacky-ass religion or philosophy some other teacher is pawning off on kids in a school." You can't have it both ways, and that goes for both sides.

[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

Quote :

"Any solution I would propose would require registration. "

I think that's probably accurate, along with drastically reducing the number of guns in circulation.

...but most of the means of doing these things are explicitly prohibited by law, and the American people wouldn't stand for any of them, and you'd have to have a large amount of voluntary compliance, I think. You can't go door to door and check on shit. I think that the ship has long sailed, and is effectively legally bound from returning to harbor, aside from the fact that it is realistically not possible, anyway.

The unfortunate thing is that anything that we can do won't help much, and anything that will really help is completely impossible (and in some cases, arguably not worth the trade-off, anyway).

What we're realistically facing are incremental tweaks, and really, we've done already done a lot of what can be done. Violence is down significantly; a few high-profile anomalies aren't cause for ground-breaking changes to our approach.

What little that remains on the table, I think, has nothing to do with guns themselves, but with background checks, mental illness reporting, etc.

*I still vehemently oppose closing the gun show loophole in such a way that wouldn't preserve privacy. I really think that will end up being a tougher sell than the left thinks, once the real debate is presented. There are other approaches that would be good, I think, though.

Quote :

" But an even more effective solution (and therefore less feasible) would be to reduce our militarism and security state. Our gun culture is merely a shadow of our foreign policy. Gun manufacturers need war in order to justify their profits. Those always trickle down to the civilian ranks."

Maybe, but I would argue that the long pole in the tent is the drug war. It don't think it's has the emphasis that it did 20-25 years ago, but it still generates a fuckton of crime in much the same way that Prohibition did.

The next biggest thing is probably our economic freedom. Having "haves" and "have nots" generates crime. It's a downside I'm quite willing to accept, but I'm saying that, along with our culture since inception, means that we will always be a violent society. It's the price of being America.




[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2013 12:38:47 AM

Quote :

"Maybe, but I would argue that the long pole in the tent is the drug war. It don't think it's has the emphasis that it did 20-25 years ago, but it still generates a fuckton of crime in much the same way that Prohibition did. The next biggest thing is probably our economic freedom. Having "haves" and "have nots" generates crime."

I pretty much agree with this completely.

Quote :

"(just like I get really goddamned tired of those who are otherwise advocates for civil liberty who for whatever reason don't value the one regarding arms)."

Careful what you wish for, comrade. When the left decides to seize guns, they can become a pretty powerful and menacing bloc. Hugo Chavez most recently comes to mind.

1/25/2013 2:26:46 AM

I'm certainly not wishing for it!

1/25/2013 7:49:10 AM

JHC, do you purposefully ignore the real life events that indicate your opinions (or whatever they are) are incorrect? You seem to suggest that an armed person at home will have little chance against intruders; or that someone who has not become a master at firearms will be useless when the time comes to use lethal force. You suggest that the average citizen, the casual shooter, will certainly die when confronted with; or worse yet, that a bloodbath will turn the streets red. These are all great Brady talking points, but time and time again proven to be false. The fact of the matter is, is that firearm use in self-defense situations happens at close range. It's a point and shoot game. Many self defense firearms are built with this in mind; forget sites, long barrels, and all other features aimed at improving accuracy. They are point and shoot, plain and simple. The reason? Because they work. The point is, is that you don't necessarily need a lot of training, or tactical training. Average Joe, "untrained" has been using firearms for self defense successfully for years, with very very few bystanders being injured. We're not the NYPD, just shooting all willy nilly in downtown NYC.

1/25/2013 9:07:36 AM

fuck, I can't hang with these smart motherfuckers - I'm out

Bullet, you should join me

1/25/2013 9:11:09 AM

this escalated quickly -- i mean it really got out of hand



[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2013 3:09:20 PM

I haven't read this thread, but those of you who are against an assault weapons ban, what do you think of this?

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

Quote :

"Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms. Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides. Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings. Setting: Australia, 1979–2003. Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population. Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p?=?0.04), firearm suicides (p?=?0.007) and firearm homicides (p?=?0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws. Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 7:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2013 7:09:49 PM

I think they banned pump shotguns and SCOTUS has ruled that americans have a constitutional right to self defense in their homes with firearms commonly used for such purposes. Pump shotguns certainly fall in that category.

Also, the US isn't australia

1/29/2013 8:03:13 PM

Is it selfish to claim you own certain weapons in self defense when it's shown that banning them may reduce gun deaths overall?

1/29/2013 8:18:34 PM

*by 1 study

**in australia

1/29/2013 8:32:04 PM

It's better than all the conjecture flying around.

1/29/2013 8:36:56 PM

Wait, so now we're out to get pump actions, too?

I mean, it makes as much sense as banning semi-automatics.




We've all agreed all along that nearly ridding the country of guns, like Australia, would yield a significant improvement to the gun violence problem. Everyone on anything resembling the reality train has also agreed that this would completely impossible.

1/29/2013 8:57:13 PM

Quote :

"Wait, so now we're out to get pump actions, too?"

many have made it quite clear that they'd like to get them all. EBRs are just the first step. low(est) hanging fruit.

we banned the scary-looking guns and standard capacity mags in '94. didn't do shit in 10 years except make the AR variants unbelievably popular.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 9:25 PM. Reason : fads]

1/29/2013 9:16:28 PM

Can you tell me the percentage of crimes in the U.S. that involved so called "assault weapons"?

1/29/2013 9:48:04 PM

Quote :

"Is it selfish to claim you own certain weapons in self defense when it's shown that banning them may reduce gun deaths overall?"

Once again, a reduction in gun deaths doesn't mean a thing if overall deaths and crime don't reduce.

1/29/2013 9:56:01 PM