To gun, or not to gun?

Remind me when a criminal / mountain lion / polar bear / brown bear / grizzly bear / charging moose / caribou or any thing of that nature has ever cared about the law.

If a criminal wants a gun, he gets a gun. Law be damned. If you were to suddenly find every gun in your country in some magic make believe way and have them all destroyed.

It solves nothing, because you are going to have to outlaw string/rubber/wood/stones/tools/nail guns and our very own fists and feet next because frankly. If a person for any reason wants you dead. Unless you have a way to protect your self. You really are as good as dead.

I hunt. I follow every single law regarding hunting and gun ownership. I also work armed security loading and unloading large quantities of money from bank machines/clients/atms/casino/shops etc.

You can spout anti-gun crap all you want. But when somebody breaks into your house and is threatening your life. One of two things are going to go down. You have a gun and ward off your attacker. Or two, you call somebody who "has" a gun to come and save you and pray to god that they get there in time. I'll take the first option thank you very much.

 

Rude.

I assume you have some data to support this claim? Please provide.

A hammer is for driving nails, but if I want to open a beer bottle with it, there's nothing stopping me. Any tool cam be used in any way the handler wants, regardless of whether it's a good idea.

Even in the UK, they have exceptions for this sort of thing.

(I live in a very wooded area, too.)

1) It is incomprehensible to a rational mind to separate gang-related violence from other kinds of violence, so I must be missing something here that's making me "be dumb," and I'd really like to stop. Do gangs live on a deserted island? Are gang members secretly vampires and they only fire garlic bullets that are harmless to mere mortals?

2) Suicide success rates vary by method, and guns top the list, so gun suicides are relevant to the topic.

3) "Proper use of deadly force" often means the victim either was going for a gun, or the shooter/s thought they were. This is why, for instance, US law enforcement uses deadly force far more often than in other OECD nations. And it's a daily headline that the victim wasn't even armed, the perceived threat did not exist. Gun culture -> gun paranoia -> gun deaths.

But if it makes you feel better, I've been trying to stick to stats on gun homicides, rather than gun deaths. Classifications of homicides vary from place to place (even within the same countries, and also in nationwide stats due to shifting policies), but they often exclude suicide and self-defense (though sometimes separately classified as "justifiable homicide").

 

Youve still given me no reason as to why I should be anti gun.

Because you cant. I carry one every day.
Coming from a cop, I want everyone to carry.

 

Correct, but again, it's only because guns are plentiful and easily attained here. In places where this is not true, criminals want guns, but don't get them, because they are rare, and therefore expensive, and acquiring them involves significant risk. How much risk is there in testing door handles in the Walmart parking lot?

Or to put it in another perspective, let's restate your claim in a similar context, and see if it's still true:

"If a terrorist wants uranium, he gets uranium."

Hmmmm.

Yes, guns are the ultimate in self-defense, that's why gang members and police officers are never killed.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 3, 2016 ---

Canada is not an island, and shares a mostly-open border with gun-ridden US. How's that working out for them?

 

They do not have to be plentiful. There is a black market for a reason.

It is not hard for me to get access to any black market dealer and simply have a gun smuggled in from somewhere else.

There are guns out there which use next to no metal parts as to not draw attention from scanners. If I were to go to the UK right now. I guarantee I can get firearms smuggled in within the week for personal use. Hell, a person could even just make a gun. They are not that hard to make. A break action shotgun for example can be built in a couple days. Gunpowder can be easily made with easilty obtainable materials.

I would not even need to make a gun I can go outside with my axe and hack a persons limbs off, or walk to the local hardware store and buy a small PVC pipe and some nails and tissue paper for wadding. And guess what, within 10 minutes of shopping and 1 hour of construction I have a ranged weapon that can be smuggled into anywhere and with the right chemical compounds. Even drop full grown man due to the dart being poisoned.

You live in the UK. Why don't you go observe the Swiss and their way of life. Everybody there has a gun. And guess what, you never hear of any major problems with it.

 

Well, obviously nobody can make up your mind but you. It just depends on whether you're open to new information and ideas. Otherwise, debate is a waste of time.

As for everyone... convicted felons? Those with diagnosed mental issues? People referred for anger management issues? Habitual drug abusers? Casual drug users? People on certain medical prescriptions with side-effects including delusion/paranoia? People with diagnoses of dementia or neurological conditions affecting their motor functions (Parkinson's, MD, etc.)? Small children?

 

See, now people along those lines to some degree I can agree they should not have a gun. But again, what is stopping that same mentally ill person from going onto a crowded bus or train with a knife and stabbing several people before somebody can stop them.

Humans have been killing eachother just fine before the invention of guns, and will continue to do so long after. I am not even appealing to nature I am just appealing to common sense here. Blaming "guns"

 

Maybe you could, but for the overwhelming majority of criminals in the UK, that conversation ends at "That'll be twenty thousand pounds." Because yes, it can be done, but not without risk, and the reward needs to justify the risk for the smuggler.

Plus, many crimes are crimes of opportunity or passion, and your method requires advance planning.

I would be extremely uncomfortable holding a thing in my hand which explodes that was made in someone's garage, and this sounds like a winning recipe for a Darwin Award. Regardless of how handy you are, a handicrafted machine gun is beyond even most gunsmiths. The machine tolerances are too fine.

See above re: planning.

So, seeing as how there are all these creative ways to kill people, you wouldn't miss your guns, right? As you said, if someone wants to kill someone, they're as good as dead.

Of course, outrunning/evading is an option for an axe where it isn't for a bullet. Your PVC gun is probably a bigger threat to you than me.

LOLwat?

Hearing about it would first require the US media to notice that there's a rest of the world out there. With that said, apparently the Swiss had a major referendum on gun control in 2011, so we can infer that they must be having some issues with it.

I suggest you take a closer look at Switzerland, because they're not a good analog to the US. All their gun owners are former military members, and they are rather her strict on regulating and registering firearms, ditto ammunition. They're also much more like California than Texas when it comes to transporting and carrying.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 3, 2016 ---

It's not about blaming the gun, it's about noticing that you get different outcomes when you use different tools. There are cases where crazy people have done random knife attacks, because a gun was not available (this happens in other countries, so Americans never notice). But look at those stories, and you'll find that genetic there are fewer victims, and a far smaller proportion of those are fatalities, than in similar shooting events. Because, common sense: it's easier to shoot people to death than stab them, and it's a generally less risky proposition to attempt disarming a knife wielder than a gun toter, so more people are likely to attempt it earlier in an event.

So in your scenario of an attack on a crowded bus, 2 dead and 6 injured by knife is a less horrible outcome than 22 dead and 16 injured by gun. In the gun scenario, the shooter doesn't even necessarily have to board the bus and expose himself to counter-attack, whereas the crowded conditions ensure the knife-wielder is swarmed and overpowered pretty quickly. We have a US historical reference for that: United Airlines Flight 93.

 

Go over my comment again about the making a gun.

I think you missed a lot of information there. I never said a PVC Gun. I said a PVC Blow Gun.

While I said a break action gun.
Break Actions can be made easily.

You also fail miserably to realise that your overly biased stance is causing you to miss key information. Banning guns will accomplish "nothing". Disarming your citizens is a very poor idea that is short sited.

I would love to see you try and fend off a polar bear or a large moose using "ideals" Or go and fend off a criminal who had his gun imported with "ideals"

 

Maybe you just thought it and never typed it, but the key word "blow" does not currently appear in your previous post.

Perhaps, but a break action shotgun is fairly impractical for a mass shooting.

Sure, gun bans accomplish nothing, except in every country I'm aware of that has tried it. See Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. I think we've even got a few cultural similarities with those guys.

Maybe I'm just less of a violent psychopath than you are, but I wouldn't likewise love to see you explain to your dying child/dog/spouse/friend/guest, and then a jury of your peers, that you shot them for "protection."

 

Nuckle, Let me start by saying the following. Outside of Toronto and Vancouver. Pretty much everybody is armed.

Australia, again. People always have a way to defend them selves when traveling long distances.

Ok then, please. Elaborate on how you would fend off a pissed off grizzly bear or a moose during mating season. Or lets see how you would fend off a pack of wild dogs. Or lets see your idea keep you alive while a person breaks into your house, rapes your family, steals your worldly belongings. All while you sit and cower in a corner waiting for the police to arrive. And a little added information. Outside of a major metropolitan city. The police can take more than 45 minutes to arrive.

You sir, have lost the debate. You have failed to provide any hard proof of your ideas. Just like the rest of the anti-gun nut jobs who assume that everybody on this world would suddenly crap rainbows and sunshine and we would all hold hands and be happy.

Looking out for me and my family and loved ones as well as hunting for my food instead of relying on a grocery store as my main source of sustainance.

You sir are nothing short of an ignorant fool.

Your comment there has supported that notion to a very very strong degree.

Your strong ignorance towards guns them selves is very very evident in your claim that a break action shotgun is not practical for a mass shooting. Or any kind of shooting. You just assumed that a break action is incapable of causing large amounts of damage when in reality, they never jam. There is a reason a sawn off shotgun is capable of so much destruction. A pair of buck shots being fired out of a break action gun of any design is easily capable of killing dozens of people in one shot. All made with materials easily found around the house.

I would try yo educate you more but your blind ignorance assures me that what you read is not being properly processed in your over biased brain.

 

Guns don't necessarily provide safety in these modern times, but I argue the end goal should not always be safety. While guns do not provide safety they do provide insurance. In an era where it is becoming prevalent for governments to track citizens, use algorithms to predict crime, and other modern facets to today's society, the risk of becoming a "police state" increase as well. Guns in America are our insurance that we will never delve into such a dystopian society, because at the last resort we will bitterly defend our rights. In our comparisons to Europe, we never examine the facts that in Europe, anti-speech laws, and other anti-expression laws have been cropping up recently. France's ban on hijabs, or British anti-hatespeech movements. While these are, in part, vile things it represents a greater sanctity of our society, freedom of expression. I would gladly take an idiot KKK movement, if it served to protect my ability to express my opinions.

Guns are not about safety, they are an insurance policy that serves to prevent us to spiraling into a truly horrible society. I'll take freedom over safety every time.

 

I can understand that America is a different place to Australia, and it's a sad reality but America will never have as strict gun laws as it could. Majority of America including a lot of people are against strict laws and anti gun rules. That does not mean they cannot at least have some minor regulations, for starters people often point out that they need a weapon in their home for protection - I get it, and that is something America wants, I just dont understand why you need a fully automatic AR or a Shotgun in your home for protection, it has been said before by multiple people protecting your family and home is something that "does not require a fully automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine and the ability to kill everything in a three block radius." As far as I see there is literally no reason to own an AR, or a high powered Rifle. Something that a lot of people think is that when you talk about Australia, New Zealand or the UK's gun rules is that we can't have them. That is in no way true, we are just not allowed to own weapons that are completely un-needed and uncalled for. We can own 22 Cal Rifles, We can own 44 Cal rifles and we can own in some cases Handguns, the difference being that you actually have to have a viable reason other than "for protection" to own a weapon and you have to have a background check preformed, you have to have a gun license, and you can not have a criminal record. America doesn't need to have extremely strict gun laws like other places around the world, if they just tighten their laws so that you couldn't just walk into a shop and straight buy one no questions asked - and ban firearms that are obviously not needed by a civilian for any reason, the country would be a better place.

 

Like, in public? Cite sources, please.

Besides, what on earth is an Aussie in the Outback going to defend himself from? Is he going to shoot the sun?

I'm pretty confident in my safety from grizzly bears and rutting mooses in the Gulf South, thanks. But you should seriously watch less TV. How many fatal wolf attacks have happened in Canada and Alaska combined since 1985? How many home invasion robberies and gang rapes have occurred in the US in the last ten years? Go ahead. Look it up. I've got time.

Of course, you're not really interested in facts, because facts are processed in the frontal cortex, and you're being completely short-circuited by amygdala overstimulation. So here's something for your fear center: I do have a few surprises for anyone who tries to break in. Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya??

Okay, then, let's just cut the temper tantrum short and we'll both pretend you won, just so you can stop doing this, because all you've done is made unsupported and sometimes ridiculous assertions (let's just pause to enjoy the polar bears and the McGuyver blow-not-blow-gun kit once more), because now you're just resorting to name-calling as further evidence that you really don't have anything coherent or rational to offer here.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 3, 2016 ---

False binary, because we can have both.

The government is way more afraid of losing elections, impeachment, a free and open media, checks and balances, and all the rest of the Constitutional limits than they are about your rifles.

For proof, look at those nutbags who took over that wildlife refuge in Oregon, apparently to protest the fact that the government keeps letting them graze their cattle on federal lands at prices far below that charged by private property owners or something, who knows, they're not a particularly well-spoken group. They've basically challenged the federal government to an armed confrontation, to which the government said, "Nah. Enjoy your camping trip. We'll see you in court when you're done."

 

yes everyone

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 3, 2016 ---

If this happens, this gets locked.

 

Again, your ideals are flawed beyond belief. Looking at your comments, you are probably some fool who has never lived outside of a large city.

To you thinking that home invasions are not common.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

That there will provide all the proof you need.

So, while you are one of those "Statistics" because you sat and waited for the police to arrive a law abiding gun owner would have protected his family and his home.

You are the one who resorted to the pointless name calling first when you decided to judge me and everybody with a gun as a psychopath and a criminal you hypocrite.

You are nothing short of acting like a psychopath your self. Views about a subject so skewed in the other direction that you choose to ignore facts. Despite what me, Klutch and Deinen have told you.
You are a fool if you truly think what you are saying is practical outside of a city. Nothing more, nothing less. Like I said, you have lost the debate and are right now the equivalent to a child who just found out that Santa doesn't exist.

You live under the crazy notion that every single person who owns a gun is just a mass murdering maniac.

But since you wanted facts. Here are a list of people who over time have been killed by bear attacks alone. "Just brown/black and polar"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

Not discluding Mountain Lions/Caribou/Moose and any animal really during mating season and when their young are about.

But you wouldnt understand that now would you.

Of course you wouldnt.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 3, 2016 ---

But he really is ignorant to the subject, it was hardly name calling. The meaning of them literally translates to a silly person who is uneducated in or about a subject.

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"
synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to,incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about;

fool
fo͞ol/
noun
a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding

 

I know the difference homie. You used it in a demeaning way by adding fool to the end. Dont

 

Can't tell if a purposeful pun or not

 

The government does not care about elections, it is a consistent entity regardless of it's makeup. Nor is my argument based on the fact I have any real fear our government is going to turn 1984ish. My fear is that perhaps not tomorrow, or next year, but maybe 100 years from now we're faced with a situation akin to the European Union. National sovereignty worn aware due to globalization, and how long does our Constitution last in that new world? Worse yet, what does the next iteration look like? Does it protect our freedoms equal to our current Constitution?

I do agree not everyone should be able to be armed, and there should be some regulation to it. However, I do not think we need to be as extreme as our European allies, with outright gun bans. However, history has shown a government with all the power, and the citizenry with none tends to lead to bad, if not horrific things. A few nutjobs in Oregon is not sufficient enough of an example to argue for strict gun control, because quite frankly that argument can be make for almost everything.

This is just like vaccination; do I vaccinate my kids? Hell yes, but do I feel comfortable with a government with the ability to mandate I pump my kids with medication? Not for a moment, because even though today vaccinations are fine, the slope it can lead to is extremely frightening.

Regardless of the ignorance spewed on both sides of these debates, we should not make them based on what we see today, but what we see looking miles down the road. I feel a responsibly armed citizenry is the one assurance that cannot be taken away that we will remain a free people, with fair and open elections, media, and press. Especially as we can see, even today, the utter disregard for any human societal values that comes from a large number of Corporations, and governmental entities, among other things. We should not make decisions based in an ideal world, but the world we have instead. I trust crazy armed people to not make my life suck as bad as an oppressive government, widespread corrupt, or a hyper-capitalized society would.

Speaking of guns; how many of us here have a fear of being shot walking outside today?

Perhaps ownership restrictions isn't the answer, but commercial regulations and tougher enforcement of the laws already on the books is sufficient. I suspect there isn't a high number of legal gun registration in the urban areas where violent crimes often happen.

 

You're back? I thought you were off to your post-victory celebration already.

Thanks for making my argument for me, though, which is a strange way for you to win:

"According to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, 430
burglary-related homicides occurred between 2003 and 2007 on
average annually. This number translates to less than 1% of all
homicides during that period.

Between 2003 and 2007, approximately 2.1 million household
burglaries were reported to the FBI each year on average.
Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all
burglaries during that period."