Gun rights/control/ownership

[Mommy_Kitty]

Believe me or not, those men do not wish to be shot themselves. The higher the probability that you have a gun, the lesser the chance they will attack you. Retreating to a position which offers  decent cover in your house with clear sight to the door of the room and yelling that you have a gun often actually works to drive them away. 

If they are scared of being shot or get hurt than they will run away when they hear an alarm go off, so you wont need a gun, but mostly the guys in gangs are drug addicts, drunkards or people without a single braincell in theyr head and those people wont run away when they see a gun.

 

In USA where guns are legal there are daily mansloughters, and in EU where guns are not legal there is allmost no mansloughters in whole year.

If guns wuld not be logale to have the amount of ilegal ones wuld get smaller, but now tha law says "to give weapons to all" and a young shitter that does not know what life is walks into a gun shop, they dont want to sell him the gun becouse he looks strange, than he goes to a back alley and buys an ilegal one becouse the law says he shuld have one. But if the law wuld as that people shuld not have weapons at home probably this punk wuld not go serch for one as it wuld be normal for him to not have one.

If USA bans weapons from home crimes wont drop ower night, but in a long run crimes will drop, especialy mansloughters as it will get normal for people there to not have a weapon so they wont serch for one.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Mommy_Kitty

[epicguy10000]

Everything changes when someone is looking down the business end of a barrel, if someone breaks into a house and lets say the owner walks up with .45, would you continue to rob them and be shot by a .45? (some people even own shotguns, and that wouldn't be fun at all) I know for a fact I would run if someone was pointing a barrel at me

[7Deadly$ins]

American culture is different. Our nation has always been a gun culture. Changing that is the difficult part. And the question is why would you want to change it? Again, there's no practical way to disarm criminals, so it would be counterproductive. For every accidental gun death caused by a carrier someone shows, you can show five instances of self defense with a gun. Slight exaggeration maybe, but you get my point. Taking guns away wouldn't solve any problems, because you can't take them away from everyone without A. Violating the constitution, and B. Becoming like some of the worst men and governments in history.

 

I tried to find the older copy of this picture without America's current president in it, but no such luck. So I'll just have to say that, as has already been stated, President Obama has a fairly pro-gun record in office, so his picture being attached to this is a completely silly point. The others stand.

 

 

 

 

Gun shops and pawn shops that sell guns do reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason, be it intoxication or apparent mental conditions. Most of them have very visible signs on the doors or around the counter area. They're a private business, and the can make that choice.

 

12 pounds is a MONSTER trigger! Is that double action or single action?

Oh, yes, let's go STRAIGHT to propaganda and Godwin's Law.

 

As for why I would want to, gun-related crimes are 40 times higher here than in Japan, and we see similar homicide statistics between here and Japan or the UK as well. You can say it's a cultural difference all you want, but I'm American, too. Hell, I'm a Texan. And I don't see why we need guns. I honestly do not see our "cultural" fascination with weaponry.

[Princess Artemis]

Americans don't need guns.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said the same thing in the same sweeping generalized way each time it's come up here.

 

Here's my reaction this time:

 

The UK, Japan, etc. seem to be getting along just fine.

 

Something worth reading re: violence in the UK.

 

More knife stats.

 

Sometimes I read things like that and wonder when they plan to go after butter knives, or if their young people aren't allowed to cut their own food until they are old enough to legally own a knife.

 

Global crime stats UK is #2 at only about a fifth the population. Half the crime at a fifth the population. One crime for every ten people. US has about one crime for every 26 people. Sounds okey dokey just fine to me! But I am sure your definition of "just fine" will allow for this, yes? UK is still just fine?

 

Japan actually is a better there: 2,853,739 crimes in a population of 127,368,088, so one for every 44 people. Yay, they're better than both of us : )

 

12 pounds is a MONSTER trigger! Is that double action or single action?

 

Yes it is. It's double action; single action the trigger is only three pounds. I rather prefer to fire it single action! The gunsmith told me he could probably lighten it to eight or nine pounds and still have the firing pin land hard enough so it didn't misfire. .22 LRs are rimfires and prone to misfire if they don't get hit really hard.

[Shienvien]

If they are scared of being shot or get hurt than they will run away when they hear an alarm go off, so you wont need a gun, but mostly the guys in gangs are drug addicts, drunkards or people without a single braincell in their head and those people wont run away when they see a gun.

An alarm does quite a deal less psychologically than seeing an actual gun pointed at you. Also, it is better to have the ability to retaliate than have none, in all cases. An alarm certainly is not going to stop a person who does not care about the consequences from slitting your throat. A gun might.

in EU where guns are not legal

The last time I checked, guns weren't illegal in the EU. I live in EU. There are certain very gun-restricted countries, like the UK, but guns aren't banned over here.

gun-related crimes are 40 times higher here than in Japan

Link to source please?

Furthermore, I am firmly on the standpoint that higher gun-related crimes rate is worth it if the general crime level is lower.

Is it better to have two gun-related deaths in a year and two thousand murders total, or eighty gun-related deaths a year and eight hundred murders total?

Edited June 27, 2012 by Shienvien

[Zaxian]

Global crime stats UK is #2 at only about a fifth the population. Half the crime at a fifth the population. One crime for every ten people. US has about one crime for every 26 people. Sounds okey dokey just fine to me! But I am sure your definition of "just fine" will allow for this, yes? UK is still just fine?

Oh for pity's sake, pick your statistics better than that! From the bottom of the exact page you linked:

DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

Also your link "Something worth reading re: violence in the UK." says:

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

I note that this makes *no* mention at all of comparative knife crime in the US. Surely the correct comparison here would be knife + gun crime in UK, vs knife + gun crime in US? (Of course, one might suggest that this is deliberate and that the author has no interest in being rigorous with their research, given how much better their statistics support their point of view...)

[7Deadly$ins]

Oh for pity's sake, pick your statistics better than that! From the bottom of the exact page you linked:

 

Also your link "Something worth reading re: violence in the UK." says:

 

I note that this makes *no* mention at all of comparative knife crime in the US. Surely the correct comparison here would be knife + gun crime in UK, vs knife + gun crime in US? (Of course, one might suggest that this is deliberate and that the author has no interest in being rigorous with their research, given how much better their statistics support their point of view...)

That's a problem you'll run into with ANY crime statistics, page, then. I've drawn from that, too. That would be a problem with the system, not with the reporter.

[Princess Artemis]

Oh for pity's sake, pick your statistics better than that! From the bottom of the exact page you linked:

 

Also your link "Something worth reading re: violence in the UK." says:

 

I note that this makes *no* mention at all of comparative knife crime in the US. Surely the correct comparison here would be knife + gun crime in UK, vs knife + gun crime in US? (Of course, one might suggest that this is deliberate and that the author has no interest in being rigorous with their research, given how much better their statistics support their point of view...)

Yes it did, which could play into why there are so many crimes listed in the US and UK as opposed to the most populated countries on earth, India and China. Still, for a quick look, it's worth noting that the UK is not a shiny happy paradise of safety and harmony. It's not "just fine", is it?

 

The blog post I linked to acknowledges that it's not really much of anything; it's more of an argument to put in perspective how gun crime stats are often misused. I read it. Did you? The point was the UK isn't "just fine" by any definition of the words I understand. If one has to qualify "just fine" every time a statistic comes out, and then say, oh, but I meant comparatively, oh, but I meant this, oh but I meant that, it's not..."just fine".

 

People get stabbed there a lot. They don't get shot as often. That's not just fine. That's a complicated situation boiled down to a simple little platitude.

[7Deadly$ins]

Actually, my use of "just fine" had more to do with the fact that people aren't *ing and moaning about gun control the way I see people doing it here. That has at least been my experience.

 

Japan is still doing pretty well, all things considered.

[Princess Artemis]

Actually, my use of "just fine" had more to do with the fact that people aren't *ing and moaning about gun control the way I see people doing it here. That has at least been my experience.

 

Japan is still doing pretty well, all things considered.

I dunno, Kestra came in and moaned about it : ) I generally see a good few people from the UK grouching about US gun control. I don't pay too much attention, so I don't know how much USians go up to UKians to grouch to them about their laws. I could take a couple low-blows at the UK on the nature of the crimes that got them so high on that list, but what's the point? I don't live there. If it doesn't bother them, I see no reason to fuss them about it.

 

Perhaps if it was the infringement of something they cared about, they'd grouch more about it. In the US, it's right there in black and white, recognized as an inalienable human right, one in which was not granted by government, but one in which humans have by nature: the right to arm themselves. So, yeah, of course USians get a bit more het up about it when others decide threatening our human rights is a good idea. We've got a framework that recognizes many natural human rights, something that not all nations have. Threatening our right to bear arms is right up there with threatening our right to free speech. Americans tend to feel similarly about them both, understandably so, as they are both natural human rights that a government can only recognize and defend at best.

[philpot123]

I think that people shuld not be allowed to have guns for other things than hunting and the ones that have them for sports, those people know how to handle a firearm and shuld be sane. All who say they need one for protection are liveing in a dreamworld, do you seriousely belive that you will be safe if you have a gun at home, how safe will you be if a gang wants to rob your house, what will you do, will you pick up your gun and show it to them and they will run away, i hate to burst your buble but thay will nut run when they see a gun as they will have guns as well. If a gang of 5 want to rob you, you will need to kill all 5 of them to prevent being robed, will you be able to lift a gun and pull a trigger in another humans face and take his life to prevent being robbed, if you think that takeing a life to save your family is so easy that you only need to lift a gun and pull on trigger than you shuld not be allowed to have a gun. It is one thing to aim on the target and totaly diferent thing when you need to aim on another human.

There are verified reports of a single man with a gun scaring off/injuring multiple robbers...

 

 

Oh, yes, let's go STRAIGHT to propaganda and Godwin's Law. As for why I would want to, gun-related crimes are 40 times higher here than in Japan, and we see similar homicide statistics between here and Japan or the UK as well. You can say it's a cultural difference all you want, but I'm American, too. Hell, I'm a Texan. And I don't see why we need guns. I honestly do not see our "cultural" fascination with weaponry.

 

Take it at what you will, what's stated is fact. Our founding fathers were VEHEMENTLY FOR free access to guns by the general public, and communist societies without exception always favor disarmament, because you can't enslave a people who have the means to fight back.

 

My point is that we can't effectively eliminate guns in our society. Making them illegal will not take them out of the hands of those who own them illegally, and most indignant citizens would probably still hang on to theirs as long as they could. Disarmament is impractical in places where the majority of people own guns and there is no gun registration (ahem, Tennessee). Taking guns away doesn't solve cultural violence problems either. So not only is it impractical, it's useless and also illegal/unconstitutional.

Edited June 27, 2012 by philpot123

[Zaxian]

That's a problem you'll run into with ANY crime statistics, page, then...

Well, there is of course always disparity between recorded crime and actual crime - my particular quarm with this comparison was the vagueness of the term 'crime', and the statement:

Half the crime at a fifth the population. One crime for every ten people. US has about one crime for every 26 people.

Which is sweeping and unqualified. "One recorded crime for every ten people vs. the US with about one recorded crime for every 26 people" would be more accurate. Though again, there is no mention of the timescale, or definition of 'crime', etc. etc. As an example of the weakness of generic 'crime' number comparisons: in some states of the US I believe it's illegal to jaywalk - in the UK there is no concept of jaywalking. So is jaywalking included in these numbers or not? Should it be?

 

...That would be a problem with the system, not with the reporter.

Some crime statistics are more obviously reliable and comparable than others - "Deaths by knife injury" for example, is fairly clear cut (pardon the pun), and is likely to reflect the number of actual dead bodies turning up, rather than relying on people to go to the police. It's your choice which numbers you quote!

[Princess Artemis]

Which is sweeping and unqualified. "One recorded crime for every ten people vs. the US with about one recorded crime for every 26 people" would be more accurate. Though again, there is no mention of the timescale, or definition of 'crime', etc. etc. As an example of the weakness of generic 'crime' number comparisons: in some states of the US I believe it's illegal to jaywalk - in the UK there is no concept of jaywalking. So is jaywalking included in these numbers or not? Should it be?

And in the UK, some speech is criminal, unlike the US. So is it considering that, too?

 

Yes, I was getting a little loose with the stats. It was still worth a quick look, which is all that it was. I wish you'd pointed out that I hadn't properly qualified my statements the first time though, I'd agree with you; I hadn't. Sometimes I get dead tired of qualifying every little thing and I slipped up here.

[Zaxian]

And in the UK, some speech is criminal, unlike the US. So is it considering that, too?

I have no idea, and that's exactly the weakness of such numbers. You'll note that I said 'As an example' before my comment on jaywalking - hence the single example, rather than a comprehensive list of differences in law between the two countries.

[Princess Artemis]

I have no idea, and that's exactly the weakness of such numbers. You'll note that I said 'As an example' before my comment on jaywalking - hence the single example, rather than a comprehensive list of differences in law between the two countries.

And yet, the point still stands. A lot of people get stabbed in the UK. People don't get shot that often. It's not 'just fine'.

 

I'm sure if we all really wanted to get the exact numbers on a complicated issue, we could follow links or do more research, rather than come to Dragon Cave and expect that a single one off forum post would have a rigorous answer.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[NobleOwl]

Take it at what you will, what's stated is fact. Our founding fathers were VEHEMENTLY FOR free access to guns by the general public, and communist societies without exception always favor disarmament, because you can't enslave a people who have the means to fight back.

 

Uh, no.

 

The early Christian church was communist, and they armed to the teeth. Likewise multiple Native American societies were communistic, and some that were, were the most known for their warfare. Why do you think I can split a skull with a hatchet?

[babybluefire]

In lets just say the past 5 years I can tell you I have NEEDED a gun more then 20 times. Against people? Of course not. We have lived on a farm for many years. Excess predator and prey animals exist in abundance here because most parts of the US do not have enough of the large predators anymore. We are literally crawling with bobcats, foxes, coyotes, raccoon's and the like. Prey animals like deer, rabbits and ground hogs are overcrowding as well. Without large numbers of wolves, mountain lions and bears the other animal population go crazy.

 

 

Just keeping farm animals alive is tough in this situation. You can shoot every predator after your chickens and because of the messed up life cycle there are a dozen more then where they came from.

 

 

So not only do I need a rifle, but I also need a handgun, a fairly powerful one. What happens if one of the horses or cows is injured beyond the point of any medical help? What happens in the case of a truck accident. Should the animal be left to die slowly and in pain while we wait sometimes hours on the vet. Or should I get the gun out of the lock box and take the suffering away?

 

 

Huge parts of the US are farm and rural areas. In comparison to Japan or even the uk we have how many more square miles of farmland. Its a gun culture for some because they are necessary for protection of livestock.

 

 

Then you must take into account the poor economic times the us is in. In rural areas hunting is a huge food source. A bullet costs pennies. A pound of plain ground beef costs 4 dollars right now. One bullet that costs a few pennies can provide 20-75 pounds of meat and helps keep the wild animal population in better control.

 

 

[Mommy_Kitty]

In lets just say the past 5 years I can tell you I have NEEDED a gun more then 20 times. Against people? Of course not. We have lived on a farm for many years. Excess predator and prey animals exist in abundance here because most parts of the US do not have enough of the large predators anymore. We are literally crawling with bobcats, foxes, coyotes, raccoon's and the like. Prey animals like deer, rabbits and ground hogs are overcrowding as well. Without large numbers of wolves, mountain lions and bears the other animal population go crazy.

 

 

Just keeping farm animals alive is tough in this situation. You can shoot every predator after your chickens and because of the messed up life cycle there are a dozen more then where they came from.

 

 

So not only do I need a rifle, but I also need a handgun, a fairly powerful one. What happens if one of the horses or cows is injured beyond the point of any medical help? What happens in the case of a truck accident. Should the animal be left to die slowly and in pain while we wait sometimes hours on the vet. Or should I get the gun out of the lock box and take the suffering away?

 

 

Huge parts of the US are farm and rural areas. In comparison to Japan or even the uk we have how many more square miles of farmland. Its a gun culture for some because they are necessary for protection of livestock.

 

 

Then you must take into account the poor economic times the us is in. In rural areas hunting is a huge food source. A bullet costs pennies. A pound of plain ground beef costs 4 dollars right now. One bullet that costs a few pennies can provide 20-75 pounds of meat and helps keep the wild animal population in better control.

Haveing weapons for hunting is ok, as those guns are not ment to kill people, but to kill animals or scare them off from farms.

 

philpot123  Posted on Jun 27 2012, 06:24 PM

There are verified reports of a single man with a gun scaring off/injuring multiple robbers...

 

A single man with a gun will only scare away someone that is not armed with a gun, but if a bunch of robbers get into your house and are all with guns they will not get scared away, couple might get gunned down but still they have your single man with a gun outnumbered and outguned.

 

Saying you feel safe becouse you own a gun is only an ilusion, cops have guns and they are on display hanginh from theyr belts and they still get mugged, so why do you think you will be safe haveing a gun if cops are not safe, you are equaly likely to be robbed, or guned down despite owning a gun, if some punks try to robb you you might get to scare them away with your gun, but if som profesionals are on the job you wont know what happned before it is to late and you have a bulet in your head.

[epicguy10000]

No, trust me, if they know their live are going to end, they are going to run, I don't care how many there are, most people don't realize how scary death is until it's about to kick them right in the face, guns will scare away people, whether or not you shoot them

 

EDIT: I found this picture which made me chuckle a bit

 

Edited June 27, 2012 by penguin_adu6oo

[philpot123]

Uh, no.

 

The early Christian church was communist, and they armed to the teeth. Likewise multiple Native American societies were communistic, and some that were, were the most known for their warfare. Why do you think I can split a skull with a hatchet?

'Scuse me, I should've clarified. I realized my mistake soon after I posted. Coercive communist governments always enforce disarmament. Voluntary communistic societies have no need to.

 

A single man with a gun will only scare away someone that is not armed with a gun, but if a bunch of robbers get into your house and are all with guns they will not get scared away, couple might get gunned down but still they have your single man with a gun outnumbered and outguned. Saying you feel safe becouse you own a gun is only an ilusion, cops have guns and they are on display hanginh from theyr belts and they still get mugged, so why do you think you will be safe haveing a gun if cops are not safe, you are equaly likely to be robbed, or guned down despite owning a gun, if some punks try to robb you you might get to scare them away with your gun, but if som profesionals are on the job you wont know what happned before it is to late and you have a bulet in your head.

 

Nope. False. Wrong. Take a gander at the "armed citizen" section of Rifleman magazine sometime. some pretty awesome stuff. One told the story of an old man who had a short gunfight with two ARMED would-be robbers, BOTH OF THEM HAD GUNS, and he successfully defended himself. It's not an illusion that untold numbers of people effectively defend themselves with guns. Is it always going to work? No. But it's the classic condom rule, like I already stated. I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have it. Talk to the people who have used teir guns in self defense, read some news articles sometime before you try to tell me it's only an "illusion" of safety.

[Princess Artemis]

but if som profesionals are on the job you wont know what happned before it is to late and you have a bulet in your head.

If professional assassins are after you, yeah, having a gun to defend yourself is the least of your worries. Most people who have a gun for home defense aren't concerned about assassins or other professional killers, they're concerned about the thugs who would really much rather rob or assault someone who isn't armed.

 

I've heard a good few stories about people who have defended themselves because they were armed. One woman caught a serial rapist because she kept a gun in her nightstand. That's the sort of thing the police cannot be relied upon to do (nor even reasonably expected to even attempt): defend a person in the act of an assault. Only you can defend yourself. You are responsible for yourself--no one else is. You are worth defending. Up to you to decide how much force you are willing to use to defend yourself.

 

Personally, I quite obviously hope I never find out how much force I'm willing to use to defend myself. I do think it's my job, though, and I certainly cannot expect anyone else to defend me for anything if I'm not willing to defend myself.

[Shienvien]

Why do you think you will be safe haveing a gun if cops are not safe, you are equaly likely to be robbed, or guned down despite owning a gun, if some punks try to robb you you might get to scare them away with your gun, but if som profesionals are on the job you wont know what happned before it is to late and you have a bulet in your head.

 

No one is 100% safe with a gun. However, on the off chance that something does happen which requires one to draw it in defense (and lets hope it wont!), it would massively increase the one's chances of surviving (being not raped, having most possessions left in place, etc.) even if only used as a device of intimidation. It will take police a few minutes to arrive at best, and during those few minutes, one is on one's own.

 

Also, professionals? Common house-robbing is not done by professional killers. As I've said before, most people do not want to be shot, criminals included, and if they might not think much of it beforehand, having a bullet hit the wall inches from one's body often already suffices to make then change their minds.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Shienvien

[philpot123]

Common house-robbing is not done by professional killers.

What? It's not? You mean it's weird that the Mossad tries to break in every other weekend? Am I the only one this happens to?

[babybluefire]

Haveing weapons for hunting is ok, as those guns are not ment to kill people, but to kill animals or scare them off from farms.

 

 

 

But my point being, I am not carrying a huge rifle around in the truck when the animals go to fairs or shows. A little 22 rifle will not kill a horse or cow quickly or efficiently. Heck my spouse hates the 22's because it does not kill ground hogs on the first shot. A higher powered hand gun, like a 357 is necessary to put a large animal down. Even a 9mm might not put a horse down on the first shot. They have a brain the size of a walnut encased in a very thick protective skull. Using anything but a very large and higher powered hand gun is just cruel.

 

 

And just to say, I would do everything medically possible for the care and well being of my animals. But say a truck accident and the trailer was on its side and on fire? Yea no way I would let them burn to death.

 

 

 

 

As far as a single gun owner with a single weapon at home? Which house would "you" rather rob? The house with one gun and one adult or the house with several adult and no guns? Because fact of the matter, most people who own guns are reasonably well trained in their use.

 

 

Growing up my parents taught us gun safety and proper use. In our teens it was 2 adults and 3 teens very well versed in gun usage. Plus a dog. Our neighbors all had break ins, in houses with several large dogs. Our never did. Eventually the cops found the guy. A neighbor who knew which houses he would obviously want to avoid, the houses with guns and several people trained in their use. He only robbed places who he knew the owners could not protect themselves.

[philpot123]

Guns on private land is all fine and good, but I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to carry my rifle in my truck all the time. And why I shouldn't be allowed to carry my glock on me, especially if it's concealed and not causing undue stress to those around me. See, I have a constitutional right to bear arms. No one has a constitutional right to be "comfortable" all the time, or "like" the fact that people are allowed to carry guns.