Shooting discussion devolves

[Thanas]

These people there are armed with way more than just rifles and handguns. Also, Terrain and other factors (clans, society etc) which are not present in the US aid them.

[Questor]

OK, Thanas, I'll take a shot in the dark*:

1. The world is a scary place, and guns make certain people feel less afraid.

2. Shooting a gun is a skill, and doing it right gives the same feeling that I might get from hitting a golf ball just right, or that perfect tennis shot from one corner to the other.

I realize that these reasons are rather threadbare, and don't really balance any level of gun crime, but if I had to guess why some people are so attached to guns, some combination of the two would be my guess.

* Aren't I funny?

[Lord Zentei]

These people there are armed with way more than just rifles and handguns. Also, Terrain and other factors (clans, society etc) which are not present in the US aid them.

How about machine guns?



The US contains quite the diversity of terrain, so that's not really a handicap, depending on where you live. Urban settings can be pretty deadly for an occupying power too.

[Questor]

Zentai, are you just playing devil's advocate, or are you really crazy enough to think that turning the US into Afghanistan is a desirable end state to any kind of governmental tyranny that is at all likely to happen outside of the paranoid delusions of some militia nuts?

[Lord Zentei]

Zentai, are you just playing devil's advocate, or are you really crazy enough to think that turning the US into Afghanistan is a desirable end state to any kind of governmental tyranny that is at all likely to happen outside of the paranoid delusions of some militia nuts?

Duh, obviously I don't think that would be a good idea. It was only a response to the claim that a militia could not stop a tyranny supported by the US military.

In any case, I suspect the proponents of citizen's militias see them more as something that would cause the government to think twice before allowing things to become too intolerable, rather than something that would actually fight in a civil war redux.

[Aaron MkII]

They are the "violent group" in an insurrection, the group that makes dealing with their political equivalent easier to swallow. They don’t have to over throw the government, just make it appealing to go to the table and negotiate.

Now that said, firearms owners are traditionally conservative and support the government.

[Stark]

Since their number one weapons will be terror and murder I'm not sure many have thought it through. :v

That said I can't even imagine being afraid of the army, but I live in a country where they don't literally get away with murder.

[Aaron MkII]

I expect my military will refuse to deploy against its citizens but my impression of the US militia movement is that it's small, they don't practice much and that their massive racism would actually cost them support.

[weemadando]

Defense against government isn't as absurd as it seems. The militia are never going to stop an armoured division, but they can make an area ungovernable. See: Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, you're right. It's citizens with firearms that made that possible, not major mismanagement that allowed kilotons of artillery shells and other explosives to be spirited away from depots in Iraq and redirected into the insurgency for use in killing coalition troops for years to come.

Or Afghanistan where the leavings of both sides of the Cold War in abundance gave them ample tools to fight on.

[Thanas]

So...is anybody else going to answer?

[Channel72]

Okay, let's do it this way - is there any reason related to necessity to own a gun? So far, people have raised - my questions in parenthesis:
- home defence (how high are the odds of a violent home invasion in the USA?)
- Hunting (how many gun owners actually use their weapons for hunting/own hunting rifles)?
- safety in case of being attacked by violent animal (How many people in the USA are killed by violent animals and does a 9mm even stop a charging grizzly?)
- protection from massacres (how high is the risk of being massacred and how many instances are there where gun owners actually stopped massacres?)
- Defence against the government (not gonna discuss this one because the premise is too laughable to take seriously. This isn't 1800 anymore where a few hunters could delay whole companies. If the 1st armored is coming to town, your AR-derivatives are not going to stop them).

Yeah, there's basically no good reason. The real reason rabid gun-fans want to own guns is basically (1) they just like shooting for sport, or (2) it makes them feel manly because they grew up watching John Wayne movies or Die Hard and so they're a product of the stupid gun culture in this country, or (3) they're just paranoid neurotics who think everyone is out to get them and/or the government is teetering on the edge of becoming a tyrannical dictatorship at any second.

Really, the only remotely reasonable excuse to have a gun is if you live or work in a dangerous area, like an inner-city area, where there's a good chance you could be mugged (or raped in the case of women.) Even in that case, there's alternatives to guns: pepper spray, stun guns, etc.

[Aaron MkII]

lol, so what do you say to me? I use guns as a means to work through my PTSD, I find it very calming and also gets me to socialize. There's also the hunting aspect, my son keeps begging me to take him.

[Channel72]

lol, so what do you say to me? I use guns as a means to work through my PTSD, I find it very calming and also gets me to socialize. There's also the hunting aspect, my son keeps begging me to take him.

What can I say? I don't know anything about your personal situation or how it fits into this discussion about guns. If shooting guns has helped you psychologically than I'm happy to hear that - but you have to be objective when we're discussing the overall impact of guns on society. I work in a pretty dangerous area, and I've often considered purchasing a gun for protection. But again, objectively speaking, I still feel we'd be better off with a lot less guns in circulation and much, much stricter gun laws, regardless of my own personal situation.

[Aaron MkII]

I don't see how anything but the most basic controls help. Licensing, mandatory safety training and storage laws at least ensure a basic level of security and training. Beyond that we start tramping on peoples rights for little gain. Improved access to mental health and a proper system of social assistance are going to provide us with a greater return by minimising the amount of people who need to turn to crime to survive, and also benefits society as a whole.

Draconian gun control is basically a band aid.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that Handguns have been registered, licensed and closely watched since 1934 in Canada and they are still the ones most used in crime and the most sought after by criminals. Those people that have gone through the licensing and purchasing process here are actually the least likely to go off on people. That said, having a large number of handguns puts you on the RCMP radar but it also makes you a target for burglary, because...hey free handguns!

[ray245]

lol, so what do you say to me? I use guns as a means to work through my PTSD, I find it very calming and also gets me to socialize. There's also the hunting aspect, my son keeps begging me to take him.

What about the people who also suffer similar disorder and do not have easy access to guns? Your arguments needs to be stronger than that, given that there might be other kind of treatment that help people cope with PTSD.

I don't see how anything but the most basic controls help. Licensing, mandatory safety training and storage laws at least ensure a basic level of security and training. Beyond that we start tramping on peoples rights for little gain. Improved access to mental health and a proper system of social assistance are going to provide us with a greater return by minimising the amount of people who need to turn to crime to survive, and also benefits society as a whole.

You can always educate children about the danger of guns and gun ownership. The very least America should do is to convince the next generation that they do not need a gun in their daily lives. Instead of viewing gun ownership as a right or entitlement, they should view it like it is a privilege.

If not, you can always try have a tax on gun ownership to ensure the gun lovers do not buy more guns than necessary. If it is affordable for the middle-class and below to buy 4-5 assault rifles without going broke, you will have a problem with gun circulation in the country.

[Aaron MkII]

What about the people who also suffer similar disorder and do not have easy access to guns? Your arguments needs to be stronger than that, given that there might be other kind of treatment that help people cope with PTSD.

My point is actually that the issue is broader then people realize and that we shouldn't craft reactionary laws, or use the occasion to punish people who may not be part of the problem.

I don't see how anything but the most basic controls help. Licensing, mandatory safety training and storage laws at least ensure a basic level of security and training. Beyond that we start tramping on peoples rights for little gain. Improved access to mental health and a proper system of social assistance are going to provide us with a greater return by minimising the amount of people who need to turn to crime to survive, and also benefits society as a whole.

You can always educate children about the danger of guns and gun ownership. The very least America should do is to convince the next generation that they do not need a gun in their daily lives. Instead of viewing gun ownership as a right or entitlement, they should view it like it is a privilege.

It is a right though. Right there in the Constitution. Now we can argue that its outdated but you have to get over that hurdle first. As for education, I'm with you 100% Kids should be taught about safe handling and responsibility from Grade 1.

If not, you can always try have a tax on gun ownership to ensure the gun lovers do not buy more guns than necessary. If it is affordable for the middle-class and below to buy 4-5 assault rifles without going broke, you will have a problem with gun circulation in the country.

Trying to limit circulation now is pretty difficult. America has a massive gun owning population. Just fyi by the way, assault weapons are already highly restricted (can't even have them in canada) in the US. I personally do not care if you use erroneous terminology but most vocal pro gun people will use that as an excuse to ignore you.

[Aaron MkII]

A possible course of action is also to have an actually effective drug abuse strategy, one that can minimize why a dealer or organization will need them (obviously not prohibition alone). I can think of at least two avenues here in the town where I might aquire an illegal handgun. And it's drug related.

[Knife]

I'll propose the strategy of universal healthcare, to enable a better mental health program and access to it, before moving on to legislation against guns. I'm not against gun laws per say, depending on what we're talking about. I'm an advocate of lists of people who should not have guns, more than anything. To do that, we need the infrastructure in place to make that list. Hence the universal healthcare first.

[Simon_Jester]

They are the "violent group" in an insurrection, the group that makes dealing with their political equivalent easier to swallow. They don’t have to over throw the government, just make it appealing to go to the table and negotiate.

Now that said, firearms owners are traditionally conservative and support the government.

This is partly a decision on the Democrats' part. By making gun control part of the national platform, we've made sure that a slice of gun-owning voters would move away from the party because of gun control.

I expect my military will refuse to deploy against its citizens but my impression of the US militia movement is that it's small, they don't practice much and that their massive racism would actually cost them support.

The 'militias' that now exist probably don't bear much resemblance to the ones that would exist in the event of real tyranny IF the average American were as... 'warlike' as was originally pictured by the founding fathers in the 1780s.

We're not that warlike as a society- as individuals, we don't routinely expect that all free citizens should be ready to join an armed force to fight for their rights. That's the thing that's really changed, and shifted many people's perspective on the Second Amendment. In 1812, the set of people willing to fight to keep politics from being imposed on them at gunpoint was pretty nonpartisan. Even in 1912 it probably was. But today? I don't know.

Yeah, there's basically no good reason. The real reason rabid gun-fans want to own guns is basically (1) they just like shooting for sport, or (2) it makes them feel manly because they grew up watching John Wayne movies or Die Hard and so they're a product of the stupid gun culture in this country, or (3) they're just paranoid neurotics who think everyone is out to get them and/or the government is teetering on the edge of becoming a tyrannical dictatorship at any second.

I find the choice of the word "rabid" interesting. "Rabid" means "has rabies" and implies "is dangerous to others." Someone who is indiscriminate, violent, and who can't be reasoned with.

Is a man who collects rifles and has several dozen firearms locked away in a room in their house "rabid?" What, exactly, is the threat here?

Really, the only remotely reasonable excuse to have a gun is if you live or work in a dangerous area, like an inner-city area, where there's a good chance you could be mugged (or raped in the case of women.) Even in that case, there's alternatives to guns: pepper spray, stun guns, etc.

Of course, this is exactly the area where most criminals get their hands on illegal guns and shoot people with them, so by easing gun restrictions in cities you're totally defeating the purpose of your own gun legislation.

Someone recently pointed out that in rural areas, there's a similar danger: if you call the police, they can't get there for a long time. You have to fend for yourself if you are attacked, either by an animal or by a criminal. That changes the "should I own a gun" equation.

I'll propose the strategy of universal healthcare, to enable a better mental health program and access to it, before moving on to legislation against guns. I'm not against gun laws per say, depending on what we're talking about. I'm an advocate of lists of people who should not have guns, more than anything. To do that, we need the infrastructure in place to make that list. Hence the universal healthcare first.

Seconded. And there'd be spinoff benefits.

Banning guns just means there are no guns. It won't stop the same crazy person from going on a killing spree with a knife, or a bomb, or a car in a crowded area. Statistically speaking that might save lives (guns are more dangerous), but it won't fix the problem.

Whereas a list of people too dangerous to trust with lethal weapons would also be useful for other purposes. We could use it to keep track of which people ought to have a social worker checking up on them every X months to make sure they're taking their meds and living sanely. We could use it to keep track of which people should not be hired for jobs where their mental issues might make it hard for them to get along with the public.



If someone talks about this as a civil liberties issue they have a point. But then, this entire debate is about how to restrict a civil liberty in exchange for more security. It's just a question of which civil liberty.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Thanas, it's a preliminary report, I can't find the final one, but this pdf of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: National Overview by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service might be of some interest. It suggests, based on cencus data, about 13.7 million hunters in the United States.

Edit: For perspective the population of Pennslyvania is abut 12.7 million.

[ryacko]

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/h ... defense-in
Just thought I should link the above, it popped up in my facebook feed.

States some things already mentioned in the thread, but provides some examples:

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

Might be a bit premature to say the mall shooting was stopped by the concealed weapon (ought to wait for all the reports to be corroborated).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd be willing to agree to legislation requiring all firearms to be locked up at all times except for one per adult in the household, which must either be on their person or else must be physically in their own home where it is stored with the firearm in easy access to the individual, i.e., if you leave your house without taking your gun with you, you have to lock it up.

[UnderAGreySky]

A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

Why is this even in the list?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Okay, let's do it this way - is there any reason related to necessity to own a gun? So far, people have raised - my questions in parenthesis:
- home defence (how high are the odds of a violent home invasion in the USA?)

Depends on where you live. We would need to take a look at crime statistics to get an idea.

- Hunting (how many gun owners actually use their weapons for hunting/own hunting rifles)?

Hunting is popular in the United States. Approximately 38 million Americans engage in hunting but I can't find any figures on which ones use rifles vs bows.

- safety in case of being attacked by violent animal (How many people in the USA are killed by violent animals and does a 9mm even stop a charging grizzly?)

Not enough to justified general ownership. This would be a control issue.

- protection from massacres (how high is the risk of being massacred and how many instances are there where gun owners actually stopped massacres?)

I don't have any actual numbers but the odds are actually probably greater than winning the lottery.

- Defence against the government (not gonna discuss this one because the premise is too laughable to take seriously. This isn't 1800 anymore where a few hunters could delay whole companies. If the 1st armored is coming to town, your AR-derivatives are not going to stop them).

No, but you could use them to ambush soldiers and steal their equipment.

[Formless]

Okay, let's do it this way - is there any reason related to necessity to own a gun? So far, people have raised - my questions in parenthesis:
- home defence (how high are the odds of a violent home invasion in the USA?)

I don't think there are any statistics, because there is no relevant law at the federal level (yet), so any statistics you will find are probably mixed with cases of "ordinary" burglary, i.e. no one home at the time and/or no weapon on the perpetrator. But its common enough that the states of Michigan, Conneticut, Florida, Illinois, and Louisiana all have dedicated laws on the books to distinguish it from regular burglary.

Besides, there is no one size fits all answer to your deeper question. It depends on where you live, the neighborhood, your race, your social class, the reputation of the police department, whether you live in a urban area or a rural one, your relationship history (in the case of, say, domestic abuse victims trying to escape their partner), and your own personal physique (between a 180 pound woman and a 200 pound rapist and no one has a weapon, who usually wins?). I suspect this would be why, although I don't think its easily enough instituted in the States, Australia and other countries issue ownership licenses based on "demonstrable need". Some people can't demonstrate it, others can.

- Hunting (how many gun owners actually use their weapons for hunting/own hunting rifles)?

This too depends on where you live. Hunting is more valid here in Colorado, where there is actual wilderness to hunt in, then it is in a place like New York. I will note, however, that the rifles used in hunting are rarely used in crime. In fact, I would be highly unsurprised if the statistics on rifle crimes don't include hunting related crimes, such as Poaching or Want and Waste. Unlike a pistol, you can't hide one on your person, so rifles are unattractive to criminals. Plus, I can't prove this for sure but I think long gun owners are more likely to keep them in a safe when not practicing or using them.

I'm guessing shotguns are somewhere in between rifles and pistols for use in crime, if only because of their intimidating reputation and price. But that is just a guess.

- safety in case of being attacked by violent animal (How many people in the USA are killed by violent animals and does a 9mm even stop a charging grizzly?)

Admittedly, there are other ways to prevent animal attacks in the woods, such as bear spray. But each method is intended for a different animal, whereas a gun is contingency that can save you from many kinds of animal when things go really south.

And no, a 9mm is not for shooting wildlife. Generally, animals need higher penetration to take down than humans. At least a .357 magnum is the minimum I've heard suggested for bears and cougars, and something like a .44 magnum is not unreasonable for this purpose. Plus, this may very well interact with hunting laws regarding caliber and minimum muzzle energy for shooting wildlife depending on locale. Injuring an animal and not killing it is frowned upon as cruel by the hunting culture.

- protection from massacres (how high is the risk of being massacred and how many instances are there where gun owners actually stopped massacres?)

I can't really think of any massacres that have been stopped by civilian shooters (as opposed to SWAT teams), and for good reason. Spree killers usually strike at times and public places where everyone has their guard down. Spree killers are crazy, but not necessarily stupid. They plan it this way.