Worldwide gun control disscussion

[madd0ct0r]

to stop the threads with the people who got shot being shitted up. May as well have a single purpose catch all thread.

I still don't see the point of guns as self defence against other humans. It's basic game theory. If guns are difficult and expensive to obtain, and the people you want to mug don't have one, you don't bother. They get mugged, no-one gets shot.

If guns become legal, and people start carrying them for a comfort blanket, then muggers need guns too. People still get mugged, some get shot. Do some risk-averse muggers find a new career? Possibly, although I'm not sure being a mugger suggests they're great at risk calculation.

That's without getting into the argument where the times you are fit to use a gun and the times you are at high risk of mugging don't overlap very well.

[Purple]

The way I see it things are extraordinarily simple. Firearms are very deadly tools. And he who shoots and hits first is going to be the one that wins any engagement. And thus in a situation of equal firepower advantage is always going to be with the attacker.

Now that does not mean that they are useless in self defense. But they are useless in what most people consider to be the typical self defense situation. That being a random mugging or attack on the street. In fact they are worse than useless as a thief that suspects you to have a firearm is more likely to shoot first and rob the body than risk a shootout.

Where I think firearms shine is what I would call prepared self defense. Those are the sort of situations people can and are actively preparing for. Like say for example when someone is say breaking into your house and you hear him breaking a window. Or someone stops your car in the street looking dangerous and you have a handgun in your glove compartment. In those cases firearms can give you some advantage because you can catch the guy unawares and either diffuse the situation or just shoot him.

[Joun_Lord]

to stop the threads with the people who got shot being shitted up. May as well have a single purpose catch all thread.

I still don't see the point of guns as self defence against other humans. It's basic game theory. If guns are difficult and expensive to obtain, and the people you want to mug don't have one, you don't bother. They get mugged, no-one gets shot.

If guns become legal, and people start carrying them for a comfort blanket, then muggers need guns too. People still get mugged, some get shot. Do some risk-averse muggers find a new career? Possibly, although I'm not sure being a mugger suggests they're great at risk calculation.

That's without getting into the argument where the times you are fit to use a gun and the times you are at high risk of mugging don't overlap very well.

Yeah......... muggings aren't really what most people are packing heat against. Don't be fucking daft man. Kick that strawman to the curb with yesterdays garbage where it belongs. Most likely very few people are worried about someone demanding their wallet or purse, most people know that most muggers just want their money. Most.

Some do though. And just because a mugger does not have a comfort blanket firearm doesn't mean he cannot harm his victim should he choose to. Some mugger robbing some little old lady, some weakling, whatever, someone weaker then him will not be able to fight back against the mugger should he choose to be violent. And considering his career of choice is robbing random people its not like he's really adverse to committing crimes. Someone takes too long giving up their stuff or decides to fight back, the mugger can get violent or just gets violent because he feels like it. To say nothing of the potential of raping or kidnapping someone.

But probably most muggings aren't violent. I dunno.

But again muggings aren't hwat people are fraid of. Violent attacks, home break ins, rape, armed and/or violent robbery that is a home break in or mugging, and most any other violent crime.

While most people aren't going to need to defend themselves from some impoverished street urchin forcefully getting charity from strangers they most certainly, atleast in my opinion, have the need and right to defend themselves from violent attack. Especially people that would not otherwise be able to.

Some big strong burly man (or woman) might be able to fight off a stranger. Some elder person, weak person, woman against most men, men against some women, men against some men, women against some women, all those probably are not going to be able to fight off an attacker quite so well. They need a tool for self defense against other humans. Even a big strong burly man might need one considering having to physically fight off an attacker is not something that should be automatically expected of someone, leaving aside the possibly sexist and certainly outdated notion of someone who dislikes fighting is a "pussy".

Now if you do not see the point of firearms for self defense their either you live in a fantasy world where you think people don't have a need to defend their lives, which is entirely possible considering you trotted out the fucking retarded ass fucking bullshit of muggings having primacy in concerns of self defense, or you do not believe someone is entitled to protect themselves and others or is atleast only entitled to protect themselves as much as their physical strength will allow.

Which is it?

And I'm sorry for being a bit of a cunt towards you Madd0c but this shit about "muggings" is just goddamn pants on head stupid as is the thought someone has no need to defend themselves from others.

[Purple]

Now if you do not see the point of firearms for self defense their either you live in a fantasy world where you think people don't have a need to defend their lives, which is entirely possible considering you trotted out the fucking retarded ass fucking bullshit of muggings having primacy in concerns of self defense, or you do not believe someone is entitled to protect themselves and others or is atleast only entitled to protect themselves as much as their physical strength will allow.

Or he might just live in a country or region where violent crime is exceedingly rare. Believe it or not there are places like this like say the entire EU and periphery. To a lot of us Europeans the notion of a society that is so unsafe that people feel the need to own self defense tools and carry them on their bodies at all times sounds like something we'd associate with living in a war zone or the wild west and is frankly alien.

[Joun_Lord]

Or he might just live in a country or region where violent crime is exceedingly rare. Believe it or not there are places like this like say the entire EU and periphery. To a lot of us Europeans the notion of a society that is so unsafe that people feel the need to own self defense tools and carry them on their bodies at all times sounds like something we'd associate with living in a war zone or the wild west and is frankly alien.

So he might live in a fantasy world where because he doesn't have a need to defend himself he feels others don't either? Thats not really any better, like the actors saying peons don't need firearms for protection because they don't need firearms (what with their teams of bodyguards).

I know for a fact that the EU isn't all roses and puppies. The EU's vestigial organ the UK is said to have a higher violent crime rate then even the US. Countries like awesome Belgium and slightly less awesome Sweden (no offense to Sweden, Belgium is just the superior country) have higher rape rates the the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... ion-people
Daily Mail so take with a heaping helping of salt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

Clearly the EU is not some perfect paradise where people have no need to protect themselves.

Probably most of the EU there is little need for much self defense but the same is true for even the US. If you live in a relatively wealthy area you don't have much to worry about. If you are smart enough to not go flashing your bling in areas of abject poverty you probably aren't going to get mugged much. But it can still happen, does happen. And to the people not living the high life it happens more and for them they cannot rely of private security or a speedy police response.

[Purple]

You do not get it. You just don't. Allow me to put this in as simple terms as possible. This is not about statistics. It is about mentality. It is about "how much danger do I think is the minimum threshold before I feel the need for a self defense tool." And from our perspective the answer to that is as follows.


In order for it to be sensible for the average citizen to feel an actual real need for a self defense tool of any kind on his person at all times that person has to actually be living in conditions where he is in a constant state of danger. In other words he must live in a world where anyone and everyone can be assaulted at any time. A place where there literally is no law. A place where everyone knows someone whos been gunned down on the street or robbed at gunpoint.

And in terms of statistics this means that the numbers must add up to the vast majority of the population being expected to be at the receiving end of violent crime at least once in their lifetime. Not 10% or 5% (or in the case of that rape list 0.13%) but the vast majority.


So whilst you talk of magical imaginary lands where violence does not exist we see your view of the world as the opposite. From our perspective you view the world as if it was the wild west of cowboy movies. A mythical place where every time you walk down the street people shut their windows. Every trip to the grocery store is interrupted by a shootout. And every bank, stage coach and train gets robbed every other day. For that is the only kind of world that we consider could plausibly spark such a fervent desire to own a firearm for self defense.

That's the point here.

[Borgholio]

I would like to bring up a critical flaw in the 2nd Amendment that makes me support removing it from the Constitution, or at least revising it heavily. The 2nd Amendment was a product of it's time, and that time has long since past.

In 1789, the United States did not have a standing army. Most people were wary of standing armies due to the British occupation and felt that militias (citizen armies) were the way to go. As such, the 2nd Amendment was put into place to ensure that the government would not have the right to disarm the citizen armies in an attempt to gain power over them. The people would (in theory) rise up and put the government back in it's place. Well that's all fine and dandy, because back then it was possible to do so. Any professional army would have single-shot muskets or early rifles, flintlock pistols, and canons. Civilians would have much the same kind of gear (including canons which would be stored in community armories). So the idea of a citizen militia standing up against a hostile army (foreign or domestic) was not without merit.

Fast forward to today. Despite early reservations, we eventually went the smart way and gained a standing military made of professionally trained career soldiers. It is currently one of the most capable and powerful armed forces in the world. The military has all sorts of weapons and equipment such as armored vehicles, attack helicopters, aircraft, guided missiles, fleets of warships and submarines, laser weapons, and of course...nuclear weapons. And we are not the only ones. Many European and Asian powers have modern militaries as well which, despite being smaller than our own in all but a few cases (China, for example), would still be more than a match for a bunch of rednecks with assault rifles. Likewise, if a future president somehow managed to get the support of the military to grab power, citizen militias would be unable to use much more than guerilla or terrorist tactics. A stand up fight in the open between ten thousand of those who currently refer to themselves as Militia and even a single army brigade would end badly for the militia. Even if there were no gun controls at all and we were allowed to have anti-tank guns, stinger missiles, RPGs, etc...any halfway competent army commander would take out weapon caches with airstrikes before the militia even had warning a coup was taking place.

So basically in both intended cases where the 2nd Amendment would be invoked (defense against a hostile invading army and defense against a hostile government), the outcome would be rather grim for the militias. What then is the point of the amendment these days? Well it can be argued that good reasons for having weapons include sport, home / personal defense, and hunting. I actually agree with those ideas. But none of those reasons require assault rifles, machine guns, or banana clips that hold 30 rounds of hollowpoint ammo. For home defense, the good old 12 gauge pump-action shotgun works just fine. For hunting, a bolt-action 30-odd 6 is plenty unless you are up against the biggest game animals. For personal defense, a 6-shot revolver would do. You don't need an AR-15 slung around your shoulder as you patrol Wal-Mart, and even a 9mm Glock is pointless in the hands of a civilian. A 17-round magazine will be gone in a few seconds of "spray and pray" firing, which is unlikely to hit your intended target anyways.

So in this day and age, I think people need to stop holding on to ideas of the brave American Patriots forming up to defend this land against hostile foreign armies or tyrannical governments. Revising the 2nd Amendment to permit the kinds of weapons that would be the most practical for the average citizen would help ensure that there would be fewer "mass-shooting capable" weapons out there. Add in a provision to require periodic competency testing and training, and it can help ensure that only responsible people can have guns and make it less likely that they'll wind up in the hands of the mentally ill or criminals.

[Joun_Lord]

You do not get it. You just don't. snip That's the point here.

No I do get it.

I don't feel the need to own a firearm. I don't carry a knife for self defense despite having to have used one to defend myself before. I don't feel in danger all that often.

But I'm also a relatively young straight white guy in relatively okay shape who's only real social danger (my religion or rather lack of) is not something that puts me in danger unless I decide to go up some holler and shout it. I don't live in a too terrible area and I don't really go out enough to get myself in danger that way. All in all I have a very low danger life.

I understand that I could be in danger at any moment though and I understand that others have it far worse then I.

Not because I'm some chicken little sky is falling sort or because I hug statistics or even that I think the world is a lawless wild west. I know the world is a violent place, even the relatively peaceful areas, and there are criminals who shockingly don't follow laws. I know I cannot predict the future. I know that people are assaulted, raped, murdered.

Not numbers or percentages or far off imaginary people that I can tuck myself in at night knowing I have nothing to do with, people just like me, people living their lives who suddenly, randomly and usually without warning have danger find them. People in American suburbs and Kazakhstan countryside, Europeons living in Europe, young people, old people, short people, tall people, skinny people, fat people, even kids with chicken pox. There is no way to predict who will be hurt, when, if ever. Thus the need to prepare just in case.

Your point is one may as well bury their head in the sand and ignore the problem, to act as if you are protected from harm because of your fucking holier then thou attitude, that there is no need to protect oneself because clearly it could never happen to me. Burying ones heads in the sand might be good for some ignorant people, ignoring it and saying that it could never happen to them. For others who are realists, not so much.

[Broomstick]

In order for it to be sensible for the average citizen to feel an actual real need for a self defense tool of any kind on his person at all times that person has to actually be living in conditions where he is in a constant state of danger.

Er.... I don't follow.

Why does it have to be constant danger?

Why "carry on his person at all times"?

When we were subjected to an attempted forced entry to our home the sheriff's office reminded us that one option was purchasing a shotgun for home defense. That's not a weapon you can conceal or that you carry around constantly. Had we chosen to go that route the gun (outside of a trip to a range or repair shop) would have stayed at home and been used solely in the event of a break in by an intruder while we were at home.

There are different potential dangers and scenarios. "Self-defense" doesn't always mean carrying concealed 24/7.

Having my home destroyed by a tornado is an unlikely event even if I live in a part of the world where tornadoes are most common. Nonetheless, I have a game plan for dealing with that situation. Having a break-in is likewise a relatively low likelihood event, but we have a gameplan for that, too. That's not paranoia, that's being prepared.

[TheFeniX]

I still don't see the point of guns as self defence against other humans.

What about guns for defense against animals/pests? What about guns for recreational use? You seem think the average use of a firearm in a given country, ignoring those that are more warzones than areas of law and order, is for self-defense. That is not the average use.

And at least in the U.S., self-defense laws don't usually mention the use of a firearm. You either have the legal right to defend yourself or you don't. If I'm authorized to use deadly force, the means I apply it with doesn't matter in current US law.

There's a lot of questions about firearms you're ignoring to focus on self-defense, which is a right in of itself.

It's basic game theory. If guns are difficult and expensive to obtain, and the people you want to mug don't have one, you don't bother. They get mugged, no-one gets shot.

That would mean something if the desired outcome of a mugging was to injure someone. It's not. Guns don't make muggings possible, they just make them easier. Same with a lot of crime.

The question is: what happens when someone still has the need to eat/support their lifestyle through crime even without access to a firearm? Do they stay at home? Do they just give up and starve to death?

If guns become legal, and people start carrying them for a comfort blanket, then muggers need guns too. People still get mugged, some get shot. Do some risk-averse muggers find a new career? Possibly, although I'm not sure being a mugger suggests they're great at risk calculation.

More to the point: guns don't make people commit crime and humans are more than capable of killing each other without them. Gun or not does NOT affect the need to commit crime to survive. A gun only factors in to what types of crime you can commit and how much risk you can take.

So, what would be a more effective crime deterrent: removing guns or giving people a reason to NOT commit crimes. Not to say you can't have both, but there exists millions of law-abiding gun owners with thousands of dollars in valuable property who use it safely and without incident their entire lives. The amount of gun owners who use their guns for crime ranges in the tenth of 1 percent area. Punishing them because the government can't provide people jobs or a safety net is worrying, to say the least.

One of the biggest factors in where crime takes place is poverty levels. Do most criminals content themselves robbing poor people at a much higher rate than people with money because they have nicer things than people with money? No, it's easier to victimize them. Police don't respond to calls like they do in affluent neighborhoods. Poor people are less likely to have security systems on their homes/vehicles. They are likely to have substandard construction for easy access, stuff of that nature.

Also, I can't talk about guns anymore without mentioning how the current administration bitches about me, some dumbfuck redneck, being a dangerous gun owner while they were busy telling FFLs to sell guns to foreign criminals, getting hundreds killed in the process.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure to what extent one can have a "Worldwide gun control disscussion" in a meaningful way, because the extent to which their would be a reason to possess fire arms, and the level of regulation that would be practical/legally possible, vary greatly depending on where in the world you are.

One argument I've seen before is that someone living in a wilderness area, or working as a farmer, might have more need for a gun for hunting/dealing with wildlife than a civilian in a city.

Likewise, someone living in an area with high crime (much less an war zone) with shit law enforcement might have more need of a gun to defend themselves.

Someone who is high profile and likely to be a target might be more likely to need a gun to defend themselves.

Or as raised in this thread, a member of a persecuted group might have be more likely to need a gun to defend themselves.

I would hope that we can generally agree on a few universally valid restrictions (keeping guns away from violent felons and those who suffer from certain mental illnesses, requiring appropriate training for gun owners/users in how to safely own and responsibly use a firearm). And its hard for me to image a valid reason for a civilian to possess an automatic weapon. But pretty much anything beyond that it going to be highly dependent on circumstance.

I do have a problem with the Second Amendment as worded because its too vague and broad. But its the law of the land, and so we're stuck with it, and whatever interpretation of it the courts are currently upholding, until such hypothetical time as we can pass an Amendment on the issue. Because while I may be pro-gun control, I'm pro-following the Constitution a lot more.

[Dominus Atheos]

There's just one thing that I want to talk about. I don't necessarily oppose gun control (in fact I may support a handgun-and just-handgun ban), but can someone please tell me what the hell gun control supporters think "semi-automatic" means? It's weird the way they keep bringing up that term like it means a special type of very dangerous gun. Nearly all guns are semi-automatic, even pistols! Besides pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles (which are fairly rare), all civilian guns are semi-automatic.

So what do other people think it means?

[Highlord Laan]

Semi-Automatic is right up there with "Assault Rifle." Grabbers use it to scare ignorant people into thinking that anyone can go into a sporting goods store and walk off with military hardware. Trying to explain it to people is absurdly difficult due to the never-ending "Guns are bad, mmkay" litany that shows up motherfucking everywhere. Because of that, it's surprisingly effective, since more morons see something in Evil Black with some cheap plastic furniture and immediately start thinking Rambo or some shit.

Once that bullshit gets called out, the same assholes switch tactics and start talking about how easy it is to make an AR-15 into an M-16. Which is even harder to explain to most people as being neigh fucking impossible without destroying the rifle. There is literally a block of solid aluminum in the way, and milling it out will wreck the whole assembly 90% of the time, not to mention requiring specialized tools normally only in the hands of gunsmiths and being, you know, a fucking felony. Really old (and again, highly illegal) AK's can be made full auto with a hammer and some frustration, but again, those things aren't even allowed in the 'States. New AK's/SKS's are deliberately built to be neigh impossible to make full auto, just like AR-15's.

People just see the profile of either and immediately start screaming bloody fucking murder. Shit, I got the cops called on me because the next-door idiot soccer mom bitch saw me putting my AR and pistol in my trunk. I was going to the range with my friends, only to have a cop show up, pistol drawn, because some brainless little dipshit with a hopolophobia complex said I was "waving a machine gun around."

Dumbass little po-po tried confiscating my guns, too. Clammed right the fuck up when I pointed out that I was on my cell, and that at least two other people were listening in.

ADDENDUM: For the record, it's antics like I mentioned above that makes responsible gun owners like me and many, many others sneer down at the pro-control crowd, and generally view them with contempt. The level of pure bullshit has been so high for so long, we automatically assume any advancement made in safety laws or anything connected to laws on guns is a smokescreen thrown up by grabbers. On the other hand, a lot of people like me loathe the NRA just as much for fanning the flames.

[TheFeniX]

requiring appropriate training for gun owners/users in how to safely own and responsibly use a firearm).

I'm not against this in theory, but gun owners tend to be responsible with their guns and many accidents are the fault of laziness. Just like in business safety: training is one thing, but you have to constantly remind people to remember the training they already have. Fact is: guns are stupidly easy to use. There's like, at most, 4 controls on a gun and 4 basic rules to follow. How much training do you really need to say "don't fucking point that gun at me."?

And I've never bought a new firearm that didn't come with detailed instructions on it's safe operations. They are consumer products after-all.

And its hard for me to image a valid reason for a civilian to possess an automatic weapon.

I tend to agree, but legal ownership of fully-automatic weapons is a non-issue. People with money to spend on them have little reasom to commit crimes with them. I'd have to recheck, but I think there were a whopping 3 crimes committed in 100 years with them. The North Hollywood shootout, which lead to the ban on them, didn't involve a single legal full-auto. Even if it had, those guys fired something like 2,000 rounds, if not more, and didn't kill a single person. Full-auto weapons, not counting mounted machineguns, are actually quite shit for murdering large groups of people. Their fire-rate is insane. 30 rounds mag out in like 3 seconds. That's why they are used for suppressing fire, not killing 50 bad guys at once like in Rambo movies. Sure, 50 guys spraying can do something like that, and waste a shitton of ammo in the process.

Anyways, is the guy who can drop $3,500-$15,000 on a full-auto really the kind of guy we're worried about mugging someone?

There's just one thing that I want to talk about. I don't necessarily oppose gun control (in fact I may support a handgun-and just-handgun ban), but can someone please tell me what the hell gun control supporters think "semi-automatic" means?

In my experience: it's a buzzword that contains "automatic." It's like how they use "Assault Rifle" to describe guns that have more in common with modern hunting rifles than the military counterparts they are designed to look like. "Assault Weapon" probably came out of the same line of sensational bullshit.

EDIT: Also of note: Hollywood. Such as the fear of undetectable plastic guns (ZOMG GLOCKS!!!!!) and "cop killer bullets:" pistol rounds that can blow through a Battletank..... fucking Hollywood and their love/hate gun relationship.

It's weird the way they keep bringing up that term like it means a special type of very dangerous gun. Nearly all guns are semi-automatic, even pistols! Besides pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles (which are fairly rare), all civilian guns are semi-automatic.

It could just be that, considering the evolving technology, guns can be confusing as fuck if you aren't willing do basic research. If I said "I own an automatic shotgun," certain people would flip. But that just means the loading action is automatic, I still only get one shell expended per trigger pull. I don't own an AA-12 or anything.

[His Divine Shadow]

The way I see it, gun crime is mainly a question of poverty and europe is a good example of this, there are way more guns than you people think here, way way more illegal guns to boot, yet gun crime is overall low. And spree shootings, well I lay the blame mainly at the feet of the media as the main instrument in propagating it.

Frankly all this is mainly urbanizations fault and problem, as usual. I see all the city people go on and on about using guns in fights and confrontations, like it's all that ever fucking goes through your peoples mind isn't it, so violent and hollywood infested are your heads it's the first thing you stray to. I've noticed it so often, I noticed just recently in a discussion about normal sensible thing to have in ones trunk, like a knife and axe, the first thought the city people strayed to was about killing people and stabbing them to death. It's a trend I am noticing. So the solution is obvious. Ban guns in cities, put up strong borders Israel-style around urban areas with and prevent guns from going in or out of cities. Then the rest of us can live in peace with our guns for target shooting, hunting which is what they are 99.99999999% used for, then you can sit inside your walls and think about new ways to murder each other. Everyone's happy!

[Simon_Jester]

I think you're partly inverting it. People who live in cities don't do as much manual labor as people who live in rural areas. They are far less likely to need a knife for utility purposes except in the kitchen of their own home, and when would they ever use an axe for anything?

So there's a total failure of imagination when it comes to the practical utility purposes of tools. This is especially true of general tools. With tools that only have one conceivable use (such as a nail or a wrench), when city-dwellers see or hear of the tool they immediately associate it with its specific function. But with bladed instruments and firearms, they do not immediately think of the utility function of having a knife or an axe. They think "these objects are in category 'weapons.' "

So it's like, if you said you had rope in your car they wouldn't obsess over you using it to strangle people, because it's not actually them being obsessed with murder. It's that they think of knives (and guns) as weapons rather than tools, because there is little point in carrying them around in their environment, except to use as a weapon.

[With knives, tiny pocket-knives are often an exception to the rule... but when you say "a knife," most people don't think of a Swiss Army knife.]

[Lord Revan]

I'd say there is a level of cultural differences to it too after all Finns are probably less likely to categorize a utility knife as a weapon (even ones who haven't lived outside of an urban settlement like myself) then ones in the US due to most people being familiar with Puukko (a traditional finnish utility knife) as a general tool either from school or work.

[Purple]

No I do get it.

Except that statistics do not back up your statement. Simple as that. Reality does not match your words.

If only 1% of people can reasonably expect to be in a violent incident during their life than it is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to worry about it as the odds of it happening to anyone are in fact 99% in their favor. Frankly, looking at the statistics you your self quoted I'd say that anyone who considers owning a firearm for self defense should by the same logic consider newer walking into the open again because odds are better he'll die in a traffic accident.

Er.... I don't follow.

Why does it have to be constant danger?

Why "carry on his person at all times"?

Because I was explicitly a dressing the 24/7 always have a gun, don't want to walk into a grocery store without packing, demographic. In fact, my original post in this thread explicitly marks the difference between those and the far more reasonable "have a shotgun in a closet at home safely away from children" demographic. I shan't repeat it for it is right up there.

I am not opposed to civilian firearm ownership as such. I am just opposed to the idea that people should be packing loaded firearms on the street at all time and that this is somehow going to make society safer. An idea that a hell of a lot gun rights activists seem to hold. I am also absolutely opposed to the idea that self defense is even a remotely reasonable consideration in the western world outside of very specific places such as drug-slums.

Having my home destroyed by a tornado is an unlikely event even if I live in a part of the world where tornadoes are most common. Nonetheless, I have a game plan for dealing with that situation. Having a break-in is likewise a relatively low likelihood event, but we have a gameplan for that, too. That's not paranoia, that's being prepared.

The difference between being paranoid and being prepared is that the paranoid person keeps obsessing over the preparedness to an unhealthy level.

[Joun_Lord]

Except that statistics do not back up your statement. Simple as that. Reality does not match your words.

If only 1% of people can reasonably expect to be in a violent incident during their life than it is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to worry about it as the odds of it happening to anyone are in fact 99% in their favor. Frankly, looking at the statistics you your self quoted I'd say that anyone who considers owning a firearm for self defense should by the same logic consider newer walking into the open again because odds are better he'll die in a traffic accident.

Even if those percentages are true it doesn't help the 1 percent who are assaulted. Even one assault is too much for someone when its themselves being assaulted.

The knowledge that doesn't help the 1 in 4 women raped on college campuses, the people in inner cities who no doubt are assaulted far more then 1 in 100, anyone who has ever been assault, raped, harmed.

The fact is even though few, relatively people, are assaulted it still happens and is still random. Oh sure there are risk factors involved that make it more likely someone will be assaulted. Where they live, how they travel, their drinking habits, their social habits, leaving valuables in plain view, sex, age, and even skin color. But even the most prepared and careful healthy wealthy white young man who is probably more likely to be the assaulter then the assaultee can be assaulted, is assaulted.

Your mention of better odd of dying in traffic is helps illustrate the point of being prepared for the unlikely event of being assaulted. When someone walks around town they are prepared. They look both ways before crossing. They follow the lights and signals. They scope out drivers, wave them through sometimes or hold up their hands to let them know they are crossing. They watch to make sure they don't trip on the sidewalk or fall into an open manhole.........heh funny mental image. All of those are relatively unlikely to happen, someone is unlikely to be hit by a car, trip on the sidewalk or fall into some prostrate guy spreading his cheeks, people can go through their whole lives without ever knowing the gentle caress of speeding car or the pillow soft embrace of hard concrete. But people are still cautious walking around, still prepare themselves against the possibility.

Being aware of and prepared for the event of being attacked or assaulted is the same. It might never happen but it can happen, it does happen.

The difference between being paranoid and being prepared is that the paranoid person keeps obsessing over the preparedness to an unhealthy level.

I agree with this.

[Broomstick]

There's just one thing that I want to talk about. I don't necessarily oppose gun control (in fact I may support a handgun-and just-handgun ban), but can someone please tell me what the hell gun control supporters think "semi-automatic" means? It's weird the way they keep bringing up that term like it means a special type of very dangerous gun. Nearly all guns are semi-automatic, even pistols! Besides pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles (which are fairly rare), all civilian guns are semi-automatic.

So what do other people think it means?

It means Big Scary Gun, apparently.

In another thread on another forum I was futilely going round and round with someone who was convinced the guns used by US mass shooters like in Orlando were using fully automatic guns and shooting off 800 round per minute. They weren't interested in the facts.

There are a lot of misinformed people who are scaring each other out there, and half of them don't want to know the truth, they just want the Big Scary Thing banished.

[Broomstick]

If only 1% of people can reasonably expect to be in a violent incident during their life than it is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to worry about it as the odds of it happening to anyone are in fact 99% in their favor. Frankly, looking at the statistics you your self quoted I'd say that anyone who considers owning a firearm for self defense should by the same logic consider newer walking into the open again because odds are better he'll die in a traffic accident

Let's inject a little reality into your statement. 1 in 6 women in the US will be raped in a lifetime. That's a hell of a lot more than 1%... unless you want to maintain rape isn't violent? Men get raped, too, but how many isn't clear due to even fewer of them reporting it than women. That's just rape. That doesn't include muggings, assaults, and so forth.

Granted, the odds aren't uniform - just by being a white woman I am less likely to suffer violence than a 17 year old black male in the ghetto. But actual, real violence IS a legitimate concern for a significant percentage of the population.

I am not opposed to civilian firearm ownership as such. I am just opposed to the idea that people should be packing loaded firearms on the street at all time and that this is somehow going to make society safer. An idea that a hell of a lot gun rights activists seem to hold. I am also absolutely opposed to the idea that self defense is even a remotely reasonable consideration in the western world outside of very specific places such as drug-slums.

Here in the Chicago area we have had multiple shootings of random people on the freeways this year. So no, it's just not the "drug slums". And, by the way, drug use is arguably higher in the affluent suburbs, where people have money to spend on drugs, than in the "slums" which are more distribution than use centers.

People are more concerned with self-defense in the city because that's where the highly dangerous animals called "people" live. That's why we have big police forces in the city and not so much in the rural areas. People in the rural areas are more concerned with dealing with problems themselves because it takes longer for the authorities to arrive, but crime rates are far lower outside the cities, and always have been.

On the other hand, yes, I agree that packing 24/7 isn't the solution. But I'm not sure what you mean by "gun activists" or "most".

Having my home destroyed by a tornado is an unlikely event even if I live in a part of the world where tornadoes are most common. Nonetheless, I have a game plan for dealing with that situation. Having a break-in is likewise a relatively low likelihood event, but we have a gameplan for that, too. That's not paranoia, that's being prepared.

The difference between being paranoid and being prepared is that the paranoid person keeps obsessing over the preparedness to an unhealthy level.

Yes.

Responsible gun owners who own for self-defense maintain their gun, practice with their guns, and keep them secured when not needed. No arguing about the nutballs who take off their underwear more often than their guns.

[TimothyC]

And its hard for me to image a valid reason for a civilian to possess an automatic weapon. But pretty much anything beyond that it going to be highly dependent on circumstance.

Let us talk about automatic weapons in the USA for a moment. Fully Automatic weapons (where one trigger pull results in multiple rounds going down range) have been registered in the US since 1934 under the National Firearms Act*. This registration is done via a $200 stamp, and paperwork filed with the ATF. In the intervening 80+ years, there have been a grand total of two shootings with legal automatic weapons in the US, and one of them was a cop killing an informant. To continue, the production of new automatic weapons in the US for civilian sale has been banned for the last 30 years (ban went into effect in 1986, after being passed by a voice vote and tacked on to a bill that did protect gun-owners from gun-grabbing LEOs/jurisdictions). As a side note, because of the 1986 ban, the value of a fully automatic weapon has, and continues to, climb well in excess of the cost of the materials and labor themselves - $20k is not unheard of for a legal civilian M16.

From the above, it is clear that legal owners of automatic weapons are less likely than the general public to shoot people. Now, because in the last 80 years various localities (New York & New Orleans to name the most well known) have used registration lists to confiscate firearms, the well of good will on further registration is totally poisoned, so don't expect gun owners to support registration of semi-automatic weapons.

*As a further aside, in 1938, SCOTUS ruled that "Militia weapons" - IE weapons with military utility - were explicitly allowed under the 2nd ammendment, thus protecting the legality of automatic and semil-automatic guns. The case only involved short-barrel shotguns, but the ruling was not so narrow.

[MKSheppard]

In other words he must live in a world where anyone and everyone can be assaulted at any time.

Been there, done that; got the broken spine.

Was by a four time repeat juvenile offender. Worst they could do to him as a juvenile was to escalate up the punishment scale; and send him out of state for one year to a "Behavior Modification Facility" in Pennsylvania; because keeping him at a "Behavior Modification Facility" in Maryland wasn't working.

PS: He was also out on probation for something else when he and his friend assaulted me (not once, but twice). So the cops were able to clinch this case by simply looking at the timestamps and logs from his GPS ankle bracelet.

[MKSheppard]

National Review recently published an essay on Gun Control as Identity Politics.

HERE

I won't post the whole thing to spare you; but there is a very interesting passage:

The cultural role of the NRA is to be the fat white face that absorbs the Left’s hatred for the hunting, shooting, and gun-collecting demographics.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm snipping quotes and rearranging order to try and make this coherent and not address points Purple has already covered.

And I'm sorry for being a bit of a cunt towards you Madd0c but this shit about "muggings" is just goddamn pants on head stupid as is the thought someone has no need to defend themselves from others.

My last major debate thread on reddit had an opponent who was focused on being mugged. You were brought up rape in one of the other threads, Orlando I think, and we did a bit of looking before finding there wasn't really any data for america that met your own criteria of coming from post millenium.
Do you think if gun carry was legalised in the UK the crime rate would change? What about the number of people dead?

---

I still don't see the point of guns as self defence against other humans.

What about guns for defense against animals/pests? What about guns for recreational use? You seem think the average use of a firearm in a given country, ignoring those that are more warzones than areas of law and order, is for self-defense. That is not the average use.

I'm not sure to what extent one can have a "Worldwide gun control disscussion" in a meaningful way, because the extent to which their would be a reason to possess fire arms, and the level of regulation that would be practical/legally possible, vary greatly depending on where in the world you are.

One argument I've seen before is that someone living in a wilderness area, or working as a farmer, might have more need for a gun for hunting/dealing with wildlife than a civilian in a city.

Likewise, someone living in an area with high crime (much less an war zone) with shit law enforcement might have more need of a gun to defend themselves.

Someone who is high profile and likely to be a target might be more likely to need a gun to defend themselves.

Or as raised in this thread, a member of a persecuted group might have be more likely to need a gun to defend themselves.

I deliberately left animals and wilderness out of the opening post because, yeah, in bear or lion or hippo country carrying a gun is sensible, and is basically another tool. That I have no problem with. Drawing the line is a debate in and of itself - eg what risk is there of rabid dogs in Indian suburbs? Alaska village vs Baltimore is a very different scenario, and I think we can agree that what is reasonable for one might not be for the other.

I wanted the 'worldwide' in the title as a recurrent reminder of just how anomalous the situation on America is. Gun control debates always draw lots of American's in, because it's such a hot topic, but there's a lot of other countries out there who manage.

I'm unconvinced by TRR's other three situations - high crime area, being high profile or being a persecuted minority. In all those, I' just don't see how having a gun protects you from getting shot. Especially in a scenario where the law justifies using deadly force in self defence. For the aggressor, that means you face a much higher chance of dying unless you take them out first. I recall the firing of a warning shot to make the aggressor aware you are armed and prepared to kill, so fuck off, is illegal, but just escalating straight to 'plumb between the eyes' is protected. It's a system designed to escalate and raise the stakes, instead of deescalate the situation. It's a system that kills people.
In the UK only proportional response is protected (i think), with homeowners arrested if they shoot a fleeing burglar or beat them into a coma with a cricket bat.

The question is: what happens when someone still has the need to eat/support their lifestyle through crime even without access to a firearm? Do they stay at home? Do they just give up and starve to death? So, what would be a more effective crime deterrent: removing guns or giving people a reason to NOT commit crimes. Not to say you can't have both, but there exists millions of law-abiding gun owners with thousands of dollars in valuable property who use it safely and without incident their entire lives. The amount of gun owners who use their guns for crime ranges in the tenth of 1 percent area. Punishing them because the government can't provide people jobs or a safety net is worrying, to say the least.

This is the same scenario in my OP, just reversed order. Without the core inequality / mental health issues being addressed, they keep mugging. The same number of people get mugged, but the number of people dieing through mistakes or bravado goes down. And in any control scheme, government buy-back would be required. The government shouldn't just be looting thousands of dollars of property off you.


And Shep, I think you should quote a bit more of that NR article so we can laugh at it properly.