I recall a police documentary showing how, even as far as 40' out, an assailant with a knife is a deadly threat to even a trained handgun user.
This is true. The best way to stop a running attacker is to shoot the pelvic girdle, but even then, if the gun isn't ready to go, you're unlikely to stop them by the time they get to you.
Most tasers have a 25' range. That's not exactly a "long" range. An attacker can easily close that gap if they so desired. Still, they're probably a far better defense option than a handgun.
I can't believe the things I have to read in this topic. I would say No to all gun use, but because I really don't have that strong arguments against hunting or shooting ranges I'll let them be. But I'm really shocked to see all the talk about guns as a self defence mechanism. Every time I read that somebody thinks that guns should be allowed for self defence purposes, I simultaneously read that the person thinks that it's OK to kill another person. And I'm totally against killing people.
Also I don't really see any situations where gun would be necessary. If attacker has a knife/other melee weapon and you have time to draw and use the gun then you also have time to run away. And if attacker has a gun, doing sudden moves like drawing a gun seems kinda stupid thing to do.
Chicago is a model for why we need gun control. I don't care about hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns, but there's no reason to own a high-capacity magazine or an assault rifle in a city (I could see it being different for shooting clubs in the country). None whatsoever.
Really? Because I think Chicago is a model of why gun control doesn't work. They have some of the strictest laws in the country and yet still have high gun crime. DC has a similar problem.
I simultaneously read that the person thinks that it's OK to kill another person. And I'm totally against killing people.
I would argue that pacifism is impossible in the current world. If someone wishes to kill me or mine (or anyone else, really), and my only viable option to prevent it is to kill them first, I have zero qualms: a life was going to be lost either way, and I have simply decided which one. All things being equal, the life of the would-be killer is less valuable than the life of the victim.
The death penalty, I'm against, as it does not in and of itself prevent another death.
Should we not, for example, snipe a suicide bomber running toward a crowd? Should we not shoot a soldier who is attacking us with intent to kill? How is pacifism viable in a world where power exists and is not equal?
Good luck finding me a situation where I'm 100% sure that I'm going to be killed and killing the other person is only way of surviving. I don't waste my money on lottery, I won't be getting gun (even if I could).
Every time I read that somebody thinks that guns should be allowed for self defence purposes, I simultaneously read that the person thinks that it's OK to kill another person. And I'm totally against killing people.
...which is an argument against killing, not an argument against guns. You shouldn't be terribly shocked that not everyone shares your set of morals. Some people believe that killing is an absolute wrong, and some people believe there are circumstances where it's okay. The gun is superfluous to that value assessment. If you are opposed to killing, then it is not guns you have a problem with. It is killing. I can kill someone in self defense without a gun.
Good luck finding me a situation where I'm 100% sure that I'm going to be killed and killing the other person is only way of surviving.
It's trivial to sit in a chair, intellectualize a situation, and say that you would never kill a person in self defense. Very few people make a rational, well-reasoned choice to use deadly force in self defense; typically, the situation is dire, and the reaction is instinctual more than anything else.
You would probably sing a very different tune if someone put a gun to your head. At that point, your rational brain turns off and instincts take over. It can happen to anyone, and to think that you are somehow beyond that is arrogance in the extreme.
Every time I read that somebody thinks that guns should be allowed for self defence purposes, I simultaneously read that the person thinks that it's OK to kill another person. And I'm totally against killing people.
...which is an argument against killing, not an argument against guns. You shouldn't be terribly shocked that not everyone shares your set of morals. Some people believe that killing is an absolute wrong, and some people believe there are circumstances where it's okay. The gun is superfluous to that value assessment. If you are opposed to killing, then it is not guns you have a problem with. It is killing. I can kill someone in self defense without a gun.
Nope that was an argument against guns as a self defence tool. I'm actually not against guns at all, I've spend half a year with close relationship with one in witch time I basically slept with an assault rifle. The things that I'm against are civilian having and carrying a gun for self defence purpose. I'm also against loose or no existing gun control witch allows anyone get their hands on a gun.
I'm also against loose or no existing gun control witch allows anyone get their hands on a gun.
I'll second this - There should be more strict checks and assessments, along with mandatory training courses which if you fail, you don't get a gun license, and on top of that, make the training courses impossible to pass by simple rote learning.
There should be more strict checks and assessments, along with mandatory training courses which if you fail, you don't get a gun license, and on top of that, make the training courses impossible to pass by simple rote learning.
I feel the same way about gun ownership as I do about driving privileges: strict tests and high penalties for dangerous misuse.
Look, guns don't hurt people. People hurt people. If a gun is their weapon of choice, then so be it. Since that is the case, Lets do our best to keep guns out of the hands of stupid people. However, Don't make stupid people be the reason why cool people cant get guns. I'll go through the training. I'll learn how to properly and safely own and use a fire arm. I understand how dangerous a gun can be and will never use one unless to defend my family or myself. They aren't toys, I know that. I have gun shaped toys to help sate my need to shoot at things.
Besides, guns are fucking LOUD. Have you ever shot a gun before? Good god are they loud. Even with earmuffs on.
I think most of you have missed the purpose of even having the second amendment in the US constitution. That is, to prevent tyranny. All the world great dictators disarmed their populace to prevent uprising. I know that as long as there is any kind of functioning firearm in my house, that I am relatively safe. There will always be "what if's" and extenuating circumstances but it makes my crazy sadist ass feel better. You may consider me to be mentally ill for this next statement but, I have no problem killing someone who is a direct threat to me or my family. That being said, I have a 12-gauge shotgun locked in a safe in the master bedroom of my house with non-lethal rounds in a nearby lock-box to comply with California law.
There is some crazy thought that if we ban guns the "problems"(used extremely loosely) they cause will go away. The question I ask is, what kind of crazy reality are these rabid anti-gun people living in? In this reality, a person who has the intent to kill or harm another will do it with anything they can get their hands on, be it a gun or otherwise. Criminals already ignore the law, that's what makes them criminals. How would another law banning their weapon of choice even phase them?
There should be more strict checks and assessments, along with mandatory training courses which if you fail, you don't get a gun license, and on top of that, make the training courses impossible to pass by simple rote learning.
I feel the same way about gun ownership as I do about driving privileges: strict tests and high penalties for dangerous misuse.
That would only serve as a deterrent for a little while; until some moron learns how to play the system. Perhaps I did it wrong , but that's what I learned in high school. How to play the system and get away scott free(no pun intended).
...it could put a significant dent in heat-of-passion crimes.
Thats what waiting periods are for, so you cant go but a gun and shoot your "hate of the day."
Remember a gun is nothing more than a hunk of metal; it has no free will of it's own. Alone, it will under no circumstance (except perhaps mechanical failure, but the chance of that happening is infinitesimal given modern technology and manufacturing standards.) harm you with out the interaction and input of yourself or another person.
ALSO: Kimber, a gun large manufacturer has it's primary factory in Yonkers, NY.
Guys, if you go out and BUY a gun in the heat of passion, that's not what I'm talking about. Obviously there are a lot of steps between the provoking act and the shooting in that case. I'm talking about the guy that has a gun for self-defense and ends up grabbing it and shooting his wife during an argument, or vice versa. When a guy's buddies rile him up and something goes too far. That kind of thing is heat of passion. If you have to actually buy the gun and wait for it, I'm pretty sure that's considered premeditated.
Gun-related heat of passion crimes are usually with legally-owned weapons, which is why restricting who can buy a gun would necessarily cut down on that type of gun-related crime. Obviously it won't reduce the non-gun-related HOP crimes.
I was stating that many other types of gun crime are not committed with legal weapons, so restrictions would be unlikely to hamper them overmuch. The category of heat of passion gun crimes is the only one that I can come up with off the top of my head that is usually done with a legally-owned weapon that isn't stolen.
That would only serve as a deterrent for a little while; until some moron learns how to play the system. Perhaps I did it wrong , but that's what I learned in high school. How to play the system and get away scott free(no pun intended).
That's because you can pass the school system with rote learning, and blag the rest. Make it nearly impossible to do that with this test, and believe me, it's well possible.
Gun-related heat of passion crimes are usually with legally-owned weapons, which is why restricting who can buy a gun would necessarily cut down on that type of gun-related crime. Obviously it won't reduce the non-gun-related HOP crimes.
My apologies, I wasn't entirely clear that was what you meant.
A lot of you here talk about owning a gun or two, but to help put the issue into perspective, I have 12 guns at current count in my house. A few of them were my fathers, one is a working black powder rifle, there are a few handguns, and various others. EVERYONE I know here in Alabama owns at least one gun, but it's normally around 2-3. Gun ownership is very normal here.
Fail of my day is my inability to get quote to work.
"Rym said: I can't grab any data now, but I'm pretty sure the majority of violent attacks and personal robberies are initiated at extremely close range and by surprise. You cannot effectively wield a handgun against too close of an adversary, but you can a stungun.
I recall a police documentary showing how, even as far as 40' out, an assailant with a knife is a deadly threat to even a trained handgun user.
Also, tasers have long range, and are pretty easy to use. "
The data states that most firearms incidents occur at a distance of 7 feet or less. The 40' rule your referring to is actually the 21 foot rule. Quite simply, if a person with a knife charges you from 21 feet or less it is highly likely that they can stab you before you can draw and shoot them enough so that they are disabled. You may get a shot off, but it will not usually be enough to stop them before they have hurt you. I can personally attest that this is true (through practical training with rubber knives and training weapons). This is one of a number of reasons that Police these days are trained to draw and have their weapons at ready more often that they did in the past.
Tasers are a mixed bag. Stun guns, hand held tazer knock offs and the like are pretty useless. Especially ones that don't shoot barbs like the Taser brand Taser (the M26 or the X26). The knock offs often won't work through cloths and I've actually been "stunned" by them, its pretty useless. Taser brand Tasers on the other hand, are very very effective. Having been tased, its probably the most painful experience in my life, however it was completely over with after about 10 seconds (unlike pepper spray). They are highly effective and simply work. They aren't effective against multiple people.
The argument against gun control is usually threefold.
1. 2nd Amendment. Our 2nd Amendment intended for us to have access to weapons comparable to the military of the day. I believe that was the intent of our founding fathers. They did this because the vast majority of the military was made up of the local militia and they wanted the citizens to be able to make up a comparable military force when necessary. Secondly a large portion of the founding fathers thought that an armed citizenry was a counter to the government becoming a tyranny.
While I believe all that was true, and I support the 2nd Admendment, it, doesn't have much reality in this modern day when our government and society is so far from what we had back in the 1700's. I don't own a gun to defend myself against my government, or the Russians, or the North Koreans. While I do believe that the citizens should have access to military grade firearms (like Switzerland) there would be so much else that had to change first that I wouldn't use that as a reason to promote firearms rights.
2. Self Defense. Guns are an excellent tool for self defense. They are a force equalizer, allowing someone who is weaker, outnumbered, less trained (in martial arts not guns) etc etc to defend themselves. They do the job they were designed to do pretty well, rifles and shotguns much better than Handguns. Handguns are a pretty bad means of killing someone quickly, they require training to be effective, are hard to use properly without training (I mean hitting something under pressure). If I wanted to insure a quick kill I'd much rather stab someone with a good sword.
3. Sports. Shooting sports are perfectly legal. An earlier comment was that skeet shooting and hunting had no purpose in our modern society. That would cover a lot of things that can be potentially dangerous, sky diving, archery, pretty much anything. I would hate to think that people would want to ban legal gun ownership just because they didn't like it or see the fun in it.
There is no state in the United States that you can buy a firearm from a dealer without going through the FBI instant background check. This involves the dealer calling the FBI and they run you for a criminal background. There is no place in the US where a felon can own any kind of firearm. Doing so is a crime and punishable by mandatory time in jail. The only exception to this is if you buy a gun from a person who is not a dealer, say if I sold a gun to my friend. In that case its not illegal for me to sell it, without a background check. Its illegal for a criminal to buy a gun this way.
Each state in the US has a different standard for checks or restrictions beyond the FBI background check, some states have a limit to purchases in a day, some have a 3 day limit for handguns.
There are legally owned machine guns in the United States, in so called Class III states, (states that allow full auto guns to be owned). Legally owning full auto guns requires an application to the ATF and an extensive check, and a 200 dollar tax stamp. These are only legal in about 30ish states. There are almost no incidents of legally owned machine guns being used for crimes in the US.
Full disclosure: I own firearms for collecting, sport shooting and self defense. I was a firearms instructor (specifically handguns) for a government contract security agency. I have carried a firearm for self defense on a daily basis, although I don't carry now due to lack of need. I firmly believe that firearms are part of the American culture and that there are bad people out there who I might need to protect myself from. I know that the police are not always able to protect me (in fact they can't be held liable if they are unable to help you) and I have a right to self defense. I do believe that gun owners should receive training befre they own a firearm, but I do not believe in restrictive gun control.
Comments
Most tasers have a 25' range. That's not exactly a "long" range. An attacker can easily close that gap if they so desired. Still, they're probably a far better defense option than a handgun.
OK the last one is just funny, but the first two are REAL!
I'll show you a trick I know from a pistol defense course sometime this weekend.
Also I don't really see any situations where gun would be necessary. If attacker has a knife/other melee weapon and you have time to draw and use the gun then you also have time to run away. And if attacker has a gun, doing sudden moves like drawing a gun seems kinda stupid thing to do.
The death penalty, I'm against, as it does not in and of itself prevent another death.
Should we not, for example, snipe a suicide bomber running toward a crowd? Should we not shoot a soldier who is attacking us with intent to kill? How is pacifism viable in a world where power exists and is not equal?
You would probably sing a very different tune if someone put a gun to your head. At that point, your rational brain turns off and instincts take over. It can happen to anyone, and to think that you are somehow beyond that is arrogance in the extreme.
Besides, guns are fucking LOUD. Have you ever shot a gun before? Good god are they loud. Even with earmuffs on.
There is some crazy thought that if we ban guns the "problems"(used extremely loosely) they cause will go away. The question I ask is, what kind of crazy reality are these rabid anti-gun people living in? In this reality, a person who has the intent to kill or harm another will do it with anything they can get their hands on, be it a gun or otherwise.
Criminals already ignore the law, that's what makes them criminals. How would another law banning their weapon of choice even phase them? That would only serve as a deterrent for a little while; until some moron learns how to play the system. Perhaps I did it wrong , but that's what I learned in high school. How to play the system and get away scott free(no pun intended). Thats what waiting periods are for, so you cant go but a gun and shoot your "hate of the day."
Remember a gun is nothing more than a hunk of metal; it has no free will of it's own. Alone, it will under no circumstance (except perhaps mechanical failure, but the chance of that happening is infinitesimal given modern technology and manufacturing standards.) harm you with out the interaction and input of yourself or another person.
ALSO: Kimber, a gun large manufacturer has it's primary factory in Yonkers, NY.
Gun-related heat of passion crimes are usually with legally-owned weapons, which is why restricting who can buy a gun would necessarily cut down on that type of gun-related crime. Obviously it won't reduce the non-gun-related HOP crimes.
I was stating that many other types of gun crime are not committed with legal weapons, so restrictions would be unlikely to hamper them overmuch. The category of heat of passion gun crimes is the only one that I can come up with off the top of my head that is usually done with a legally-owned weapon that isn't stolen.
"Rym said: I can't grab any data now, but I'm pretty sure the majority of violent attacks and personal robberies are initiated at extremely close range and by surprise. You cannot effectively wield a handgun against too close of an adversary, but you can a stungun.
I recall a police documentary showing how, even as far as 40' out, an assailant with a knife is a deadly threat to even a trained handgun user.
Also, tasers have long range, and are pretty easy to use. "
The data states that most firearms incidents occur at a distance of 7 feet or less. The 40' rule your referring to is actually the 21 foot rule. Quite simply, if a person with a knife charges you from 21 feet or less it is highly likely that they can stab you before you can draw and shoot them enough so that they are disabled. You may get a shot off, but it will not usually be enough to stop them before they have hurt you. I can personally attest that this is true (through practical training with rubber knives and training weapons). This is one of a number of reasons that Police these days are trained to draw and have their weapons at ready more often that they did in the past.
Tasers are a mixed bag. Stun guns, hand held tazer knock offs and the like are pretty useless. Especially ones that don't shoot barbs like the Taser brand Taser (the M26 or the X26). The knock offs often won't work through cloths and I've actually been "stunned" by them, its pretty useless. Taser brand Tasers on the other hand, are very very effective. Having been tased, its probably the most painful experience in my life, however it was completely over with after about 10 seconds (unlike pepper spray). They are highly effective and simply work. They aren't effective against multiple people.
The argument against gun control is usually threefold.
1. 2nd Amendment. Our 2nd Amendment intended for us to have access to weapons comparable to the military of the day. I believe that was the intent of our founding fathers. They did this because the vast majority of the military was made up of the local militia and they wanted the citizens to be able to make up a comparable military force when necessary. Secondly a large portion of the founding fathers thought that an armed citizenry was a counter to the government becoming a tyranny.
While I believe all that was true, and I support the 2nd Admendment, it, doesn't have much reality in this modern day when our government and society is so far from what we had back in the 1700's. I don't own a gun to defend myself against my government, or the Russians, or the North Koreans. While I do believe that the citizens should have access to military grade firearms (like Switzerland) there would be so much else that had to change first that I wouldn't use that as a reason to promote firearms rights.
2. Self Defense. Guns are an excellent tool for self defense. They are a force equalizer, allowing someone who is weaker, outnumbered, less trained (in martial arts not guns) etc etc to defend themselves. They do the job they were designed to do pretty well, rifles and shotguns much better than Handguns. Handguns are a pretty bad means of killing someone quickly, they require training to be effective, are hard to use properly without training (I mean hitting something under pressure). If I wanted to insure a quick kill I'd much rather stab someone with a good sword.
3. Sports. Shooting sports are perfectly legal. An earlier comment was that skeet shooting and hunting had no purpose in our modern society. That would cover a lot of things that can be potentially dangerous, sky diving, archery, pretty much anything. I would hate to think that people would want to ban legal gun ownership just because they didn't like it or see the fun in it.
There is no state in the United States that you can buy a firearm from a dealer without going through the FBI instant background check. This involves the dealer calling the FBI and they run you for a criminal background. There is no place in the US where a felon can own any kind of firearm. Doing so is a crime and punishable by mandatory time in jail. The only exception to this is if you buy a gun from a person who is not a dealer, say if I sold a gun to my friend. In that case its not illegal for me to sell it, without a background check. Its illegal for a criminal to buy a gun this way.
Each state in the US has a different standard for checks or restrictions beyond the FBI background check, some states have a limit to purchases in a day, some have a 3 day limit for handguns.
There are legally owned machine guns in the United States, in so called Class III states, (states that allow full auto guns to be owned). Legally owning full auto guns requires an application to the ATF and an extensive check, and a 200 dollar tax stamp. These are only legal in about 30ish states. There are almost no incidents of legally owned machine guns being used for crimes in the US.
Full disclosure: I own firearms for collecting, sport shooting and self defense. I was a firearms instructor (specifically handguns) for a government contract security agency. I have carried a firearm for self defense on a daily basis, although I don't carry now due to lack of need. I firmly believe that firearms are part of the American culture and that there are bad people out there who I might need to protect myself from. I know that the police are not always able to protect me (in fact they can't be held liable if they are unable to help you) and I have a right to self defense. I do believe that gun owners should receive training befre they own a firearm, but I do not believe in restrictive gun control.