The thing is, shooting and hunting are both fun, relatively safe hobbies, and banning guns entirely prevents us from having those, which seems like it would be entirely undesirable. And that's a very good argument for allowing guns. However, most pro-gun advocates make the argument that guns are important and useful for self-defense, which is something I'm skeptical of, and think is grounded in a typical bad estimation of probability. The likelihood of someone being in a situation (particularly outside the home) where them possessing a gun would actually improve the outcome seems far, far less likely than the risks of someone being injured accidentally or unnecessarily by said gun.
So, I don't believe self-defense is a valid reason for gun ownership. From a policy standpoint, then, we want restrictions that will not make it too onerous to participate in the legal hobbies of target shooting and hunting, while also making it significantly harder to use a guns illegally, and significantly less likely that a gun would be used accidentally or in poor judgement. Whether or not restrictions make self-defense use more onerous are irrelevant.
People should stop arguing one way or the other when it comes to self defense, because both sides here are using anecdotal or emotional based arguments. They are worthless in terms of any real meaning. Call me when someone actually presents evidence to support their claim.
People should stop arguing one way or the other when it comes to self defense, because both sides here are using anecdotal or emotional based arguments. They are worthless in terms of any real meaning. Call me when someone actually presents evidence to support their claim.
Tangentially relevant: I lost points on an essay recently because I only used statistical evidence instead of anecdotal.
I was reading Time and they had allot of great stats on the subject, and among them was that guns are used about 180,000 times a year in self defense.
Now I personaly think A knife, mace, taser, or Kubotan should be your first option however not everyone has the size (me) to go toe to toe with an attacker.
Tangentially relevant: I lost points on an essay recently because I only used statistical evidence instead of anecdotal.
English essay? Don't worry, you'll be out of high school soon.
Anyways, the point that I was building towards was that I'm fairly strongly in favor of a ban on handguns, as they're the major source of firearm violence, but not necessary for gun-related hobbies.
I was reading Time and they had allot of great stats on the subject, and among them was that guns are used about 180,000 times a year in self defense.
Now I personaly think A knife, mace, taser, or Kubotan should be your first option however not everyone has the size (me) to go toe to toe with an attacker.
Your first option should be legs and running the fuck away. Screaming for help is a god secondary.
You know what, I can understand your thinking on the matter. I just hope you can see it from my side too.
Yeah, I see what's up and how it limits freedom and how people intelligent/cognizant enough to use guns safely feel like it's just a big unneccesary slap in the face. I'm just far on that side where I dont see much practical inherent value to certain freedoms, especially when it's the one about whether or not extremely deadly weapons should be available to hundreds of millions of people all with incredibly different intentions and levels of mental stability. So it's just easy in my mind, cause there isn't much value to allowing guns to be sold in the US, and theres a lot of value to not having them around.
I also really agree with the big ass soda ban in NYC, to give some context about how I'm thinking here!
If banning possession of drugs to reduce usage does not actually curb the activiy, what makes you think banning handguns will result in a different outcome? Wouldn't our time and money be better spent addressing the socio-economic issues that lead to gun crime in the first place?
On self-defense, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center claims that most reported self-defense claims are invalid, and many of the claimed uses may be illegal. It also claims that guns in homes are used much more frequently for threats than for defense, and very few criminals who have been shot in the past were shot by "law-abiding citizens" defending themselves (although that's not quite the statistic that one should consider, but rather what proportion of armed crimes ended following the intervention of an armed citizen).
I'm not sure how strong their bias is, having not read their articles, although it is good enough to at least be published.
If banning possession of drugs to reduce usage does not actually curb the activiy, what makes you think banning handguns will result in a different outcome? Wouldn't our time and money be better spent addressing the socio-economic issues that lead to gun crime in the first place?
Because drugs and guns are really different! Mostly it's that it's really hard to make a lot of guns in your basement. And yeah overall if education was just really friggin good an equal all around the country, I wouldn't see much issue in keeping dangerous things around. As it stands right now, in a discussion of what we should do with guns today in this actual world and the social/educational course it's on, tho, I think it's a good idea to get rid of them.
Because drugs and guns are really different! Mostly it's that it's really hard to make a lot of guns in your basement.
Apart from methamphetamines, I was always under the impression that the vast majority of drugs were imported from outside the country. Certainly for heroin, cocaine, and probably weed. The majority of the Mexican cartel's income is from Marijuana importation into the US. Your argument does not seem to hold up at face value.
On self-defense, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center claims that most reported self-defense claims are invalid, and many of the claimed uses may be illegal. It also claims that guns in homes are used much more frequently for threats than for defense, and very few criminals who have been shot in the past were shot by "law-abiding citizens" defending themselves (although that's not quite the statistic that one should consider, but rather what proportion of armed crimes ended following the intervention of an armed citizen).
I'm not sure how strong their bias is, having not read their articles, although it is good enough to at least be published.
I'm a big fan of trying to have our cake and eat it to. I think there are laws on the books and ones that can be enacted to address your concerns and keep me doing the things I love.
Remember a few pages back there was the map that break down of what states had the most guns and what states were in the top ten of gun crimes? I didn't see a direct correlation between more guns and more gun crimes. It's like Andrew said there are other issues that lead to violent crimes that need to be addressed too.
Because drugs and guns are really different! Mostly it's that it's really hard to make a lot of guns in your basement.
Apart from methamphetamines, I was always under the impression that the vast majority of drugs were imported from outside the country. Certainly for heroin, cocaine, and probably weed. The majority of the Mexican cartel's income is from Marijuana importation into the US. Your argument does not seem to hold up at face value.
Weed is surprisingly hard to grow surreptitiously. Even growing it legitimately, it's not the easiest thing in the world to grow decent weed.
Because I don't expect a handgun ban to reduce violent crime - it probably won't, and we have fair evidence that it doesn't. As far as I can tell, violent crime is something that can only really be reduced through educating and improving the standard of living of people so that it becomes a less attractive endeavor.
The thing is, I think putting a ban on handguns will eventually reduce the proportion of normally law-abiding citizens who have handguns, and who get injured or killed due to accidents, due to suicide attempts, due to spur-of-the-moment use.
Those can also be reduced by putting in place a system (e.g. firearm licensing) that will get people into intelligent use habits - leaving guns unloaded, locking up guns, not pointing them at people, etc, which will also reduce deaths. Hopefully.
I'm kind of in favor of changing the term from "semi-automatic" to "autoloading" or something that doesn't have the term automatic inside of it. I've seen some anti-gun nuts use terms like "semi-fully automatic" and other weirdly wrong descriptions that seem imply that they are somehow machine guns.
I'm kind of in favor of changing the term from "semi-automatic" to "autoloading" or something that doesn't have the term automatic inside of it. I've seen some anti-gun nuts use terms like "semi-fully automatic" and other weirdly wrong descriptions that seem imply that they are somehow machine guns.
A semi-automatic shotgun is more typically called an autoloader so I agree with you.
The thing is, I think putting a ban on handguns will eventually reduce the proportion of normally law-abiding citizens who have handguns, and who get injured or killed due to accidents, due to suicide attempts, due to spur-of-the-moment use.
Those can also be reduced by putting in place a system (e.g. firearm licensing) that will get people into intelligent use habits - leaving guns unloaded, locking up guns, not pointing them at people, etc, which will also reduce deaths. Hopefully.
Ok I can agree with most of that. You seem to be cool with a ban on the grounds that hand weapons are too dangerous. It's a valid view and I wish I could change you mind, but I don't have the money to take everyone shooting in an attempt to win hearts and minds.
I grew up with this. Liking anime and gaming my dad and I didn't have allot in common accept for our trips to the deserts of Jacumba to go shooting. They're some of my best memories and I want to do that with my kids should I have them.
I hope all this ends with a set of laws that deal with this issue in a way we can both be cool with.
I'm going to bed. Thank's everyone, so far this has been the best internet talk by far on this subject I've had.
Comments
I can respect you views but banning all guns isn't realistic. we have to com to an acceptable compromise.
Ban Bans. And Bam Margera.
So, I don't believe self-defense is a valid reason for gun ownership. From a policy standpoint, then, we want restrictions that will not make it too onerous to participate in the legal hobbies of target shooting and hunting, while also making it significantly harder to use a guns illegally, and significantly less likely that a gun would be used accidentally or in poor judgement. Whether or not restrictions make self-defense use more onerous are irrelevant.
Now I personaly think A knife, mace, taser, or Kubotan should be your first option however not everyone has the size (me) to go toe to toe with an attacker.
Anyways, the point that I was building towards was that I'm fairly strongly in favor of a ban on handguns, as they're the major source of firearm violence, but not necessary for gun-related hobbies.
I also really agree with the big ass soda ban in NYC, to give some context about how I'm thinking here!
I'm not sure how strong their bias is, having not read their articles, although it is good enough to at least be published.
Remember a few pages back there was the map that break down of what states had the most guns and what states were in the top ten of gun crimes? I didn't see a direct correlation between more guns and more gun crimes. It's like Andrew said there are other issues that lead to violent crimes that need to be addressed too.
The thing is, I think putting a ban on handguns will eventually reduce the proportion of normally law-abiding citizens who have handguns, and who get injured or killed due to accidents, due to suicide attempts, due to spur-of-the-moment use.
Those can also be reduced by putting in place a system (e.g. firearm licensing) that will get people into intelligent use habits - leaving guns unloaded, locking up guns, not pointing them at people, etc, which will also reduce deaths. Hopefully.
I grew up with this. Liking anime and gaming my dad and I didn't have allot in common accept for our trips to the deserts of Jacumba to go shooting. They're some of my best memories and I want to do that with my kids should I have them.
I hope all this ends with a set of laws that deal with this issue in a way we can both be cool with.
I'm going to bed. Thank's everyone, so far this has been the best internet talk by far on this subject I've had.