I would focus on fixing the underlying issue of these hypothetical murder-dens where good, common people just want to have a nice drink without being killed.
I also would just avoid these hypothetical murder-dens when going out to have a nice drink until their underlying issues are fixed.
I'm not using the logic you think I am using. I am using the logic that guns operated perfectly (even by drunk people) result in death, and that cars operated perfectly (even by drunk people) result in people getting home to bed.
If you want to compare gun deaths and car deaths, you have to compare car-as-weapon deaths compared to gun-as-weapon deaths. Yes, many people die in car accidents, and people commit suicide by car driving, and a very few people have intentionally used cars to kill or harm.
Now compare accidental deaths by gun, suicide by gun, and intentionally shootings by gun.
If someone wants to off themselves with their gun, or use their car for a CO suicide in their closed garage I don't really care. They have made a choice to commit suicide. As long as they don't try to take anyone else with them into death who really cares?
It is winter in the US right now, which means that every time it snows a sober licensed driver will misues their vehicle and cause an accident that may result in death and sure as fuck will result in an inconvenience to the rest of us in the area. Should we remove driving privileges from all licensed drivers just because a few fucktards do not understand how to safely use their vehicle in the snow?
PS: if someone dies in a car accident well the car is a weapon. If I beat the fuck out of someone with a 10 lb phone book that phone book will be considered a weapon, car is no different.
If someone wants to off themselves with their gun, or use their car for a CO suicide in their closed garage I don't really care. They have made a choice to commit suicide. As long as they don't try to take anyone else with them into death who really cares?
It is winter in the US right now, which means that every time it snows a sober licensed driver will misues their vehicle and cause an accident that may result in death and sure as fuck will result in an inconvenience to the rest of us in the area. Should we remove driving privileges from all licensed drivers just because a few fucktards do not understand how to safely use their vehicle in the snow?
No, but if the frequency of accidents is high it's probably a good reason to work on improving the level of safety.
PS: if someone dies in a car accident well the car is a weapon. If I beat the fuck out of someone with a 10 lb phone book that phone book will be considered a weapon, car is no different.
I think you're missing the meaning of the word "accident" here.
You know what, Steve? Fuck you. I actually thought that I was having a conversation about how to stop people from dying. Now I see you just don't give a shit.
You are the problem. While you have no problem with people dying, you support the right for other people to be harmed. Fuck you and your tiny, fucked up brain.
How about this:
In 1999, 87 people intentionally killed themselves through car accidents; the number increased to 104 in 2009, according to the CDC...
The number of firearm deaths by "intentional self harm" was 16,599 in 1999, and 18,735 in 2009 – a 13% increase, according to the CDC...
"...the acute period where you're actually willing to pull the trigger is very short," she said.
For 24% of people contemplating suicide, it's about five minutes, research has found.
"Gun owners are at a higher risk of suicide in general," she said, adding that they're not more likely to screen higher for suicidal tendencies or depression. "It's just that they're more likely to die because of the greater lethality of guns."
So you are saying it's okay for people to own guns because if they want to commit suicide, a gun is the best way.
Think about it. Putting sports guns aside, the main reason someone owns a gun is to shoot someone if needed. It turns out that the vast majority of shootings are self-inflicted. On the other hand, sports driving aside, the main reason for owning a car is to get them from one place to the other place.
The numbers tell us that gun ownership is FOR suicide. And you seem to agree!
The above quotes are from here, by the way. It turns out that car deaths are decreasing all the time, and gun deaths aren't. Everyone is doing their best to reduce car deaths, but at every turn even studying gun deaths is being blocked.
In the 1990s, a bill by then-Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., prevented the CDC from conducting firearm research. Another provision on the annual spending bill for the CDC bars the agency from advocating or promoting gun control. The CDC still collects data about firearms deaths but conducts no research.
"Policymakers did pay attention (to the numbers) for a while – before the CDC was told they couldn't do gun research," Fingerhut said.
"Nobody could stop you from putting out data – we let it speak for itself. But research was seen as anti-gun."
I offered a compromise in that the designated driver (the guy who's job it is to be responsible) could carry a gun unless otherwise prohibited by law. Rym through out the Taser compromise. You accepted neither of these two options.
I do not believe you are interested in a gun conversation. I think that your mind is already made up and that you do not want anyone to own a gun (except for cops). I further feel that your purpose in this thread is not find compromise or a middle ground but to further the belief in a total ban on guns.
If I am than why is a gun related "accident" treated differently than a car related "accident" if both result in injury or death?
Seriously?
The point is that the meaning of the word "weapon" is not determined by accidents, but by intent. If someone dies by accidentally falling down the stairs that doesn't make the stairs a weapon, does it? By your reasoning, everything in existence is a weapon.
Yes, a car can be a weapon if it is used that way, but unlike a gun it isn't designed as one - indeed, modern car design has made a whole lot of progress in minimizing potential harm.
If I am than why is a gun related "accident" treated differently than a car related "accident" if both result in injury or death?
You're right, car accidents and gun accidents deserve a lot more similarity in how they're treated. Guns are far too poorly regulated in relation to cars, despite how dangerous both of them are.
Besides that, of course, a major part of the issue with guns is outcomes that are not accidents. This is clearly much less of an issue with cars.
So if someone dies by an accidental discharge of a gun is it still treated as a weapon or is it treated like the fall down a flight of stairs? Neither case has an intent to use the thing that resulted in death as a weapon to bring about that death.
What if someone with a gun In their hand falls down the stairs and the gun accidentally discharges and kills the holder?
I do not believe you are interested in a gun conversation. I think that your mind is already made up and that you do not want anyone to own a gun (except for cops). I further feel that your purpose in this thread is not find compromise or a middle ground but to further the belief in a total ban on guns.
Discussion is not always about finding a compromise or a middle ground; it's about determining what's true, what's best, or what is most practical. It seems to me that if Luke wasn't interested in a conversation, he wouldn't be here having one.
In any case, Luke's main argument is against the idea of self-defense as an acceptable purpose for gun ownership. I haven't seen you make any case at all for why it should be.
So if someone dies by an accidental discharge of a gun is it still treated as a weapon or is it treated like the fall down a flight of stairs? Neither case has an intent to use the thing that resulted in death as a weapon to bring about that death.
What if someone with a gun In their hand falls down the stairs and the gun accidentally discharges and kills the holder?
Yes I am being fasicious.
Yes, those situations don't involve guns being used as weapons. However, even if that type of situation was the most common cause of gun deaths, that alone would be sufficient cause for the government to at least take some kind of action, in order to ensure that gun owners are properly trained in safe handling of guns.
In any case, Luke's main argument is against the idea of self-defense as an acceptable purpose for gun ownership. I haven't seen you make any case at all for why it should be.
In that case I misunderstood the argument being made and will bow out.
In any case, Luke's main argument is against the idea of self-defense as an acceptable purpose for gun ownership. I haven't seen you make any case at all for why it should be.
In that case I misunderstood the argument being made and will bow out.
So, let's debate that point, as it's an antecedent for the higher order arguments here.
Are guns reasonable and/or useful for civilian self defense purposes?
I'm unwilling to discuss any other points on this topic until we come to some agreement on this one.
Are guns reasonable and/or useful for civilian self defense purposes?
I'm unwilling to discuss any other points on this topic until we come to some agreement on this one.
I'd like to co-opt the hypothetical shouting match by putting forth the following:
Guns can be of some utility for civilian defense, dependent on the level of risk and the mindset of the civilian.
We can put together pro-gun and anti-gun narratives all day, and the figures that we can quote are nowhere near comprehensive enough to justify either side beyond question. The best we can come up with is that firearms occasionally help protect someone, and they often end up hurting folks as well, both purposefully and on accident. How those two facts compare to each other is a judgement call based on incomplete information.
I'm pretty damn pro gun, and I don't think that guns are reasonable for self defense without server restrictions being placed on who can carry them and why. Allowing citizens with high risk of attack and with proper training carry a firearm seems reasonable.
Letting any paranoid nutter who wants one carry a gun without any training is stupid.
The same thing applies to home defense. If you want the legal right to load your firearm outside of a shooting range then you had better have passed a course and be willing to face stiff penalties if you fuck up.
@Luke: A car operating perfectly can kill someone just fine if it's operated into a preschool. Meanwhile, a gun operated perfectly can be used to shoot a paper target.* You keep wrapping intent up with form. I understand that firearms have a symbolic significance that makes them seem a bit more than just tools to some folks, but they are still just inanimate objects.
*Or be used indirectly to stop violence. The awareness of someone being armed can diffuse many a fraught situation.
Using a firearm or any tool to defend your life is reasonable. Killing in the name of your safety or the safety of another is justifiable. Having access to appropriate and suitable tools/weapons to match the types of threats one could potentially face, should be allowed up to a point of some diminishing return of possibility. (we can't reasonably function in our daily lives or in public assuming we must be outfitted like the Wolverines in case of a Red Dawn scenario, but it isn't unreasonable to allow someone to do that at home, even if it is 'paranoid prepper bullshit' because it stays within the home.) Generally that means we can handle handguns, maybe some semi-auto rifles in specific situations and places, and let the military/police(and/or militias if applicable) handle the larger threats.
Regulations? I'm all in favor of carry licenses being strict and rigorous. I also would encourage people to aim for the higher standard and have the legal option to carry if they are capable and responsible adults, knowing they will be trained to some degree.
But owning at home? I see the constitutional logic for the US to allow anyone to own a weapon (who meets the current requirements of 18+ and non-felon) in their home and have the right to bear it should a need arise in an uncommon situation where 'carry laws' and other things just wouldn't apply/matter. Namely one of those Red Dawn scenarios above, or a Katrina/LA Riots type situation. (so basically never.)
I'm not convinced that firearms are effective in actually defending one's life in any statistically significant way. I'm also not convinced that in practice they are any more useful or necessary than tasers.
I specified loading a gun in the home not owning one. You could own all the guns you want, it would just be illegal to use one in your home without being licensed. If you cant be bothered to take a training course and pass an exam then you really don't have any business using a firearm to defend your home. Over penetration, mistaken identity and poor practice can bite you and others on the ass at home just as easily as it can out in public.
Besides, If you did decide to keep a loaded revolver in your desk drawer, how exactly would the police know about it? he only way for it to cause trouble for you would be if A: your home is being searched under a warrant or B: Your firearm was being used. In which case you should damn well have had a license for it. A lot of folks I have met own firearms which could be modified to be technically illegal (say a semi-auto shotgun). Many of them own the parts to perform said modifications (say a sliding stock). Whatever conjunction of those parts that takes place on their property that I don't hear about is none of my damn business, but if those parts come together in public then they deserve whatever the law can throw at them.
edit: FYI. A sliding stock is illegal on a semi auto shotgun in NY.
The mistakes which lead to death by gunshot wounds are made in fight or flight at the very base neurological level where the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems are charged to make sure you live.
Fight/Flight is interesting because everyone acts differently when they are in it. And from what I understand it is not just a on/off switch, but rather graduating degrees. I don't think it is fair to say that because someone is in fight/flight they do not retain any of their pre-planning and training. If that were true then why would anyone train for a violent situation?
Does murder include all loss of life or is it only referring to premeditated death? I think it would be logical to use a figure derived from gunshot related wounds and deaths. This would include suicide, the various classifications of mortality that is obfuscated by the legal system. It would also include those people that survived gunshots because really who shoots someone and says "just kidding".
No they do not include suicide. And I don't think they should. I don’t see any reason to lump the number of people who take their own life with the numbers of people who decide to harm others when we are talking about the need to control access to guns. You are going to have to make a good case as to how the person with cancer who decides not to live their short remaining life in pain is the same as someone who uses a gun to murder another person.
I know there are people who suicide with a snap decision and a gun makes that easier. And that is sad, I personally would hope anyone who wants to suicide has carefully considered it. However even with those snap decision suicides using a gun, I don’t think they belong in a discussion in removing the right to bear arms from the rest of the populace.
Were those 310 million firearms inclusive of all exhibition pieces, all those on sale at the local gunmart, defence force's weapons, museum pieces and collection pieces? Rather than using the gun count as the subject, why not use - person that owns a gun? Wouldn't this be more logical. I know it would be a step towards accuracy but knowing accurately who owns the guns is very difficult.
If the argument is that guns kill people, then it is correct to include all guns. Because more guns would mean more people would die. The argument is never control the number of gun owners, where each owner can own as many guns as they want. The number would not include military weapons, but should be inclusive of police guns because police are just citizens like everyone else. It is just their job that requires that them have a gun, and in many cases their employer provides that gun.
Your reference to Congressional Research Service indicates numbers for 2009 not 2010. It also shows 31,347 fatalities. Non lethal gun related crimes - 326,090.
The gun numbers are from 2009 and I was relating them to the deaths from 2010 because I did not want to spend the time extrapolating the 2010 numbers from the data provided. However lets do that now. According to the data in the document provided. Every year 1-2 million handguns were produced here, let’s assume for argument 1.5 million. 1-1.5 million rifles produced here, let’s assume 1.25. And fewer than 1 million shotguns, let’s assume 750k. 2.2 million handguns were imported, 864k rifles, and 559k shotguns. Total it up and the numbers from 2010 should be close to 317 million firearms. If we extrapolate those numbers farther then the numbers should look like 324 million in 2011, 331 million in 2012, and 338 million in 2013.
The CDC death by firearm classified as the following for 2010 - Accidental discharge 606 Suicide 19,392 Assault 11,078 Legal Intervention 412 Undetermined intent 252 Operations of War 9 (?)
Accumulated death by firearms - 31,749
Non lethal injury by firearm - 32,163
Again, that 31,749 number includes suicides, which I do not think should be a consideration when arguing gun control.
The people who "simply want to cause others harm" are psychopaths, or otherwise mentally disturbed people. There is NO defending against these people.
I disagree with this and your following examples of why. This is like saying “there is no way to stop a terrorist who wants to cause harm, so the government should not even try”. I do not think you have a crystal ball into every situation that happened and will happen and are able to say “there is no way someone could defend themselves in that situation, so they should not even try”.
What other cases are there where someone goes out with the intention to kill? Not to harm, as that is a very fuzzy word, but to kill? Nobody, even criminals who want to rob and steal, actively intends or plans to kill their victims. Why would they?
So your argument is that of the over 14,000 murders in the US last year, in none of the cases was there intent to kill beforehand. It was just an escalation of the situation that caused a murder. Mind you these are murder numbers in the eyes of the law, not self defense and involuntary manslaughter cases.
So what it comes down to, in America, is that your property is worth more to you than the criminal's life is to them. This is FUCKED UP!
In the US there is no case that you can intentionally kill someone for stealing your car. There needs to be threat of personal injury to warrant use of deadly force. Example: You see someone stealing your car, you go out with a baseball bat to beat them up. This is protected because you are allowed to defend your property with non deadly force. You then kill the person when you only wanted to beat them up. This is involuntary manslaughter. You did not want to kill them, but you did and you were not defending yourself.
Same situation, someone is stealing your car. You go out with a gun and shoot them. This is murder because use of a gun is considered deadly force. It does not matter if you were shooting to wound or not. You were not being threatened so there was so self defence.
If someone breaks into your house when you are home. The assumption is the intruder knows you are home, and if they are willing to enter when the house is occupied then they have the intent to cause the inhabitants harm. I am sure many of the 76k rape cases last year were of someone breaking into a house when the woman was home and taking advantage of her. This is why you are allowed to shoot someone who enters your home when you are home. We hope that the owners call the police and wait in their room or run away. But there are advantages and disadvantages tactically to doing this (maybe there is another attacker out the back door). Regardless, if you yell at the intruders that you are home and called the police, and they do not leave, I think it is prudent to assume they intend you personal harm.
In the UK, if you kill anyone with a gun, you are in the wrong. There is no situation where having a gun and using it against anyone, even someone breaking into your home, is condoned by the law. Your response has to be appropriate to the threat, and guns are always inappropriate.
And I am glad that I do not live in the UK. Here is a scenario. My neighbor has eyes for my girlfriend, and knows that I work nights. So when I am gone one evening he breaks into the house to rape her. Situation A: She does what I have trained her to do. Yells she is calling the police, if running away option take that, if in room locks door, goes to closet, unlocks shotgun and turns on old cell phone, readies shotgun pointed at door, calls police on speakerphone. If the person tries to get into the room, yells she has a gun, if they continue to try to get in, shoot to kill. Situation B: There are no guns in the house, she yells she is calling police, runs away if option, if in room locks door and calls police. If person breaks in, prepare herself for a beating and a raping, and if lucky not a murder afterwards.
Your game theory says situation B is better because the rapists life is worth just as much as hers. And there is only a chance he will murder her afterwards. Rape is nothing compared to a persons life, and most likely he will not kill her. So overall it is better to not have a gun.
I say that a person who derives pleasure from hurting others life is worth less than a good person's life. And if it comes down to a good person receiving physical and emotional scarring and a chance to be killed, or a persons life who in my opinion is worth less than a good person's life. Then I feel there should be a means of defending oneself.
Logically, the best situation for reducing gun death is for only criminals and specialized police to be armed. It's the best way.
I do not share your logic. I do not think that your game theory on why it is best plays out in reality.
I think where I really disagree with Luke is on the value of life. And that comes out in a debate about something that does take a lot of lives. Luke would like to do all he can to minimise the loss of life as a whole, and many means necessary for doing so.
As stated earlier, I have a different view. The basic math is: Does the person derive pleasure from harming others? Then I value their life less. Everyone else who does not like to harm others is on equal ground. Rapists? Less value on their life. People who like to beat their kids? Less value on their life. Like to torture insurgents? Less value on their life. Like to emotionally scar women or men? Less value on their life. Like to go to bars, get drunk and beat people up because it fulfills some void in your life? I don’t value their life as much as the people they beat up.
I understand that not everyone shares my viewpoint on the value of life. And that is okay, we live in a complex world with complex people. I just wanted to make it clear where I am coming from in my arguments.
Also I would just like to point out that while we are having the debate right now about guns as self defense. Guns are most often used for sport. I just read a article that stated according the the NSSF in 2012 9.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition were produced, about 130,000 of which went to USDHS divisions (like Border Patrol, Coast Guard and the Secret Service). In 2013 it is estimated that number hit 10 billion rounds of ammunition consumed in the US. If you look at the shelves in a sporting goods store, they are about 25% filled. Meaning right now supply cannot even reach demand. Americans love their sport shooting, which is by far the most common use for a gun.
Also I would just like to point out that while we are having the debate right now about guns as self defense. Guns are most often used for sport. I just read a article that stated according the the NSSF in 2012 9.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition were produced, about 130,000 of which went to USDHS divisions (like Border Patrol, Coast Guard and the Secret Service). In 2013 it is estimated that number hit 10 billion rounds of ammunition consumed in the US. If you look at the shelves in a sporting goods store, they are about 25% filled. Meaning right now supply cannot even reach demand. Americans love their sport shooting, which is by far the most common use for a gun.
Excellent point. And since lawn darts have been completely banned for quite some time now, so should guns.
Excellent point. And since lawn darts have been completely banned for quite some time now, so should guns.
Uh, no they're not. They're only banned from being sold or imported fully assembled. You can still buy parts pretty easily, and even kits where all you have to do is screw the darts together, and it comes with enough parts for a full set.
@Luke: A car operating perfectly can kill someone just fine if it's operated into a preschool. Meanwhile, a gun operated perfectly can be used to shoot a paper target.* You keep wrapping intent up with form. I understand that firearms have a symbolic significance that makes them seem a bit more than just tools to some folks, but they are still just inanimate objects.
I specifically singled out use of shooting for sport and driving for sport. If someone intentionally drives a car into a preschool, that also falls directly into "use of car as weapon", which does NOT mean they are using the car as intended. Using a gun carried for self defense and killing someone with it IS its intended use. Or else why carry it?
To clarify for others:
I have no problem with someone owning a gun for sports shooting or hunting. I say this as someone who grew up shooting and hunting for sport. I used air rifles, but have no objection to the same kind of activities with higher powered firearms.
I have no problem with any "non-lethal" weapon or deterrent, including tasers and pepper spray and other things of that nature. I think that, before someone is allowed to use a taser, they have to be tased themselves. That's fair, I think. If you are willing to have a weapon used on you before you use it one someone else... that's fair game! Okay about being pepper-sprayed? Great! Carry pepper spray in the future.
Willing to be shot in the head? Great! You too are allowed to carry a gun to shoot people in the head in self defense in the future.
I only put non-lethal in quotes, because it'll stop people bringing up stories about people dying of heart attacks after being tased. Yes, well done. However, that is accidental death. While unfortunate, it's better to have someone die when things don't go according to plan than have the plan be to kill them.
Excellent point. And since lawn darts have been completely banned for quite some time now, so should guns.
Uh, no they're not. They're only banned from being sold or imported fully assembled. You can still buy parts pretty easily, and even kits where all you have to do is screw the darts together, and it comes with enough parts for a full set.
Wikipedia said you have to import the parts and then assemble them. GUess what though, I don't actually know how hard it is cause Im not some loser who comically oversized darts
Comments
If you want to compare gun deaths and car deaths, you have to compare car-as-weapon deaths compared to gun-as-weapon deaths. Yes, many people die in car accidents, and people commit suicide by car driving, and a very few people have intentionally used cars to kill or harm.
Now compare accidental deaths by gun, suicide by gun, and intentionally shootings by gun.
1. Obligatory registration of all firearms.
2. Licensing for the ownership of firearms (to exclude those who cannot pass basic gun safety tests).
3. Further licensing for all public carry of firearms.
4. Background and licensing checks for all gun purchases.
5. Severe penalties for unreported "lost" firearms that are later used in crime.
6. Severe penalties for unregistered firearms sales.
I would happily defend the right to gun ownership if the above were implemented.
It is winter in the US right now, which means that every time it snows a sober licensed driver will misues their vehicle and cause an accident that may result in death and sure as fuck will result in an inconvenience to the rest of us in the area. Should we remove driving privileges from all licensed drivers just because a few fucktards do not understand how to safely use their vehicle in the snow?
PS: if someone dies in a car accident well the car is a weapon. If I beat the fuck out of someone with a 10 lb phone book that phone book will be considered a weapon, car is no different.
You are the problem. While you have no problem with people dying, you support the right for other people to be harmed. Fuck you and your tiny, fucked up brain.
How about this: So you are saying it's okay for people to own guns because if they want to commit suicide, a gun is the best way.
Think about it. Putting sports guns aside, the main reason someone owns a gun is to shoot someone if needed. It turns out that the vast majority of shootings are self-inflicted. On the other hand, sports driving aside, the main reason for owning a car is to get them from one place to the other place.
The numbers tell us that gun ownership is FOR suicide. And you seem to agree!
The above quotes are from here, by the way. It turns out that car deaths are decreasing all the time, and gun deaths aren't. Everyone is doing their best to reduce car deaths, but at every turn even studying gun deaths is being blocked.
I do not believe you are interested in a gun conversation. I think that your mind is already made up and that you do not want anyone to own a gun (except for cops). I further feel that your purpose in this thread is not find compromise or a middle ground but to further the belief in a total ban on guns.
The point is that the meaning of the word "weapon" is not determined by accidents, but by intent. If someone dies by accidentally falling down the stairs that doesn't make the stairs a weapon, does it? By your reasoning, everything in existence is a weapon.
Yes, a car can be a weapon if it is used that way, but unlike a gun it isn't designed as one - indeed, modern car design has made a whole lot of progress in minimizing potential harm.
You're right, car accidents and gun accidents deserve a lot more similarity in how they're treated. Guns are far too poorly regulated in relation to cars, despite how dangerous both of them are.
Besides that, of course, a major part of the issue with guns is outcomes that are not accidents. This is clearly much less of an issue with cars.
It's manslaughter when someone shoots their child after mistaking them for an intruder.
What if someone with a gun In their hand falls down the stairs and the gun accidentally discharges and kills the holder?
Yes I am being fasicious.
Discussion is not always about finding a compromise or a middle ground; it's about determining what's true, what's best, or what is most practical. It seems to me that if Luke wasn't interested in a conversation, he wouldn't be here having one.
In any case, Luke's main argument is against the idea of self-defense as an acceptable purpose for gun ownership. I haven't seen you make any case at all for why it should be.
Yes, those situations don't involve guns being used as weapons. However, even if that type of situation was the most common cause of gun deaths, that alone would be sufficient cause for the government to at least take some kind of action, in order to ensure that gun owners are properly trained in safe handling of guns.
Are guns reasonable and/or useful for civilian self defense purposes?
I'm unwilling to discuss any other points on this topic until we come to some agreement on this one.
Not talking shit, though, I'd do the same thing.
Guns can be of some utility for civilian defense, dependent on the level of risk and the mindset of the civilian.
We can put together pro-gun and anti-gun narratives all day, and the figures that we can quote are nowhere near comprehensive enough to justify either side beyond question. The best we can come up with is that firearms occasionally help protect someone, and they often end up hurting folks as well, both purposefully and on accident. How those two facts compare to each other is a judgement call based on incomplete information.
I'm pretty damn pro gun, and I don't think that guns are reasonable for self defense without server restrictions being placed on who can carry them and why. Allowing citizens with high risk of attack and with proper training carry a firearm seems reasonable.
Letting any paranoid nutter who wants one carry a gun without any training is stupid.
The same thing applies to home defense. If you want the legal right to load your firearm outside of a shooting range then you had better have passed a course and be willing to face stiff penalties if you fuck up.
@Luke: A car operating perfectly can kill someone just fine if it's operated into a preschool. Meanwhile, a gun operated perfectly can be used to shoot a paper target.* You keep wrapping intent up with form. I understand that firearms have a symbolic significance that makes them seem a bit more than just tools to some folks, but they are still just inanimate objects.
*Or be used indirectly to stop violence. The awareness of someone being armed can diffuse many a fraught situation.
Regulations? I'm all in favor of carry licenses being strict and rigorous. I also would encourage people to aim for the higher standard and have the legal option to carry if they are capable and responsible adults, knowing they will be trained to some degree.
But owning at home? I see the constitutional logic for the US to allow anyone to own a weapon (who meets the current requirements of 18+ and non-felon) in their home and have the right to bear it should a need arise in an uncommon situation where 'carry laws' and other things just wouldn't apply/matter. Namely one of those Red Dawn scenarios above, or a Katrina/LA Riots type situation. (so basically never.)
Besides, If you did decide to keep a loaded revolver in your desk drawer, how exactly would the police know about it? he only way for it to cause trouble for you would be if
A: your home is being searched under a warrant
or
B: Your firearm was being used. In which case you should damn well have had a license for it.
A lot of folks I have met own firearms which could be modified to be technically illegal (say a semi-auto shotgun). Many of them own the parts to perform said modifications (say a sliding stock). Whatever conjunction of those parts that takes place on their property that I don't hear about is none of my damn business, but if those parts come together in public then they deserve whatever the law can throw at them.
edit: FYI. A sliding stock is illegal on a semi auto shotgun in NY.
I know there are people who suicide with a snap decision and a gun makes that easier. And that is sad, I personally would hope anyone who wants to suicide has carefully considered it. However even with those snap decision suicides using a gun, I don’t think they belong in a discussion in removing the right to bear arms from the rest of the populace. If the argument is that guns kill people, then it is correct to include all guns. Because more guns would mean more people would die. The argument is never control the number of gun owners, where each owner can own as many guns as they want. The number would not include military weapons, but should be inclusive of police guns because police are just citizens like everyone else. It is just their job that requires that them have a gun, and in many cases their employer provides that gun. The gun numbers are from 2009 and I was relating them to the deaths from 2010 because I did not want to spend the time extrapolating the 2010 numbers from the data provided. However lets do that now. According to the data in the document provided. Every year 1-2 million handguns were produced here, let’s assume for argument 1.5 million. 1-1.5 million rifles produced here, let’s assume 1.25. And fewer than 1 million shotguns, let’s assume 750k. 2.2 million handguns were imported, 864k rifles, and 559k shotguns. Total it up and the numbers from 2010 should be close to 317 million firearms. If we extrapolate those numbers farther then the numbers should look like 324 million in 2011, 331 million in 2012, and 338 million in 2013. Again, that 31,749 number includes suicides, which I do not think should be a consideration when arguing gun control.
Same situation, someone is stealing your car. You go out with a gun and shoot them. This is murder because use of a gun is considered deadly force. It does not matter if you were shooting to wound or not. You were not being threatened so there was so self defence.
If someone breaks into your house when you are home. The assumption is the intruder knows you are home, and if they are willing to enter when the house is occupied then they have the intent to cause the inhabitants harm. I am sure many of the 76k rape cases last year were of someone breaking into a house when the woman was home and taking advantage of her. This is why you are allowed to shoot someone who enters your home when you are home. We hope that the owners call the police and wait in their room or run away. But there are advantages and disadvantages tactically to doing this (maybe there is another attacker out the back door). Regardless, if you yell at the intruders that you are home and called the police, and they do not leave, I think it is prudent to assume they intend you personal harm. And I am glad that I do not live in the UK. Here is a scenario. My neighbor has eyes for my girlfriend, and knows that I work nights. So when I am gone one evening he breaks into the house to rape her.
Situation A: She does what I have trained her to do. Yells she is calling the police, if running away option take that, if in room locks door, goes to closet, unlocks shotgun and turns on old cell phone, readies shotgun pointed at door, calls police on speakerphone. If the person tries to get into the room, yells she has a gun, if they continue to try to get in, shoot to kill.
Situation B: There are no guns in the house, she yells she is calling police, runs away if option, if in room locks door and calls police. If person breaks in, prepare herself for a beating and a raping, and if lucky not a murder afterwards.
Your game theory says situation B is better because the rapists life is worth just as much as hers. And there is only a chance he will murder her afterwards. Rape is nothing compared to a persons life, and most likely he will not kill her. So overall it is better to not have a gun.
I say that a person who derives pleasure from hurting others life is worth less than a good person's life. And if it comes down to a good person receiving physical and emotional scarring and a chance to be killed, or a persons life who in my opinion is worth less than a good person's life. Then I feel there should be a means of defending oneself. I do not share your logic. I do not think that your game theory on why it is best plays out in reality.
I think where I really disagree with Luke is on the value of life. And that comes out in a debate about something that does take a lot of lives. Luke would like to do all he can to minimise the loss of life as a whole, and many means necessary for doing so.
As stated earlier, I have a different view. The basic math is: Does the person derive pleasure from harming others? Then I value their life less. Everyone else who does not like to harm others is on equal ground. Rapists? Less value on their life. People who like to beat their kids? Less value on their life. Like to torture insurgents? Less value on their life. Like to emotionally scar women or men? Less value on their life. Like to go to bars, get drunk and beat people up because it fulfills some void in your life? I don’t value their life as much as the people they beat up.
I understand that not everyone shares my viewpoint on the value of life. And that is okay, we live in a complex world with complex people. I just wanted to make it clear where I am coming from in my arguments.
To clarify for others:
I have no problem with someone owning a gun for sports shooting or hunting. I say this as someone who grew up shooting and hunting for sport. I used air rifles, but have no objection to the same kind of activities with higher powered firearms.
I have no problem with any "non-lethal" weapon or deterrent, including tasers and pepper spray and other things of that nature. I think that, before someone is allowed to use a taser, they have to be tased themselves. That's fair, I think. If you are willing to have a weapon used on you before you use it one someone else... that's fair game! Okay about being pepper-sprayed? Great! Carry pepper spray in the future.
Willing to be shot in the head? Great! You too are allowed to carry a gun to shoot people in the head in self defense in the future.
I only put non-lethal in quotes, because it'll stop people bringing up stories about people dying of heart attacks after being tased. Yes, well done. However, that is accidental death. While unfortunate, it's better to have someone die when things don't go according to plan than have the plan be to kill them.