Interestingly, in the army there are several "no-gun" zones. Such as dining halls. That's because the army treats firearms as what they are. Tools of the trade. Not as fetish objects.
I"m sorry, but an average citizen doesn't have much need for a gun IMO. Many cops go through decades without having to use their weapon, and their jobs take them into regular contact with violent people. Most people don't face anything remotely similar.
What about people who have a gun at home committing a crime, or stolen/unlicensed firearm-related crime? Is Texas a representative sample of the US?
Ah, so this would be the reason why the US has one of the lowest percentage of population in prison, or one of the lowest gun-crime rates in the world? I suppose they're mostly in for non-violent (or possibly aggravating violence, like say burglary) crimes?
Well, I think you've either got to decide whether "your world is so different from mine that I can't possibly understand why you guys need guns" or "there's hardly any violent crime because everyone is packing" or "most people don't have guns".
Is it that hard a concept to understand that the probability of greater accidental harm to yourself and others is far greater with a gun than say a knife? Also the amount of damage inflicted to your intended victim with a gun is pretty unnecessary by any standards.
Silly scenario really..if your girlfriend is being raped I think it's kind of a tough thing to try to aim a gun at the guy as there's a huge risk of shooting her instead regardless of how well trained you are at the range. Ok so what if you've successfully shot him then? Will the law be on your side? How will your appearance of a gun toting hero affect your career in the future? I'm not saying you should be calling the cops and wait for their arrival as the rapist finishes his deeds but I think there are far more intelligent ways to deal with crime.
Despite silly things I've said in the past as a joke, I am by no means anti-gun as I find great joy in going to the range and shooting up targets with 50 caliber hand cannons and rifles. I think it's a fascinating topic to discuss and that there's a greater good in understanding each others perspectives and learning from it.
Legal gun owners committing crimes with said guns is not unheard of, but it is far from the norm and we already have laws in place that if you have ever been convicted of any felony or any violent crime (even a minor assault charge) you cannot legally own a gun. If you've ever been adjudicated as mentally unstable (sent to a mental institution by a court) you cannot own a gun. Most criminals, gangbangers whatever use illegal/stolen guns, as they have already been convicted of crimes that preclude them from legal ownership. The NICS background check that is required for every gun purchase nation-wide assures this.
That's the thing, the US is varied from one extreme to the other by region. Our society is far less homogeneous than the UK. You can go to Massachusetts, one of 7 states that is a bastion of extreme gun control, and basically never see any civilian guns the population of owners is so low. On the flip side go to the farm belt in the midwest or the deep south and guns are extremely common, with most households having at least one or two hunting weapons. In Kennesaw GA, there's actually a loosely enforced legal mandate that the able head of every household must own a gun and ammo. For the record, their crime rate is ridiculously low and they've had that law since the 80s. Likewise there are areas I would walk around unarmed all day and all night and feel perfectly safe, and there are areas where I wouldn't feel safe with a rifle and body armor. Thankfully the latter areas are relatively few and far between, but they exist.
So no, Texas is perhaps representative of the surrounding states, but each state's gun/self defense laws are different and each region is so different that there is no state that could represent the US as a whole in this manner.
I never made any claims about our gun crime rate or prison population. Obviously given the number of guns, legal and illegal, is many times larger than most countries' populations there will be higher gun crime in some areas. Although I will point out that criminals will always have access to guns in the US, as we have so many of them that even prohibition would merely produce an explosive black market. Also, it is a fact that most burglaries take place when no one's home, and a very large percentage of our prisoners are in for some kind of drug violation.
So to bottom line your last paragraph, depending on where you go in the US the pro-gun argument is any combination of those 3 statements.
It is ridiculously easy for criminals to get access to firearms in this country and part of the blame for that goes right back to gun owners themselves for failing to keep their guns under lock and key and for the exceedingly dumb private party transfer laws in many states. Basically, you can go to a gun show and buy a gun through a private party sale without going through any of the background checks you have to go through if you buy a gun from a gun store.
Gun owner: Are you a criminal?
Criminal at gun show: No
Gun owner: Well, that's good enough for me!
Actually it is. I know people who have stabbed themselves accidentally with knives. I know none who have shot themselves.
And we could armchair scenarios where I would or would not engage all day. And actually if I shot a rapist in the act, the law would almost universally be on my side assuming I was in an area where firearm possession was legal. My career? So long as I'm not convicted of a crime I'm under no obligation to put it on my resume.
Not entirely, while yes guns were "designed" to kill their original purpose was more or less for hunting, along the same lines as knives and the bow and arrow...that we as humans also took that further to kill each other is just our sad nature. While a further stretch cars were designed for transport but they are extremely efficient killing machines and they do so at an alarming rate, sometimes purposely. Yes the military does procure armor piercing rounds to further their goal of becoming more efficient at killing, not sure your point there...I think you have to admit that this is a pretty disingenuous argument. Cars are not built to kill people, their primary purpose is transport. Manufacturers build cars partly with the view of keeping the occupant safe but also to reduce the number of accidents.
This cannot be said about firearms. Just one example straight off the bat: Armour-piercing rounds. There's probably another hundred examples of the industry striving to produce a better killing machine.
Yes that is pretty much what the police are there for, there have been attempts to sue the police for not protecting against a crime that happened and it has been legally stated that they are not held liable for failure to protect someone, hence you are your best defense.Aren't they? I guess I must have misunderstood the US police force's motto "to protect and to serve". I guess it's just a silly assumption of mine that police patrol the streets to try and spot a situation that either has already broken the law or is about to so they can defuse it. I'm pretty sure that their presence on the streets is to also act as a deterrent. What you described is almost a janitor.
Luckily I haven't had to use mine for anything other than target shooting and I hope I never will...however I think the the average person is better off armed than not so long as they are properly trained, training should be required IMHO. And as for the cited case that is not the norm by any means and while in my state it would be legal I personally wouldn't have chosen to fire, if someone has seen me prepared to use lethal force and decides it's best to leave I will certainly let them, I have no desire to kill anyone ever, but if they don't I am prepared to do what I have to.Re: "your world is entirely different from ours" - so how many people have you hospitalised and/or killed in self-defence? Personally, if I felt that the situation in the country I lived in was so bad that the average stupid person was better off being armed, it wouldn't be far off living in a war zone. If I couldn't do enough to try and improve the living conditions in the country, I would move to another country. I would ask why crime rates are so high that the average person ought to be armed. Stupid people like to do stupid macho things, why on earth would you want a system that allows them another way to show off how stupid they are.
I could understand Americans a bit better if the vast majority of opinion was on the side of "well, we consider them an unfortunate necessity but we're trying to improve the system so that one day we won't need them any more", but there seem to be an enormous amount of people who consider it their god-given right / penis extension, and you couldn't pry it from their cold, dead hands.
Another issue in my opinion is the difference in what would be regarded as a "clear-cut case" which kind of worries me because I wonder what erodes peoples' sensibilities on this front. It's one thing to shoot someone who invades your home during sleeping hours (gun laws aside, I think this is acceptable). The 'pharmacist shoots dead' thread on this forum makes me think that a lot of people believe in revenge rather than self-defence.
Here's an old case in the UK that I think is very borderline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
It caused a huge amount of controversy in the UK, public opinion was divided. On one hand, two people broke into someone's home to steal stuff, and even though they were fleeing when they were shot, and to a certain extent I believe that someone who tries to burgle someone's home deserves what's coming to them, but on the other hand, neither burglar was armed, they weren't threatening the life of anyone, and they were fleeing. A shotgun is not an ideal weapon to incapacitate a person without threatening that person's life. The farmer shot them out of revenge rather than self-defence. However, I think that too great a percentage of Americans would class this as "clear cut", no charges should have been pressed against the farmer and well done to him.
No but we grant rights based on a persons actions up until that point in time, we don't take something away or deny a person their rights because of something that might happen later.The law can't work by only allowing "the good/sensible guys" guns. Even if someone is somehow deemed to be good/sensible, it doesn't mean that they will be good/sensible in every circumstance.
On this we agree...I have sold several of my guns over the years and will only sell them to a gun store for this reason, I don't make as much money on them but I am as sure as I can possibly be that they won't end up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it...I believe that should be the case for everyoneIt is ridiculously easy for criminals to get access to firearms in this country and part of the blame for that goes right back to gun owners themselves for failing to keep their guns under lock and key and for the exceedingly dumb private party transfer laws in many states. Basically, you can go to a gun show and buy a gun through a private party sale without going through any of the background checks you have to go through if you buy a gun from a gun store.
Gun owner: Are you a criminal?
Criminal at gun show: No
Gun owner: Well, that's good enough for me!
On this we agree...I have sold several of my guns over the years and will only sell them to a gun store for this reason, I don't make as much money on them but I am as sure as I can possibly be that they won't end up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it...I believe that should be the case for everyone
EDIT: That said there are very few private sellers at gun shows, I've never been to one that has had more than 3 or 4 and usually only 1 or 2 but that's just my personal experience
Definitely I would like to see that everywhere, however it still wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns, the vast majority in the hands of criminals have been stolen not purchased through any "legal" means such as gun showsGlad we agree on something.
Just got back from the range finishing sighting in my new AR, boy have you guys been chatty
Not entirely, while yes guns were "designed" to kill their original purpose was more or less for hunting, along the same lines as knives and the bow and arrow...that we as humans also took that further to kill each other is just our sad nature. While a further stretch cars were designed for transport but they are extremely efficient killing machines and they do so at an alarming rate, sometimes purposely. Yes the military does procure armor piercing rounds to further their goal of becoming more efficient at killing, not sure your point there...
And one of my points is that firearms are the US's own worst enemy, they just exacerbate the various ills in society.Yes that is pretty much what the police are there for, there have been attempts to sue the police for not protecting against a crime that happened and it has been legally stated that they are not held liable for failure to protect someone, hence you are your best defense.
Why would you add the clause that they need it to hunt to "not go hungry"? The hunting community is incredibly large here and entirely valid...you were saying what they were "designed" for, that was their original intent, that we have taken that on to kill each other is a matter of human nature, throughout our entire recorded history we take pretty much anything we can to kill each other, including cars...and your point that the "sole reason" to manufacture firearms is to injure/kill people is pure bullshit, that some continue to use them in that fashion is true however.Yes, but as the average person does not own a firearm to hunt in order to not go hungry, I think we can dispense with that point. My point was that the sole reason for the manufacture of firearms is to injure/kill people, and they are being continually developed to improve their potential to that end. Unlike cars. Cars have about as much relevance to this topic as heart attacks, cancer or prescription medication.
In the wrong hands absolutely...And one of my points is that firearms are the US's own worst enemy, they just exacerbate the various ills in society.
Yes, but as the average person does not own a firearm to hunt in order to not go hungry, I think we can dispense with that point. My point was that the sole reason for the manufacture of firearms is to injure/kill people, and they are being continually developed to improve their potential to that end. Unlike cars. Cars have about as much relevance to this topic as heart attacks, cancer or prescription medication.
And one of my points is that firearms are the US's own worst enemy, they just exacerbate the various ills in society.
Someone on this thread had a fair point that trying to ban guns in America would probably end in failure, but what I have a problem is with people being under the mistaken impression that the average person having access to a firearm is a good thing.
The "average" person never has an accident with a firearm or uses it in a crime, how is it a bad thing?Someone on this thread had a fair point that trying to ban guns in America would probably end in failure, but what I have a problem is with people being under the mistaken impression that the average person having access to a firearm is a good thing.
Let's see. In this scenario, Spidey kills the intruders and his family/SO is safe.Somebody breaks into my home with his buddies and they all have knives - what am I supposed to do? Average person having access to firearms is an awesome thing. It is the great equalizer against disparity of force.
Yeah, we have people watching for that, it's been attempted many times and you're not that clever BTW we have this little thing called the constitution, you might have heard of it...anyway it has been upheld that the second amendment to it clearly holds the right of the citizens to own firearms, barring having demonstrated that we should have that right removed by our own actions of course...Someone on this thread had a fair point that trying to ban guns in America would probably end in failure*, but what I have a problem is with people being under the mistaken impression that the average person having access to a firearm is a good thing.
* - though I think that it ought to be attempted, albeit in a very clever fashion - perhaps a steady approach of more restrictions on who can own one and restrictions on the manufacture/supply end.
Why would you add the clause that they need it to hunt to "not go hungry"? The hunting community is incredibly large here and entirely valid
If you want to have a discussion that has any bearing on reality whatsoever, you may need to explain that statement. Otherwise I think we're done here.and your point that the "sole reason" to manufacture firearms is to injure/kill people is pure bullshit,
"Need" is subjective, hunting for many (maybe most) is a choice however the reason for it is not just to kill something, very few don't eat what they kill, and many others donate their kill to charities, which I have been tempted to get back into hunting for this reason. Wild game is good, choosing it rather than going to the store and buying some chicken or beef makes no difference, in fact taking personal responsibility to provide for yourself should be a good character trait, things die for you to eat whether you do it yourself or not. And amazingly enough having an efficient tool, a firearm maybe, to kill your game helps ensure unnecessarily painful/inhumane deaths...a bow and arrow can and frequently does cause a much slower death than a gun.This is in danger of going seriously off-topic, but I would bet that perhaps 1% of "the hunting community" actually need to. The rest are just shooting animals because they want to. There are laws that abattoirs need to adhere to (at least in Europe) to stay in business, largely about trying to ensure unnecessarily painful/inhumane deaths.
How could you possibly need anymore explanation? Guns are manufactured for a multitude of reasons, not "solely to kill/injure" other people. That's a retarded statement with no bearing on reality.If you want to have a discussion that has any bearing on reality whatsoever, you may need to explain that statement. Otherwise I think we're done here.
How could you possibly need anymore explanation? Guns are manufactured for a multitude of reasons, not "solely to kill/injure" other people. That's a retarded statement with no bearing on reality.
Somehow I doubt if you can't logically see the fallacy of your statement that there's anything I could say to make you see reason...however there are many firearms designed specifically for target shooting and hunting. Can they all be used to kill a person? Absolutely...but they were designed (manufactured if you will) for specific sports/purposes, none of which were killing someone.Enlighten me.
Almost missed your ninja edit...yes there are people watching out for "clever" back-door attempts to take away our constitutional (where did you get god-given?) right to own firearms, and I do take pleasure in owning one and pride in the skill it takes to accurately fire it, what makes you say that like it's a bad thing? The "need" for one is somewhat irrelevant, and honestly I hope I never do "need" it.Admittedly I'm fast approaching the point of "agreeing to disagree" because your comments about keeping an eye out for people trying to take away your god-given right just goes to show that you want a firearm for the pleasure of having one rather than just feeling like you need it.
The second amendment was originally about a "well-regulated militia", I think you'll find.