You can't have my guns.

[boochi]

Let me try and understand you.

Suppose you are going to go down the street to the local McDonald's. You put on your shoes, jacket, and you also strap on your gun? Because it is such a necessary thing in case anything in the outside world is dangerous?

You say you don't live in fear but "I want to be prepared to protect myself". That implies you are afraid of something. Nobody walks down the street carrying a gun if they are not afraid of anything.

You are an idiot. Just because someone chooses to carry a weapon does not mean they are afraid of anything. They just want to be prepared if some shit were to go down. Do you think every cop is afraid they are going to get shot everyday? No, its just they need to prepared for the unknown.

 

[sixone]

Let me try and understand you.

Suppose you are going to go down the street to the local McDonald's. You put on your shoes, jacket, and you also strap on your gun? Because it is such a necessary thing in case anything in the outside world is dangerous?

You say you don't live in fear but "I want to be prepared to protect myself". That implies you are afraid of something. Nobody walks down the street carrying a gun if they are not afraid of anything.

I also said "IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY." Don't try to take my words out of context and claim that I meant something else. That's the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.

Am I going down the street to McDonalds at 3pm, in an area I feel comfortable in? Not likely. Am I going there at 3am? Definitely MORE likely. Am I stopping at an ATM on the way there, to get cash? After bank hours? By myself or with a friend?

You may find comfort in telling yourself that gun control laws keep dangerous people from doing dangerous things. They don't - which is how this terrible school shooting happened in a place with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

The current cries for even stricter gun legislation are not an attempt to protect innocents from criminals. They're an attempt to protect the illusion of safety.

 

[Farmer]

Let me try and understand you.

Suppose you are going to go down the street to the local McDonald's. You put on your shoes, jacket, and you also strap on your gun? Because it is such a necessary thing in case anything in the outside world is dangerous?

You say you don't live in fear but "I want to be prepared to protect myself". That implies you are afraid of something. Nobody walks down the street carrying a gun if they are not afraid of anything.

Yes, people carry guns. It's a tool, much like a cell phone or a wallet. You carry one for the same reason you don't walk down a dark alley alone at night, or give your bank account number to man from Nigeria.

Maybe you consider society to be one where each citizen can be totally unaware of their own self-preservation, but still be completely fine? Like a nanny state, you know?

I mean, do you really find this so hard to believe, do you find it so outside your comfort zone, so outside of what you are familiar with? If so, I really suggest you go to a gun range and pay for a lesson. You'll quickly find out a gun is ordinary, a piece of metal. It will not grow little gun feet and little gun arms and attack you in the night.

 

[Veliko]

Yes, people carry guns. It's a tool, much like a cell phone or a wallet.

See, this is part of the problem right here.

A gun is nothing like those things at all.

I don't think Americans can be trusted with the guns that so many of them crave.

 

[Farmer]

See, this is part of the problem right here.

A gun is nothing like those things at all.

I don't think Americans can be trusted with the guns that so many of them crave.

I'm so glad you brought this up. Why do you have such a low opinion of Americans? Is this your typical opinion of other people (I assume you live in America) when you meet them everyday, that they are incompetent? Do you find yourself so much superior?

Even in this case, why is your natural reaction not "These people are untrustworthy, I would like something to protect myself from them," but instead "These people are untrustworthy, the government needs to inact laws to prohibit them from harming me." Do you trust the government more than you trust yourself? Because I honestly think this is at the heart of the gun control issue.

Seriously, I really want to know what it is that you think.

 

[mikeymikec]

OK, that's fair and good to see there is some common ground.

However, why do you say it is the most blatant? Due to media attention?

IMO, most people from other developed countries look at the US and think "why the hell do you feel the need to the average person to be armed, are you living in the middle of a war zone or something?", and "these guys really like their guns don't they", and "what a surprise that almost every year there's a mass shooting event, every idiot can get hold of a gun".

An event like this (lots of people getting killed) probably happens about once per decade in the UK. I would guess at a similar figure for most other developed countries. In short, when it happens in a developed country that isn't the US, it's a heck of a surprise. When it happens in the US, it really isn't a surprise at all, IMO. And in case the idiot who accused me of finding amusement in mass killings needs me to point this out, it is fucking sad that this sort of thing (mass killings) happens.

It's almost like a developed country hasn't bothered putting in any traffic lights yet and their traffic collision rate is so high compared to other developed countries. It's like "gee, let me think, I wonder what they need to do to fix this?". Of course, not all traffic collisions are solved by having traffic lights, but that's what I mean by a blatant reason to do something about it.

This is what I don't really understand: In most areas in the US (especially CT), personal carry of weapons as a means for self defense is very rare. It could be reasoned that an armed citizen may have prevented or lessened the death toll in a rampage shooting scenario. Why then, is the appropriate response to increase severity of gun control? As opposed to, say, encouraging more citizens to become proficient in the use of firearms for self defense? Is there a notion that, somehow, gun ownership leads to murderous tendencies? Or perhaps that the average citizen is incapable of being taught proper use of firearms for self defense? (The latter I don't believe, take the Swiss, the Israelis, Singapore, etc, for example). I mean, unless you think that, I can't see how stricter gun laws help.

What makes you think that the average person carrying a firearm for personal defence is going to be ready to take on a person absolutely prepared to kill as many people as possible? It's a silly assumption to begin with, but I'll make it anyway - so, the average person is tooled up for such a situation, so someone hellbent on killing lots of people simply changes their strategy. Let's say that all the school teachers were packing, so the killer throws in a smoke grenade to begin with. The guy who attacked people going to the cinema picked a place/time where people weren't likely to be prepared for it either.

I also find it very odd that if one dreams up a hypothetical situation where the US government wants to take away all your liberties and enslave you all, do the "we're going to defend our liberties with our guns" lot really think that the government would present them with a good target for such a sentiment? These gun packers wouldn't be able to do much against an armed helicopter or a tank.

Anyone could be a murderer, given the right circumstances. Why give them easy access to such a convenient tool, specially made for the job?

 

[sixone]

See, this is part of the problem right here.

A gun is nothing like those things at all.

I don't think Americans can be trusted with the guns that so many of them crave.

I don't think you can be trusted with the facts, since you're trying to use them to strip people of their rights.

There are millions of handguns in the US, and millions of owners who have never ever used theirs to hurt or frighten anyone.

If you can figure out a way to identify the nutjobs who will, before they do it, let's hear it.

 

[Farmer]

Anyone could be a murderer, given the right circumstances. Why give them easy access to such a convenient tool, specially made for the job?

I know you wrote a lot, but I have to go.

What makes you think that the average person carrying a firearm for personal defence is going to be ready to take on a person absolutely prepared to kill as many people as possible? It's a silly assumption to begin with, but I'll make it anyway - so, the average person is tooled up for such a situation, so someone hellbent on killing lots of people simply changes their strategy. Let's say that all the school teachers were packing, so the killer throws in a smoke grenade to begin with. The guy who attacked people going to the cinema picked a place/time where people weren't likely to be prepared for it either.

I also find it very odd that if one dreams up a hypothetical situation where the US government wants to take away all your liberties and enslave you all, do the "we're going to defend our liberties with our guns" lot really think that the government would present them with a good target for such a sentiment? These gun packers wouldn't be able to do much against an armed helicopter or a tank.

Response to this statement: Do you trust the state so much more than your neighbor? That is to say, you trust in their competence to enforce laws more than you trust in the goodness of your neighbor not to harm you?

Because, again, I've thought about this for a long time and I think the "gun" versus "anti-gun" argument can be boiled down to which side of this fence you sit. I'm not suggesting one is more correct than the other.

If a man threatened my family with a gun, I would rather have a gun so that I might be able to stop him, rather than be forced to wait for the state.

 

[mikeymikec]

Response to this statement: Do you trust the state so much more than your neighbor?

There are different types of trust.

The state needs to be guided by the people in order to stop pressure groups nagging the government to come up with stupid laws like forcing ISPs to block "objectionable material". However, I would pretty much 100% trust the state not to start doing things that would warrant an armed uprising.

I barely know my neighbours. Why should I be happy with the idea of them owning guns? Just because I would have one in such a hypothetical example? Yeah, great. That's a load of assurance against a million ways that someone with a gun could surprise me even if I had a gun with me at all times.

The people also have a certain amount of influence/control over the government. What influence or control do I have over my neighbours?

If a man threatened my family with a gun, I would rather have a gun so that I might be able to stop him, rather than be forced to wait for the state.

However, in a country where gun ownership constitutes the tiniest percentage of the population, I probably have a greater chance of winning the lottery than someone threatening my family with a gun.

 

[Veliko]

I'm so glad you brought this up. Why do you have such a low opinion of Americans? Is this your typical opinion of other people (I assume you live in America) when you meet them everyday, that they are incompetent? Do you find yourself so much superior?

Even in this case, why is your natural reaction not "These people are untrustworthy, I would like something to protect myself from them," but instead "These people are untrustworthy, the government needs to inact laws to prohibit them from harming me." Do you trust the government more than you trust yourself? Because I honestly think this is at the heart of the gun control issue.

I don't have a low opinion of Americans; I just have a low opinion of some of the things about America, same as I do about aspects of other nations.

Also, I live in the UK.

Your comment about trusting the government is an odd one. I trust them/it on some things, but not others.

 

[mikeymikec]

PS - I replied to your most recent post to date a couple of posts before this one. I just noticed that I missed a few posts and responded to this.

This is really abuse of statistics. Assuming that is the underlying probability (there is no way to know), and continuing this naive probabilistic analysis (that is, all things being equal, ignore every other covariant variable) the probability of it occurring at any given elementary school in the United States is that number divided by the number of elementary schools in the United States. As you can imagine, it becomes quite a small number.

It wasn't a figure to determine the likelihood of a school shooting in the US. But you trying to label it as such to devalue it is an abuse of statistics.

Some guy pulled out some stats showing the number of mass killings in the Americas, summed up as 117 incidents in 149 years. Therefore, based on those stats, dividing 117 by 149 gives a statistical likelihood of 78% of a mass killing occurring in that group of countries in a given year.

To make a more relevant statistic, one would just compile a list of relevant incidents in the US since say the last major gun control law change, but the statistic I used was perfectly fair and I wasn't trying to do anything dishonest with it.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Steps to acquiring a black market piece:

1) Find a legal gun owner
2) Take that gun
3) ?
4)Sell it to others looking for a black market piece, profit.

Why do you mention the above way as the only way to get a black market weapon? Are you being intentionally deceitful, or are you simply stupid?

 

[Farmer]

I barely know my neighbours. Why should I be happy with the idea of them owning guns? Just because I would have one in such a hypothetical example? Yeah, great. That's a load of assurance against a million ways that someone with a gun could surprise me even if I had a gun with me at all times.

The people also have a certain amount of influence/control over the government. What influence or control do I have over my neighbours?

If you barely know your neighbors, and don't trust them, why do you expect them to be law abiding citizens who do not willfully ignore legislation banning the ownership of firearms?

If you do trust them to be law abiding citizens, why would you fear for your safety if they keep a legal firearm?

As for "trusting the government," what I mean is, agents of government are private citizens. If you barely know your neighbors, you barely know, say, the police. Why do you inherently trust the police to keep firearms, but not your neighbor? To be honest, I trust my friends, family, coworkers, almost everyone I know, far more than I trust the police.

I don't have a low opinion of Americans; I just have a low opinion of some of the things about America, same as I do about aspects of other nations.

Also, I live in the UK.

Your comment about trusting the government is an odd one. I trust them/it on some things, but not others.

Well, then, people of the UK in your case. I am not asking your opinion of Americans specifically, I am saying what your opinion is of people you meet in the course of your life. Do you find them so untrustworthy and so incompetent that you feel giving them the right to own a firearm would be irresponsible?

 

[mikeymikec]

If you barely know your neighbors, and don't trust them, why do you expect them to be law abiding citizens who do not willfully ignore legislation banning the ownership of firearms?

Repeat previous statement about the prevalence of firearms in the UK. I would only be worried about them possibly having firearms if they took every opportunity they could get to preach the positive aspects of firearm ownership, like some people on this forum.

Why do you inherently trust the police to keep firearms, but not your neighbor?

As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of UK police are not trained to use firearms as they will never need them. I imagine a greater percentage in the cities are trained but rarely get to actually take them away from the firing range (and other forms of training situation), and only in response to a particular situation where firearms are called for. In the event that someone actually fires a bullet, unless the situation was as clear as it could possibly be that the use of such force was required, there would be an inquiry.

There have been some questionable uses of firearms by the police in the UK, but again, it is probably about as often to mass killing incidents in the UK (about once a decade, as I previously mentioned, and not related to those mass killings).

To be honest, I trust my friends, family, coworkers, almost everyone I know, far more than I trust the police.

If you don't trust the US police with firearms, then surely you should be calling for greater accountability of firearm usage by them? More training perhaps?

I would also say that in the UK the police are generally well regarded. I've met some people who don't trust the police but they don't ever seem to have a good reason why they don't trust them.

Well, then, people of the UK in your case. I am not asking your opinion of Americans specifically, I am saying what your opinion is of people you meet in the course of your life. Do you find them so untrustworthy and so incompetent that you feel giving them the right to own a firearm would be irresponsible?

Why on earth would I trust the average person with a convenient tool for killing people?

Again, you talk of trust as if it is a single sliding scale. Is that really how you see it? You've never known someone that you would trust with a personal secret but you wouldn't lend money to them?

 

[TallBill]

The average person isn't a murderer.

 

[waggy]

The average person isn't a murderer.

in fact. a very very very small percent of gun owners (or the population) is.

 

[mikeymikec]

The average person isn't a murderer.

in fact. a very very very small percent of gun owners (or the population) is.

Great. So why do you suppose that gun crime is much higher in the US than in most developed countries?

Could it be that the average person having access to firearms is acting as an effective deterrent?

 

[TallBill]

Great. So why do you suppose that gun crime is much higher in the US than in most developed countries?

Could it be that the average person having access to firearms is acting as an effective deterrent?

Absolutely. Take ccws away and gun crime would skyrocket.

 

[mikeymikec]

Absolutely. Take ccws away and gun crime would skyrocket.

You ignored the first question.

 

[TallBill]

You ignored the first question.

OH BURN, YOU GOT ME!!!

The majority of murders are gang and drug related. To answer your question I'd have to answer differently for every geographical location that is "better"

 

[x-alki]

Let me try and understand you.

Suppose you are going to go down the street to the local McDonald's. You put on your shoes, jacket, and you also strap on your gun? Because it is such a necessary thing in case anything in the outside world is dangerous?

You say you don't live in fear but "I want to be prepared to protect myself". That implies you are afraid of something. Nobody walks down the street carrying a gun if they are not afraid of anything.

Like this guy?

http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1943/Clackamas-Mall-Shooter-Was-Confonted-By-Concealed-.html

 

[TallBill]

If you have a fire extinguisher in your house are you afraid of fire? Or being intelligent enough to have the proper tools to put a fire out?

 

[mikeymikec]

OH BURN, YOU GOT ME!!!

The majority of murders are gang and drug related. To answer your question I'd have to answer differently for every geographical location that is "better"

So, gun availability in the US has nothing to do with it?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Great. So why do you suppose that gun crime is much higher in the US than in most developed countries?

Could it be that the average person having access to firearms is acting as an effective deterrent?

Washington DC had a 25% decrease in violent crime, 16% decrease in sexual assaults, and 10% decrease in car thefts, 1 year after removing the bans on handgun ownership.

On the flipside, when Chicago implemented its gun ban, homicides increased 41% over a decade, compared to only 18% across the rest of the US. Likewise, short term studies for Chicago show gun crime falling after the repeal of the ban.

 

[TallBill]

Availability to criminals is why they need to be readily available to law abiding citizens.