General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is the function of a gun?
To kill something/someone. That's it.
There is no other use.
So, why in the world does one have a right to own something specifically designed for killing, taking life?
It's in a class of its own. There is no other product on the mass market that has the sole specific use to kill living beings.
Well, if you want to include rat poison, be my guest, but I doubt rat poison could be used to wipe out an entire classroom of persons.
Again, putting guns in a class of their own.
But, we do regulate rat poison, there are warnings all over rat poison bottles. But hell, let's allow EVERYONE the right to own a gun, and fight measures that keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be able to purchase one.
Maybe everyone ought to be able to purchase their own vile of anthrax 
. And don't hold anyone liable if the stuff accidentally spills and kills scores of people, especially the manufacturer of said anthrax.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hack89
(39,181 posts)In 35 years of gun ownership I have never hurt or killed a living thing. Your premise is cartoonish and wrong.
boston bean
(36,930 posts)Why do you need to be so proficient at hitting a target with a bullet fired at high velocity from a killing tool?
hack89
(39,181 posts)Then why should I? I see no reason to cater to your irrational fears. Yes, there are laws like UBCs that are needed. But I am not giving up a harmless sport just to "do something " .
boston bean
(36,930 posts)getting proficient in the use of the killing implement.
hack89
(39,181 posts)again, no threat to you.
If you are going to conflate all gun owners with mass murderers than you are bound to fail. I know you will still fill all moral and superior but you will still fail. Because the one thing gun control does not have is votes - you will get nowhere without the support of Democratic gun owners.
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)the mentally ill with mass murderers.
I don't own a gun. I have never owned a gun, but I have had a gun stuck in my ribs. The young gentleman pulled the hammer back and demanded the $11 I had in my pocket. If he coughed I would have been dead.
This happened in NYC where it is virtually impossible for anyone with less money than Donald Trump to obtain a handgun permit.
The young gentleman obtained a gun in spite of the Sullivan Law. When he was caught he was charged with a string of armed robberies, one in which he shot his victim. Luckily, the shop owner survived.
He got 3-5 and was out in 18 months.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)and more often than not the human is an African American?
Just sayin.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)IDPA, IPSC, NRA gallery, High Power, Olympic shooting, none of them use anything that looks like real human targets.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)among gun fanciers nowadays?
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)and they use targets that look like this:
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Is that because all the shooters are racist toters or because it's made of factory standard cardboard?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)Sanctioned competitive shooting events do not use human shaped targets. We use standard circular bullseye targets.
You don't have to make shit up.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)Clay birds are round and orange.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'm guessing you have a link to back up your claim?
I and my lovely wife have been to numerous shooting competitions as guests of friends, and I've NEVER seen any such thing.
Every shooting competition we've been to use this:
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)because it's been totally debunked.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)and more often than not the human is an African American?
Just sayin.
You mean like these? Yeah, they look African-American to me ...
http://www.americantargetcompany.com/IAFELI_QR_target.asp
http://www.americantargetcompany.com/ICE_QT_target.asp
http://www.americantargetcompany.com/AT_Q_target.asp
BTW, these are police training targets, not competition targets, which look like this ..
http://speedwelltargets.com/cart/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=925
... ot this:
http://www.pistoleer.com/shooting-targets/handgun/
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
boston bean
(36,930 posts)Did we not just have another mass shooting?
hack89
(39,181 posts)that we have cut our murder rate in half. That mass shootings are rare relative to the population and that my odds of being killed in one are infinitesimally small. That the odds of being killed during my daily commute are orders of magnitude higher.
I don't go living in fear of the unknown. I take the time to study the issues and put them in context.
Fear mongering, moral panic and smearing legal gun owners will get you nowhere.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)They represent a minuscule fraction of homicides. They simply don't factor into my personal security in the slightest.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)until their kids were filled full of lead from a psycho killer armed with an assault rifle and other various instruments of death.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Thus my prioritization.
Mass shootings cost the lives of about 500 or so people per year in the US...a small fraction of the c. 11,000 people murdered with guns. Mass shootings are horrific and they make big news...but so many more are killed (almost always with handguns, not "assault weapons"
in less newsworthy crimes. I have no problem making the latter a bigger priority.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Since crime is going down.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Why aren't you suggesting banning alcohol?
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)as evidenced by the freehand given to Republicans to prevent suspected Democrats from voting.
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)if voters had to jump through all the hoops that anti-gunners want to impose on gun owners every time we vote.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Getting a gun is a breeze in most of the states that have instituted draconian rules about voter ID.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)for your right wing talking point.
ileus
(15,396 posts)
handmade34
(24,017 posts)doesn't mean that guns were not created to kill
there are many examples of objects being used for something other than what they were created for
guns are created to kill and/or provide illusion of dominance
hack89
(39,181 posts)if you refuse to accept that the vast majority of gun owners have never shot anyone nor will they in the future than we have nothing to talk about.
Conflating legal gun owners with murderers may make you feel all moral and superior but it guarantees that you will ultimately fail.
kcr
(15,522 posts)They're addressing the problem of the sheer number of guns and how easy it is to get them. And the legal gun owners who thwart efforts to do anything about it may not be murderers but they sure contribute to the problem.
I have no problem with guns and gun owners existing. I have a problem with the politics and mass marketing of the NRA flooding guns and gun culture into our society and then using their political might in cahoots with Republicans to further weaken laws. I have a problem with the gun owners who buy that NRA marketing propaganda and think it's perfectly okay to ignore the body count because it has nothing to do with their actions and they continue to support the NRA and fight against gun control.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)There are firearms which were designed from the ground up to do nothing but punch holes in paper targets. They could kill someone...but it was most certainly not their intended purpose.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)The makers of all other products still face things like recalls when their products prove a danger to the public. Even if consumers aren't using their products as intended.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Hell, even spears.
Guns aren't necessary for target shooting
hack89
(39,181 posts)me giving up my sport of 35 years will not make anyone safer.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Since you can shoot targets with other weapons but won't.
That has nothing to do with me.
Its all about you and your gun.
hack89
(39,181 posts)if you are going to make it about me, tell me why me owning an AR-15 is a menace to public safety?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You can target shoot with other weapons.
If you can't or won't then it really is all about the guns and not about the sport.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that if I continue to own them then inevitably I will shoot someone? Is that the logic here? That the owner of the gun and how they use it is irrelevant?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You are purposefully choosing that weapon.
I'm not commenting on any other threat than the gun. You may be the proverbial "good guy with a gun". Doesn't matter - everyone who kills or maims someone was such a guy until they pulled that trigger. Since it's impossible to ascertain who those "good guys" are beforehand, that becomes irrelevant imo.
hack89
(39,181 posts)then I will continue to own guns. I have no intention of catering to your irrational fears.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You're choosing guns.
I don't have to "prove" any threat to myself about guns. The stats have been posted many, many times here and everywhere.
hack89
(39,181 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it's the person holding the firearm that determines in what manner it's used.
A firearm will just sit there and do absolutely nothing except collect dust until a human interacts with it.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'd laugh but that seems too macabre at the moment.
branford
(4,462 posts)It's not a substantive rebuttal, nor persuasive or convincing in any debate on firearm policy, to just raise the dreaded specter of the NRA.
Using the NRA boogeyman as an excuse for the myriad electoral and judicial failures of gun control is lazy, and explains why gun rights advocates, NRA and otherwise, have been so successful.
The fact is that firearms are indeed inanimate objects, with no agency of their own, and they do not make otherwise peaceful and law-abiding citizens into psychopaths or cause any crimes. Any policy that deals solely with a tool ignores the underlying pathology of violence in this country.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)of violence in this country, its a trite argument and when I see it used here on DU, I almost always assume the poster is too facile by half and not worth any attention.
YMMV.
beevul
(12,194 posts)And lumping suicides and homicides into the catchall 'gun violence' doesn't?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Facile by half.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)throw the NRA talking point meme.
That is so predictable.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)crazy and irresponsible humans picking those guns up. The availability is out of sight.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)interacting with firearms.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)or axe to target 'shoot'. I rather keep my gun for target shooting thank you.
lol and I will.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)Do you have security locks on the weapon(s) so if it it stolen it is rendered inoperable?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)After all they are dangerous also.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)after me for the red-dot.
hack89
(39,181 posts)one for my guns, one for my ammo. My home also has a security system. Why do you think the range is more secure?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm a competitive shooter (long range rifle competitions). My competition guns are big, heavy rifles with large scopes...completely unsuitable for street criminals (can't be concealed) and without the rate of fire to make them attractive to spree killers. While they could be used to harm a person - they are functionally equivalent to "sniper rifles - the chances of that ever happening are extremely remote. Thus, they're nobody's business but my own.
I do have two handguns for personal security. One can make a slightly better case for the potential to cause harm for those...but not much better. Like the vast majority of US gun owners, I have zero interest in shooting anyone who isn't trying to hurt me (and even then, it's nothing I'd be happy about having to do). I properly secure my firearms in a safe. I practice regularly with them to ensure I handle them safely and hit what I aim at. Again, my guns represent a microscopically small threat to anyone.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)its demonstrably false that there are only gun target shooting competitions.
And handguns are the weapon of choice for most killers. You own two.
So so for you, like hack, it really is about the guns.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That there are only gun target shooting competitions? I never made any such claim.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I don't buy that anymore.
Enough is enough.
Every gun owner is up for scrutiny now imo. Why a person owns them cannot simply go unremarked.
You, like hack and Recursion, appear to believe that your "sport" is somehow immune ftom critique because you "only" target shoot. Its not.
And as you've admitted, you also own guns purposefully to shoot others. That is a public threat and gets no pass on critique anymore either imo.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)What firearms we own is not anybody's business.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I sincerely hope that changes asap
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)with bringing down gun violence around the nation. Just because someone is out skeet shooting, does not mean they are contributing to the overall problem of gun violence. That sounds silly to me.
I understand BBs point, but is there proof getting rid of the sport has anything to do with the violence we see on the street? My guess is no, neither has anything to do with the other.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)gun violence in other nations because they took note that guns kill and are the problem.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and extended clips? Australia did it, but can we do it?
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I think your reply was supposed to be directed to riderinthestorm.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)What gives anyone the right to pass moral judgement on another person? This is what the whole gun rights- gun control issue has come down to. Womens rights is about people passing moral judgement on women. Hemp laws are about passing moral judgements on people's personal decisions. Witches were burned in Salem because of irrational fears and moral judgements.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Good lord.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That is to say, your statement was "nope, you can competitively target shoot with other weapons," doesn't address my assertion that my guns are only my own business, a completely different issue. No matter. Let's discuss your latest points.
"Every gun owner is up for scrutiny now..."
I have some big philosophical problems with "collective guilt," but as it happens, I do agree that American gun owners, as a group, need to be more responsible with their firearms. I know too many who fail to properly secure their firearms when not in use. That I know of so many is telling, given that as a quite-far-left person politically, a good-sized portion of my circle of friends don't own guns (although more of us are gun owners than I think many realize, particularly among women like me). Anyone who owns firearms should be taking reasonable steps to secure those weapons, and I support legal mandates to that effect.
"You...appear to believe that your 'sport' is somehow immune from critique because you 'only' target shoot."
Nothing is immune from critique. I loves me some First Amendment. However, only when such critiques have legitimate rigor do I feel any need to pay attention to them. Again, my competitive target shooting threatens no one. Someone may well express disdain for my sport (their perfect right), but that disdain carries no weight for me.
"...you also own guns purposefully to shoot others. That is a public threat..."
I disagree. The term "public threat" implies that the threat applies broadly, to the general public (or at least that with which I have contact). That is absolutely not the case. My defensive handguns are not a realistic threat to anyone not actively attempting to harm me. I am not a criminal, and while I'm not exactly overflowing with empathy, I am overwhelmingly unlikely to commit a spree killing (both statistically and as the result of the rather cold, analytical personality I've been blessed/cursed with).
I have no problem with having my decision to own defensive firearms critiqued...but it depends on the subject of teh critique. I think the public has the right to be concerned about how my weapons are stored, with how safely I handle them,with my competency (should I bring them into public spaces), etc. I support multiple gun regulation reforms along these lines, such as increased competency demonstrations for concealed carry permits, for example. As above concerning my sport, I also have no problem with people expressing disdain for my defensive handguns...but that disdain, when not based on tangible, demonstrable risk probability, is irrelevant to me.
branford
(4,462 posts)The simple fact is that among the 80-100+ million lawful gun owners in the USA, only a very tiny percentage ever engage in criminality, no less vile events like mass shootings. While shootings are a tragedy, the vast majority have identifiable characteristics and demographics (with mass shooting still extremely rare), and no matter the sensationalism of the news, you and the vast majority of our fellow citizens face no public threat.
Would you care to provide any actual data that suggests target shooters, professional or otherwise, are any more or less likely to engage in violent acts than other lawful gun owners?
People are not properly subject to additional individual scrutiny by the government for lawfully engaging in constitutionally protected activities. That's precisely why on this Democratic forum we are outraged when government agents sometimes surveil peaceful protesters. The law does not, and will not, change simple because you gave an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I don't have time to research that fact but I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum that's a true fact.
I can't remember any that had zero experience with a gun, can you?
Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that virtually zero percent of those same mass shooters spent an equal amount of time refining their target shooting with a bow and arrow.
Because it's not about the target shooting is it? It's about shooting with a gun. There's no getting around that fact. Even those who "only" target shoot admit that on this thread.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, tens of millions of other lawful gun owners do engage in target practice and other firearm sports and never engage in criminality or unjust violence against anyone else. It is not, nor has ever been claimed to be, a predictive factor in anything relevant.
Ironically, since we indeed do have a right to keep and bear arms, prudent policy would suggest that we want people to engage in training and practice with their firearm to help eliminate any accidents or unnecessary dangers while lawfully using them. For instance, while employed for lawful self-defense, a victim is more likely to stop and assailant and not present a danger to other innocents or property if they've practices with their firearms.
I also have absolutely no idea about the relevance of your constant references to bows and arrows. The use of other tools is not mutually exclusive with the use of firearms (and bows and arrows are totally impractical self-defense tools).
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)my point is that guns aren't necessary for the purposes gun owners like to say they own them for.
Target shooting? There are other weapons for that.
Self defense? Same
Guns were for a "well regulated militia".
The 2A can be re-examined in that light and new laws formulated about guns. I'm not willing to give anyone a pass - "target shooters", "competitive target shooters", "self defense"... All of it questioned.
My point on this thread was to start that conversation. You don't get a pass anymore because you're "just" a target shooter for example. That hobby doesn't outweigh the public good. You can do that hobby with other weapons. Take those guns out of circulation.
Own a gun for self defense? Not good enough anymore - use another weapon and take those guns out of circulation.
Assault weapons? Banned.
Etc etc.
Inch by inch.
I'm off for the rest of the day and I'm guessing this thread will be too large for me to load by this evening so I'm leaving you with the last word.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)Not nearly as effective as a gun. Not even close. Police don't use pepper spray to defend themselves; they use it to subdue uncooperative suspects. When there is an outright assault on the officer's person, the gun comes out.
The relative weakness of pepper spray as even a compliance weapon gave rise to the Taser. But again, Tasers aren't used defensively. When somebody wants to maim or kill you, there is really nothing like a gun.
Educate yourself.
--http://www.crimedoctor.com/self_defense_1.htm
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)Probably not. If you stretch the definition of "target shooting" to "ever fired a gun at a target at a range," then maybe, but not if target shooting is defined as "participating in an organized competition."
But I'll bet that 100% of them drank milk as children. I'll bet that they all watched television, too. Correlation is easy; causation is tough.
A better statistic might be how many target shooters go on to be mass killers. I'll bet it falls below a standard margin of error, meaning virtually none.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"Bow and arrows, crossbows, and hell, even spears were designed for the SOLE PURPOSE of ________."
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Thats what I immediately thought of.
Guns aren't necessary for that purpose even.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)better?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Will any of those things "obtain" a head of cabbage for me?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts) 
dumbcat
(2,160 posts)in warfare.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Did you really want to go there?
The killing capacity of guns is unparalleled and you do more harm to the pro-gun arguments by reminding us of that at this particular point in the discussion.
I guess I should say "carry on governor"...
dumbcat
(2,160 posts)When energy weapons are fielded and your "guns" will be like spears and arrows.
So what?
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)... changed dramatically with the advent of ...
... slings;
... flint points and blades;
... atl-atls;
... bows;
... metal points and blades;
... crossbows;
... guns;
... exploding projectiles;
... aircraft;
... nuclear weapons;
... chamical/biological weapons;
... and unmanned aircraft.
All of them up to and including guns were used in hunting as well as warfare, and it is difficult if not impossible to determine which activity they were first designed for. I would suggest that the early adopters wouldn't have thought the distinction meaningful in any way.
The killing capacity of post-gun weapons is far greater than that of guns, and is also indiscriminate, making such weapons useless for self-defense or hunting.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)The 99% may have had crude knives, but that was about it. So I am not sure what exactly your point is.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Why not target shoot with all four. Guns, Bows, crossbows, and muzzle loaders. All four can provide hours of fun for the family.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)if everything they do is for the express purpose of honing their killing skills with their killing machines?
I have not killed or hurt a living thing in 35 years of gun ownership and I am not an exception.
Sophomoric logic, moral panic and broadbrush smearing of gun owners may make you feel all moral and special but do you really think it is actually productive? Looks more to me that you simply enjoy fighting the cultural wars.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)a lifetime of target shooting means the purpose of my rifle is to punch little holes in pieces of paper. That is their only purpose to me.
This guns as magic talismans is weak sauce. It is the people that own them that are the issue. The demographics of gun violence are well know - that is where your focus should be. It is a smaller problem to solve and it prevents you from alienating the allies you will need to actually pass legislation.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)it will still not be a table
the purpose of a gun is to kill.
hack89
(39,181 posts)killers owning killing machines practicing to kill is the only context that you can imagine? Ok.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Thats where they want to take it. Remember, "they all have blood on their hands"?
That's the takeaway.
they are just saying we are practicing to murder and that is repugnant and should not be tolerated.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I do not hunt
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The nickname is because I spent 20 years in army air defense
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)He's posted his unit patch before and explained his screen name.
Hope that helps.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Unfortunately, you are now part of a suspect class imo.
I have no idea whose a "good guy" with a gun. Neither do you. Since nobody can know whose "bad" until they pull the trigger, I think it's fair to call that point irrelevant now.
So scrutinizing the guns and their usage is a viable alternative at this point.
You brought up your target shooting.
In the spirit of the OP, you are being challenged in why you need guns to target shoot.
Fact is, you don't.
That you will insist you do, means it's only about the guns for you and not the sport.
Therein lies the problem.
hack89
(39,181 posts)good luck with that strategy. When you are ready for a serious conversation, I will be waiting.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If the 99.9x percent are suspect in your eyes, due to the actions of .0x percent, then you are the problem.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...would be most dangerous if the round hit somebody in the eye.
But otherwise, most folks aren't really afraid of guns specifically and competently designed to tear thru paper.
It's the guns specifically designed to tear thru human flesh that most folks worry about.
hack89
(39,181 posts)considering how many Americans don't die of old age. My rifles are very very low on that list.
stone space
(6,498 posts)You have guns specifically designed for that task, right?
hack89
(39,181 posts)basic probability.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...specifically and competently designed and manufactured for tearing thru paper targets?
Hit somebody over the head with your paper target shooting gun?
I suppose that a paper target shooting gun might be every bit as dangerous as a lead pipe in the wrong hands.
hack89
(39,181 posts)but you are not. If you want to let irrational fear rule your life, it is not my problem. When you want to discuss actual solutions I will happy to talk with you.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)... that it's possible to kill someone with a single-shot .22 rifle that weighs more than ten pounds and and has a stock that is designed for shooting while seated at a shooting bench. But it's not what I'd choose if I wanted to kill someone -- which I don't.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)I put one through my foot when I was 8.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)dangerous things have to be treated seriously.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Apparently the danger of kids poking holes in themselves with sharpened aluminum was regarded as serious enough to wholly remove the item in question from the public market.
kids should not play with dangerous things. I know there are still many dangerous things out there like ATVs, swimming pools and trampolines but things are getting better.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)The function of a gun is to expel a projectile at a high rate of speed with accuracy... That's it... What happens beyond that is on the operator.
Secondly, assuming your defined purpose actually was correct, sometimes taking a life is appropriate or even beneficial in the defense of yourself or others in addition to the myriad of other reasons people use guns.
boston bean
(36,930 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)... stopping a threat to yourself or others is indeed a good thing.
boston bean
(36,930 posts)or would your statement apply to an unarmed person.
If neither had a gun? A gun is not an equalizer. It is a killing implement. One upsmanship.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Not as narrow as you are trying to make it...
branford
(4,462 posts)Centuries of self-defense jurisprudence, even in very liberal jurisdictions, makes this abundantly clear.
Moreover, a firearm is indeed one of the best tools for equalizing a lawful self-defense scenario, particularly when facing multiple assailants or if the victim is small, weak, elderly, frail, etc. When used by a potential victim, the fact that a firearm is a "killing implement" is a feature, not a bug, no matter how distasteful you might find it.
All the bluster about the purported purpose of firearms is totally irrelevant. Guns exist, cannot be un-inevented, over 300 million are in circulation in this country, they can and are used by tens of millions of Americans for legitimate and lawful activities such as hunting, sport and self-defense, and criminal and other violent miscreants do indeed use them illegally to threaten the innocent and law-abiding, to say nothing of the fact that they are a constitutionally protected item.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)In my case, having both attacker and victim unarmed almost certainly places me at an enormous disadvantage. Statistically, people who commit violent assaults are likely to be young(ish), reasonably fit males. I'm a rather small female: 5'3", 112lbs. I might be a match for someone like that if I were able to devote an absolutely enormous amount of time and effort into mastering an effective martial art. Even that's not certain, as the guy might have some training and/or experience fighting...which will negate that mastery (size/strength matters enormously in hand-to-hand).
Basically, without some effective form of mechanical advantage, I'm fucked. Firearms are the most effective form of mechanical advantage available to me (by some stretch).
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)They might die from that, although the odds are in their favor (about one in five non-suicide gunshot wounds are fatal). Moreover, it stands to reason that a good portion of self-defensive uses of firearms don't involve actually having to fire the weapon. I have no special insight into criminal psychology, but I doubt the majority would continue advancing on someone with a gun pointed at them.
spin
(17,493 posts)intends to seriously injure or kill him and has the capability to do so.
In such a situation and with adequate training a firearm is a very effective weapon for a person to use. There are other alternatives such as pepper to consider but all they have drawbacks.
Often people do use firearms for legitimate self defense and frequently the attacker chooses to run away. Nobody ends up injured or dead. Also an attacker can be shot multiple times but will survive if he receives medical attention. This is especially true when the firearm used is a handgun.
The use of firearms for legitimate self defense is a topic often ignored in the gun control debate. I would support banning and confiscating all firearms if they were only used to murder.
It is possible that I am here to type this to the fact that my mother had a firearm. She was walking home from work one night in the 1920s when a man who had been hiding behind some bushes rushed her. Fortunately she had a small caliber S&W Lady Smith revolver in her purse and was able to draw it. She fired two shots over her attacker's head. He ran. My mother was an excellent shot but had she shot the man, the bullets would have most likely not stopped him. Her revolver was not really an adequate self defense weapon.
I will agree that a firearm is a weapon and like a bow or a sword one of the prime uses of a weapon is to injure or kill another person. Firearms are also used for hunting or pest control.
Target shooting is an excellent sport and some firearms are designed primarily to punch holes in paper target or to destroy clay pigeons. Such firearms are still considered to be weapons.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The image of a Kindergartener in a pool of blood trumps propaganda in a random online forum typed in a company's cubicle or a basement.
The tipping point approacheth. Tick tick tick...
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Says more about your point of view than mine...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Actual published talking points.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm pretty good at it, too. If I could ride horses better I would try out for the pentathlon team (hell, I still may).
I don't own a gun, so I'm not exactly your audience here, but still. Saying guns are made "for killing" seems incredibly simplistic.
boston bean
(36,930 posts)to shoot at paper targets?
As far as I know, a lot of these mass murderers also said they liked target shoot and spent lots of time on the range. For practice, I assume.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm not sure if you're applying that criticism to guns in general or a subset of them.
boston bean
(36,930 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)
I'm trying to fully hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure if you are saying there are *some* guns that are OK to target shoot with an *other* guns that are just for killing, or if all guns are really just for killing.
boston bean
(36,930 posts)Shooting at a target is to get proficient at aiming the damned thing if needed to shoot a living being.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Thank you.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)... killers in training:
This has got to stop. Somebody call the IOC. Don't even get me started on the archery. And the javelin.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)It is mental illness....oh, I hear the cries that we shouldn't point this out....mental illness is the common thread...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Shhhhh
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts).....just say to yourself "mental illness" three times and *poof*! You're now free not to discuss our nation's problems with gun violence!
Because you know, you can't talk about both mental illness and the oversaturation of guns and gun culture in our society together! It's either one or the other, you see!
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)Because lately it seems after every high profile shooting, gun enthusiasts are always shouting how "It's not a gun problem, it's a mental illness problem." (Or I also heard recently, "It's not a gun problem, it's a sin problem."
So they create a zero-sum game and they ride just as long as the story remains at the top of the news cycle until they drop it cold and they could then give two shits about either mental illness or responsible gun control measures.
beevul
(12,194 posts)99.9x percent of those who own guns, do not commit gun violence.
99.9x percent of the guns in private hands are not involved in gun violence.
Obviously, death due to gun shot is a problem, but if it was a gun problem, the first two sentences above would not be true. Calling it a 'gun problem' is just picking a fight with those of us - the 99.9x percent - that didn't and wont commit gun violence.
Deal with the problem by first correctly identifying it, instead of picking a fight with the people whos help you need to fix it.
Ford F-150
(72 posts)That using 99.9% means that 300,000 people would be dead annually? Assuming there are 300,000,000 Americans in this nation...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 09:41 PM - Edit history (1)
in this case, he's saying that only 1/10 of 1% use their firearms illegally, which would add up to 30,000 people.
Ford F-150
(72 posts)A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that 37% of households had an adult who owned a gun — 24% said they owned a gun, and 13% said someone else in their household did.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/
So...
300,000,000 Americans
37% own guns
Equals 111,000,000 owners
Assuming that the 99.9% number is accurate, 111,110 owners use their guns illegally.
And if 99.9% of those were "spree" killers (111 of them) with an average of say 10 victims: 1,110 victims...
Hey what the hell, thats only .0000037 of the toal US population...no biggie...am I right?
beevul
(12,194 posts)We aren't debating the magnitude of the problem, we're debating the nature of the problem.
Ford F-150
(72 posts)There is no problem. IOW, I am good with my guns, go after the bad guys.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Bad guys aren't the problem?
with guns (and easy access to them) are the problem. But you already know that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I don't commit gun violence.
How come my guns are a problem?
Ford F-150
(72 posts)Unless you can answer that, then Beans point is right.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)Especially compared to other first world, highly developed nations.
But you're framing the issue as if because we're not living in a Somalia-like total chaotic situation, there's no gun problem in the US. And that's just not the case.
Just to illustrate, what I've heard on multiple occasions right here at the DU is that deaths from rifles such as AR-15s are not a big deal(and therefore the compulsion amongst gun enthusiasts to rush to the gun stores to buy AR-15s in the aftermath of a mass shooting is not in any way unhealthy or abnormal); that they represent just a small portion of the overall number of firearm deaths.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
Now, let's look at the FBI statistics for a moment. It indicates that in 2013 (the most recent available data set) of the 12,253 total homicides in the US and 8,454 total firearm related homicides in the US, 285 involved rifles. So, yeah, on the surface, rifle involved murders represent a fairly small percentage of overall homicides on an annual basis.
However, let's throw in some other numbers for a better perspective. Let's look at firearm homicide rates in recent years in other countries with much stricter gun control measures.
In Canada, in 2012 there were 178 firearm related homicides in the entire country:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11882-eng.htm#a4
In Great Britain, in the 2011-12 reporting period, there were 39 firearm related homicides in the entire country:
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
In Japan, in 2008, there were 11 total fire arm related homicides in the entire country:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/
Australia had 40 gun related homicides total in 2012:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
In 2012, Germany had 61 total firearm related homicides:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany
And in 2012, France had 140 total firearm related homicides:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france
(Adjusting for population, all of these countries had a much lower per capita firearm homicide rate as well.)
So consider this for a moment. The 285 rifle related homicides in 2013--which you folks claim is a statistical non-figure--dwarfs the annual gun related homicide rate for all guns in these other countries in recent years.
So yeah, we definitely do have a problem.
And you don't even have to enact measures as strict as those countries to likely see a noticeable drop in gun related homicides. But you folks don't even want to even think about that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You are framing the issue as if the only measure of the problem is the magnitude of the problem, and using it to try and define the nature of the problem as something it isn't, in an effort to paint a picture where your desired course of action is seen as the only solution. Every time you or one of your anti-gun colleagues compares the US to another nation, saying "well so and so nation did x..." that's what you're doing, and lets be plain: Everyone on both sides knows that.
To determine if its a gun problem, you have to look at what people are doing with the guns, and not doing with guns, rather than just the horrific events you guys historically focus on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
99.9x percent of those who own guns in America do not commit gun violence with them.
99.9x percent of guns in private hands in America are not used to commit gun violence.
Those are both facts, and I'd be happy to show you the math that proves it if need be.
What those facts mean, is that its quite clearly NOT a gun problem.
There is simply nothing to discuss with anyone that wont see that (Nobody alive can't see it).
On edit:
Somalia would be a far less violent place if 99.9 percent of Somali people and 99.9 percent of the guns they possess were not used violently.
Agree or disagree?
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)And waving off the actual gun related homicide statistics in a "shit happens" fashion (putting you squarely in line with the position of Jeb Bush and Donald Trump), that these numbers are as good as it will get in a first-world, highly developed, democratic country.
Except you can clearly see that other first-world, highly developed, democratic countries such as the ones I mentioned have a much, much better numbers in terms of both per capita rate and raw figures.
So you're willing to settle for mediocrity and call it greatness, and shoo off any of those pesky facts that prove otherwise.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I proved that the problem isn't guns. The numbers don't just go away because you want them to. If less than a tenth of a percent of people are misusing a thing, the problem isn't the 'thing', its the misusers.
Now you're falsely attributing to me, a sentiment I did not express. Shame on you.
You're doing it again. Its like listening to someone argue that jacking up a car fixes a punctured tire, because they saw someone elses tire get less flat when the car was jacked up. The issue isn't that the tire is flat, the issue is that the tire has a puncture and can not hold air.
The issue in America isn't the guns. Its gun misuse. Plain and simple.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)You're saying that it's not a gun problem, but a "gun misuse" problem, but if the "gun misuse" problem is directly attributable to situations where way too many people are in situations where they could or do misuse their guns, what exactly is the difference? What is a "gun misuse" problem but for the gun? Why does this misuse problem exist here but apparently not in places like Canada or the UK?
Your problem, down to your very DU signature line, is that you're still subscribing to the whole "good guy with a gun" myth, that someone who acquires their guns legally and with legitimate intentions will never, ever misuse it for criminal or nefarious purposes. In fact, however, there are many examples to the contrary. A gun is a killing machine, designed with that as a primary purpose. So killing a person, even when justified, certainly falls within its intended use. The problem being is, what's justified and what's not justified has become so subjective, arbitrary and nebulous that whether the gun is being used or misused becomes a matter seemingly determined by the person using it. It's a lot more power and weight that most people are used to handling, and as a result you see the result. Throw in a society like the US that currently has a very favorable, permissive attitude towards guns, and you're going to proportionally see a lot more bloodshed.
Even if you're willing to write it off as a freak "shit happens" occurrence. Which even though you've expressly denied such an attitude, your entire "99.9%" position screams it for you.
beevul
(12,194 posts)But its NOT attributable to situations where way too many people are in situations where they could or do misuse their guns. The percentages prove that clearly.
That's a viewpoint that ignores the majority that do not and will not commit gun violence. Those people matter too.
What you're doing here, is taking one potential avenue of addressing gun violence, and using it as an example in an attempt to create the illusion that it is the only avenue.
It is not.
No. What I'm doing, is looking at the ENTIRE picture, rather than trying to imply that the 99.9 percent do not exist and therefore do not matter. The 99.9 percent of gun owners that do not commit gun violence are no myth. Your examples, every last one of them, are contained in that .1 percent.
The 99.9 percent prove year after year that they can handle it. Its the .1 percent that can't.
And now you're attributing to me, an attitude I did not express. I have said I attribute the problem to the people that misuse guns. And why shouldn't I? If they didn't misuse them, there wouldn't be any gun violence at all, would there?
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)....without respect to the fact that someone wearing a white hat today might be wearing a black hat tomorrow.
You're failing to recognize this as a much more complex issue than you think it to be.
It's classic No True Scotsman. You want to marginalize away the thousands of incidents every year where guns are in your opinion "misused" and create a mythical situation where you and other seemingly law abiding gun owners would never use their guns for criminal purposes. You're not considering the fact that in numerous instances there are people who buy their guns for seemingly legal intentions but whose motivations change, either gradually over time or suddenly.
(And furthermore, a gun's use being to shoot bullets into a target--whether it be paper, animal or human--how exactly is someone shooting someone in any circumstance a "misuse" of the gun, justifiably or criminally? In those situations, the person has used the gun for the exact purpose it was created. There's no actual "misuse" of the gun to speak of. Misuse would be using a gun to nail in a fence post or something along the lines.)
And you keep on repeating the 99.9% line without respect to the fact that our firearm homicide rate is much higher than our comparable peers. You can write it away as only being 0.1% of gun owners, but it doesn't change the very real numbers. If you don't see that as a problem, you're either lying to yourself or painfully obtuse.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No, I'm not. Its a fact that 99.9 percent of gun owners do not commit gun violence. Theres no myth about it. If you can't agree on that then theres nothing to talk about.
That's dreadfully simple: use outside lawful purposes is misuse.
We have no comparable peers in this regard. We have only you telling everyone that we need to become comparable and that there is only one way to become comparable.
I understand the numbers just fine. I also understand that the numbers do not indicate a gun problem. If they did, it wouldn't be limited to a tenth of a percent of gun owners committing gun violence.
The numbers indicate a gun misuse problem by a tiny 'percent of a percent' minority.
You can not define the nature of the problem simply by examining only the magnitude of the problem out of context.
Yet this is precisely what you continue to to assert should be done.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)Listen, the good news is, I'm not going to dispute with you the fact that the large majority of gun owners will not use their guns for a criminal purpose. You've made that clear, and guess what? I agree.
However, you can't just minimalize the significance of what happens in the minority of instances.
I'll illustrate. I'm a Catholic. An unabashed, practicing, once-a-week mass attending Catholic. That said, I don't think the Church is without its flaws. Now, I know the vast majority of priests in the Catholic Church are good men through and through who would never conceive of harming or abusing a child. However, as we all know, there was a small minority of priests who were doing just that, and by not adequately responding to those issues, the Church's response (or lack thereof) was terrible. That's a real problem, and it needed to have been addressed.
Another example: the police. We need the police in society, and I'm glad they're there to protect the community. And the vast majority of police, in my opinion, are good, honest, law abiding public servants. However, that doesn't mean I can ignore those instances where police have abused their authority, or unjustifiably used force, or lied or coerced confessions or any number of scandalous deeds. That's a real problem too.
As much as one might want to sweep abusive priests or rogue cops under the rug because it doesn't reflect the majority of people in those professions, you just can't. Because even if the problem seems small and isolated compared to the majority, to the people immediately affected by the problem--the abused, the mistreated, the dead--it's a huge issue.
And here's another thing. While the vast majority of gun owners might not use their guns for criminal means, I would venture to say a significant majority of those people also don't actually need their guns. They're not hunters or Olympic sport shooters. They live in safe, low crime neighborhood. Chances are, they'd likely get by in life just fine without their guns. And they'd be the first to admit to you that they don't actually "need" their gun; they simply "want" their gun or view it as a protected right that would otherwise go to waste. And that's all fine and good until someone--who you'd call the "white hat"--crosses the line and for whatever reason uses that gun for an illegal purpose, and causes real harm upon another person. And the tragedy there is that it all came from something they wanted but did not need.
Why you feel the need we can't or shouldn't be comparable with countries with far lower rates of gun violence is beyond me, honestly.
Finally, regarding the supposed "misuse" of guns. It's tough to have to admit, but if someone uses a gun in the manner it was designed to be used, it's not "misuse" regardless of the matter of legality. When Adam Lanza shot 27 people (including 20 children) with his AR-15, he was using it exactly in the manner it had been created. He wanted to shoot those people, and the gun he used let him do it. As utterly horrific as it was, there was no accident or misuse there.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Only when one disagrees with the figures in question. If they favored your viewpoint, I'm sure you'd think differently. Besides that and maybe more importantly, it reflects reality. The law has already drawn a line. A tiny percent of a percent are on one side of the line committing gun violence, and the other 99.9 percent are on the other side of the line not committing gun violence.
That is reality, and you don't just go around ignoring it if you genuinely want to understand the nature of a thing.
I wasn't attempting to even discuss them. The 'significance' of gun violence is a separate discussion from the nature of gun violence. I am trying to have a discussion about the nature of gun violence, and you keep trying to make it about the magnitude of gun violence.
First, Your little drama can be and is played out a hundred ways from sunday with all sorts of things legal and not, and in some cases, with far more carnage than that of the .1 percent that commit gun violence. I assume you needn't be given examples.
Beyond that, its a free society, where "what people need" is concerned, and quite simply none of your business. As it should be.
There you go again, attributing to me a position I neither expressed nor hold.
I do not object to the goal of being comparable with countries with far lower rates of gun violence. Its a laudable goal.
I simply disagree with the methods most often suggested to attain it. There are certain avenues that are rightfully closed, and will stay closed.
Bullshit. Pure unadulterated Bullshit. Civilian legal firearms are sold only for lawful purposes. Anything outside lawful purposes is by definition misuse.
Yeah lol. Minus the whole "for lawful use" part that you'd like to ignore is a fact.
It was misuse. I think you'd have a hard time finding any AR designer past or present that stated that killing kids was its intended purpose as opposed to killing kids being misuse.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)We can agree on the numbers you provided. We have agreed on the numbers you provided.
Your problem is, you're refusing to translate your game of percentages into raw numbers affecting real lives. Raw numbers which, when placed up against countries of similar stature, are staggeringly higher than everyone else.
You say you'd want to have the numbers that Canada or the UK or Australia or Germany has, but none of the pesky policies that have helped achieved those numbers. The problem with your side--the gun enthusiasts--is that you're not offering any real solutions. You're only offering sound bites. Yada yada yada mental illness is the problem, not guns. Yada yada yada 99.9% of gun owners. Yada yada yada good guys with guns.
Guess what? Canada/the UK/Australia/Germany didn't achieve those numbers with sound bites. Nor did they achieve those numbers with concealed carry or writing the problem off as, "Well, 99.9% of gun owners don't use their guns for illegal purposes, so really it's not a gun problem."
At a certain point, it's going to be put up or shut up for you folks.
And as for the whole "want vs. need" debate, that's entirely contingent on the item being sold. People might want a Halloween Whopper for the sole purpose of whether or not it turns your poop green (spoiler alert: it really does!) and not really need it. Problem is with guns, you're dealing with something a little more serious than just green poop. So brushing it off as "None of your business" is pure laziness and shortsightedness.
And again, I think there's a distinction between "illegal use" and "misuse". AR-15 designers (as well as designers of other guns) designed that gun to rapidly and effectively shoot its bullets into the intended targets, which includes--like it or not--human beings for the purpose of injuring or killing that human being. It's a grim reality of what a gun is.
And whether you're using a gun to shoot at the people shooting at you in a battlefield, or whether your using it to carry out a massacre of innocent people, you are using that gun for an intended purpose. The only difference between the situations is a legal one, but not of misuse. "Misuse" trivializes the dark reality of what guns are and what guns do and what guns are designed to do.
A car being used to intentionally run down someone and kill them is an example of "misuse" of that item. A gun being used to intentionally shoot someone is not "misuse", it's illegal use.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Raw numbers don't define the problem. They define the the extent of the problem.
You keep wanting to steer this discussion into focusing only on the extent of the problem, and you want to just ignore everything else. You're essentially trying to load the question, so it suits the answer you already have in your line of argument.
Sorry, not buying it.
Beyond that, if your problem is me not expressing it in raw numbers, then here it is in raw (estimated) numbers:
Some 30is thousand people misuse guns every year resulting in gun violence. Thats 30,000
Some 100ish million people own guns and do not. Thats 100,000,000.
Either way you express it, the super super super majority of gun owners do not commit gun violence.
Neither are you guys offering any real solutions. You guys spend all your time offering up solutions which you know wont fly, solutions which you know wont work, and solutions which you know will just piss off the majority who are not the problem, and most of the things I see proposed are a combination of two or more of those.
And its not like you don't have your own soundbites. Yadda adda yadda 30 thousand deaths...yadda yadda yadda assault weapons...yadda yadda yadda registration...Yadda yadda yadda blood on all your hands...
(we have a thread in the gun forum nearly 400 replies long of some of the most noteworthy examples)
We on the other hand, spend most of our time and effort defending against the certain to fail, misguided, short sighted, and routinely outlandish things some of you guys propose.
Guess what? Canada/the UK/Australia/Germany didn't achieve those numbers with sound bites. Nor did they achieve those numbers with concealed carry or writing the problem off as, "Well, 99.9% of gun owners don't use their guns for illegal purposes, so really it's not a gun problem."
Thats all fine and good, but you aren't going to have all the options available to you to that those nations did. Thats just reality.
Reality check:
We - the 99 percent that do not commit gun violence - do not need the anti-gun folks.
You anti-gun folks NEED us.
Nope. Thats a matter of principle. Whether I or anyone else does or does not 'need' any given thing, gun or otherwise, is none of your damn business. Period. Thats not open for debate or discussion, or negotiable, as far as I'm concerned.
Fucking DUH. Of course you do! It serves your arguments and your intentions where guns are concerned, to see one, even where none reasonably exists. I always get a kick out of the 'rapidly' argument you guys make when talking about simple repeating firearms. Thats a function of the user, not the weapon, unlike with automatic weapons.
Yes, and ignoring 'misuse' allows one to project and proceed from a pretense that 100ish million American voters that do not commit gun violence, do not exist or matter or have any place in the debate.
Well' I'm here to tell you: Yes we do on all three counts.
No. Its only illegal if its not a legit self defense shooting, but I'd be happy to call it 'misuse resulting in gun violence' if that makes you happy.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)The problem is guns and what happens when there are far more guns in this country than in any other first world, developed democracy.
You want to write off 30,000 incidents as a statistical non-figure but other countries have 1/100th of that number. Even when adjusted on a per capita basis, the rate is still 6-7 times over other countries in those instances.
You can try to frame into your 99.9% populist terms, but the numbers don't lie, that we do have a gun problem in this country. Far worse than any other country similarly situated to us. You can play No True Scotsman, you can swear up and down, "But I'm a good guy with a gun!", you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream "La la la la". It doesn't change the actual figures no matter how you frame the debate.
And you claim a lack of "real solutions" from gun control proponents. Funny thing, though. After Sandy Hook, a bill was introduced. Manchin Toomey. It did not confiscate all guns in this country. It did not repeal the Second Amendment. It did not force a national registry of guns. By all indications, it was a common sense background check bill that seemed to be in line with popular opinion in this country.
Manchin Toomey failed.
Now, if you are glad that Manchin Toomey failed, your whole "I only want moderate, 'common sense' gun control" argument gets thrown out the window. If you supported Manchin Toomey and were disappointed it failed, then the blame rests not on us, but on the gun-enthusiast community. Because they sank it, not us.
But apparently by your own statement:
We on the other hand, spend most of our time and effort defending against the certain to fail, misguided, short sighted, and routinely outlandish things some of you guys propose.
You're not so much interested in supporting moderate, common sense gun control measures as you are labeling any and all gun control measures as "certain to fail, misguided, short sighted, and routinely outlandish" and investing heavily for their defeat. You guys lost whatever moral high ground you claimed to hold when Manchin Toomey failed. I'm sorry.
And then there's this vague statement:
You anti-gun folks NEED us.
Exactly what do we "need" you for? Apparently we "need" you for something, but you don't really explain what we "need" you for. If we needed you to support a moderate, common sense measure like Manchin Toomey, guess what? You failed us. You're completely useless.
Now I love the little segue into gun porn regarding automatic weapons vs. semi-automatic weapons when I never even suggested confusing one for the other. Guess what--guns can kill people rapidly and efficiently. Even non-automatic ones. That's what they are designed in good part to do. That's what I've been saying all along, and you refuse to concede that obvious point.
You've done all sorts of rhetorical contortions and gymnastics regarding "misuse" but honestly, think about it. Soldiers on the battlefield, what are they given as weapons? Naturally, guns. They are given something they know has an intended use of killing the enemy. They aren't given cars to mow down their opponents. They aren't given something that could potentially kill but wasn't designed for their purpose. No, they are given actual killing machines--guns (plus bombs and other specifically designed weaponry that are less available or attainable in the civilian world).
You might think I'm being petty on calling you out on your use of the word "misuse", but it really goes to the heart of your defect in your entire argument.
Regardless of whether the killing is justified or not, guns are killing machines.
beevul
(12,194 posts)That's your opinion, in spite of facts which show otherwise. Remove the tiny handful of misusers that commit gun violence and leave the 300 million guns, and all the sudden theres no gun violence.'
That proves it.
More focusing on the extent of the problem, and ignoring the nature of the problem. Color me shocked.
Again, that's your opinion. Facts show otherwise. I've framed it both in percentages and in raw numbers in this subthread.
Either way its framed, shows that it is not a gun problem.
Yes, and attached to it, was one of those solutions which you know wont fly, one which you know wont work, and one which just aggravates people - an assault weapon ban.
Oh, I don't know about that. I don't think personally, that the federal government has any business regulating a purely intrastate transaction, seing as they were never granted that authority. I think if you want to go state by state and try to enact UBC at the state level go right ahead. However, should any hypothetical bill have a registration component that's a deal breaker. If you want to blame someone, blame the bunch that attached an AWB to your favored bill.
Yeah, and you guys lost any high ground you had and might ever have, when you decided to make the issue about the average gun owner who does not and will not commit gun violence, instead of the .1 percent of misusers responsible for 100 percent of gun violence.
To get any legislation passed. Were you under the impression that you could do it without us?
Newsflash: You can't and you wont. If you think otherwise, what are you here complaining about then huh?
Oh yes you did Tommy. Don't play dumb, it doesn't suit you. You said:
What you said right there, suggests confusing them, deliberately. The designers of the AR designed it to shoot bullets at a rate decided by the user. Just like they designed it to fire at a target decided by the user.
Only automatic weapons are explicitly designed to fire rounds at a high rate, one which is NOT decided by the user, and is in fact decided by the design of the weapon.
When soldiers on the battlefield are routinely armed with civilian legal firearms, you might get close to having some sort of point. But since you haven't done that, and it will never happen...that dog just isn't going to hunt.
I don't think you're being petty. I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Theres no defect in my argument.
The 99.9 percent that do not commit gun violence have a voice in this, no matter how much you don't like it.
And yet 99.9 percent of people that own them do not kill anyone or commit gun violence. That makes your statement whether true or false, irrelevant.
Look Tommy. We exist. We're here and we're not going away. We have a voice in this debate.
If I were you I'd get used to it.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)Recent history is replete with people who buy guns legally, and then use them for illegal purposes later down the road.
James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Christopher Harper Mercer.....these people were all at one point part of your 99.9% until they weren't. It's an illusory number predicated not on actual people, but instead on negative consequences to reinforce the concept of the majority.
The fact of the matter is that anyone who owns a gun--no matter how seemingly well-balanced, and well-intentioned--could potentially either snap or deteriorate down the road and use that gun for illegal purposes. That includes you. If I actually owned a gun, that would include me as well. Chances are that won't actually happen, but you can't simply automatically anoint yourself one of the good guys based wholly on speculative facts.
Perhaps by pointing out the high number of gun related homicides in the US compared to other similarly situated countries is indeed a matter of the extent of the problem. You keep on talking about the nature of the problem, but you haven't really identified what it is. Clearly there has to be a cause to the effect. If I were to say what the nature of the problem is, I would probably say it's that way too many people out in this country there think they "need" a gun or guns when really they don't. And because what they claim they "need" is by its very nature and design a deadly weapon, the potential for illicit use is out there. And the more guns out there, the increased likelihood that guns will be used for illegal means. All because we've conditioned ourselves as a country to claim that there's a huge "need" for gun based solely on unrecognized fears, status, or simply because people are told they ought to because it is their right. And the legal aspect in terms of gun restrictions is part of the solution, but also there needs to be a changing in the zeitgeist as well. But the gun enthusiast crowd has done nothing but add fuel to the fire.
Your stumbling over yourself as to why Manchin-Toomey was defeated is humorous. First, you claim that it was an assault weapons ban attached to it. If in fact that was the case, clearly you aren't familiar with the legislative process. Riders and amendments on bills get stripped all the time. There's the committee process. You can't be serious to claim that this was the reason for the bill's defeat, can you?
But then you go on and say that you didn't agree with the bill anyways because you think it deals with matters that ought to be handled by the state instead. (Because we all know that Congress can't handle matters of interstate commerce, and guns, like it or not, are sold nationwide, right?) So this is classic goal post shifting. There's always an excuse for you folk. Which is pretty sad because if you actually know anything about Manchin Toomey it attempted to bend over backwards to appease you guys in some of its provisions, but it still was not enough. So please don't insult our intelligence when you claim we need you, if you aren't actually going to do anything to work to solve the problem, and instead will do nothing but offer excuse after excuse after excuse why not to step in.
Again, you attempt to put words in my mouth regarding the very true (and perhaps inconvenient) fact that a gun--whether it be automatic, semi-automatic, or manually loading--can be and has been to rapidly and efficiently kill another person. They provide distinct advantages over just about any other method of killing. You don't have to be at arms length like you do a knife or strangling a person, they provide a much deeper, higher velocity impact and are far less skill-contingent than a bow and arrow, and don't require a time consuming assembly with questionable follow-through like an explosive.
You throw out a red herring regarding battlefield weapons when the simple fact is that since the invention of the gun, they quickly became the favored weapon of the infantry level grunt soldiers who made up the majority of military. Again, because they kill more efficiently and rapidly than just about any other weapon. It was true during the Revolutionary War, during the Civil War, and true today.
You've attempted to create yourself a moral high ground with the whole "99.9%" nonsense, but in fact it's on a mountain of bullshit. You and all other gun owners will never know if you actually made it into that 99.9% until you're dead and buried. That's a fact. What happens up to that point is everything.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes, and history is 10,000 times (I actually did the math) more replete with people who own guns and don't commit gun violence. But the 99.9 percent don't matter, don't exist and don't have any place in the discussion, as far as you're concerned, right?
And you would prefer a number predicated strictly on the number of dead. As if 100+ million people don't matter.
Like I said, we aren't going away.
No, I haven't, but I've identified what it isn't. A gun problem. If it WERE a gun problem, you'd have far far more then ten thousand homicides annually in this nation of 100+ million gun owners in possession of 300+ million guns, that's a fact.
Of course that's the tack you'll take. You hate guns. You are incapable of looking at the issue objectively. The very idea of looking at the issue objectively sickens you, I'd guess.
I'm pretty sure I've read about a hundred times that an AWB WAS attached. I'd be willing to hear your take however.
INTRA state commerce bud. Transactions between private citizens within the same state. Since the federal government already regulates interstate commerce where firearms are concerned, they'd have a hard time making the argument that intrastate commerce is also covered by the interstate commerce clause.
Put it another way, you can't get anything done with out us. If you can, why are you bothering to have a discussion?
Oh no you don't. You're moving the goalposts. I didn't try to put any words in your mouth, I just disproved what you actually said, which was this:
You were wrong. Don't blame me for it.
No Tommy. The 99.9 percent have ALWAYS HAD the moral high ground. I'm just done being browbeaten into not claiming it by people that hate guns.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)The other 50% is a GUN in the hands of someone who should not have it.
In the case of mass shootings it is the gun.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)(That's another pentathlon sport.) That's kind of practice killing too.
Guns both take and save lives.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)lovers defending to the death anything that criticizes their Precious to be hilarious.
Folks in love with weapons have got a problem, and the problem is them loving a weapon.
You OP has hit a nerve with them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
I interpret the reactions a lot differently than you.
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)
CTyankee
(68,197 posts)holding up stores and killing rival gang member with their weapons! It's a menace, I tell ya!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I shoot at metal targets at long ranges (200-500 yd)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_silhouette_shooting
treestar
(82,383 posts)Training for use of the gun to kill in case you have to.
IMO the self defense argument makes sense, but then, in reality, the odds of actually saving yourself with a gun is pretty low, low enough not to have the gun around to cause accidents (or for people to cause accidents with).
Target shooting for fun seems like parachute jumping to me - the risks not worth the fun. Especially with guns laying around - the potential for accidents or the wrong person making off with it.
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)between my having to track a deer or not.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I agree with leaving hunters to their thing. It never seems to be one of them that starts a mass shooting.
branford
(4,462 posts)no one is suggesting that you engage in any firearm sports or jump out of perfectly good airplanes.
I know that I too don't engage in either activity, but that doesn't mean I would deny it to others.
The statistical risks of accidents or shootings for the vast majority of Americans is still statistically minimal, no matter the sensationalism of the news.
Although instances of self-defense are low, with or without a firearm, that does not mean Americans lost the right to self-defense or one of the best protective tools available (and protected by the Constitution).
I would also note that defensive firearms use might not be as rare as you suggest, as per the NRC study sponsored by the CDC,
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I remember the first time I shot one and I thought "That's it?" You put holes in things with it?
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)Let's lock and load!
bemildred
(90,061 posts)"That center hole is not right, do it over."
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)propel a projectile under pressure down a hollow steel tube, how it's used is up to the person using it.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I find it difficult to accept the argument that my target shooting is "practice killing," since I don't hunt, am not a professional sniper (police or military), and got into competitive shooting precisely because I gave up hunting at 13 years old but still loved the challenge of precise shooting.
My regular practice with my handguns might well be termed "practice killing," despite the likelihood that an assailant would survive being shot (modern trauma medicine is amazing stuff). I make no apologies for that.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)See: The Klan's robes and open carry.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Abandoning logic and using "the exception disproves the rule" arguments seems to be popular among those who can't find a truly credible way to defend the demand for unfettered access to weapons designed to kill.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Who is fighting what?
treestar
(82,383 posts)I've been reading that there is little likelihood of getting killed in a mass shooting. But then there is little likelihood of being the potential victim of a rapist, home invader, etc., and even less that having the gun will prevent the crime in question - that the person will have it at the right time, use it the right way, not have the criminal take it from them, etc. So thus there are more media stories of mass shootings than there are of cases where the person successfully used a gun in self defense. Balance that with the chance there will be an accident with the gun and you don't have much of a balance.
It works out in Australia and Canada - none of the predicted disasters occurred and gun violence is way down.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The question becomes: If a person legitimately uses a gun to defend themselves but runs afoul of a gun control law, i.e. registration, permitting etc. what should be the penalty? If a stalker invaded a woman's home and she shot him with an unregistered gun how long should we, as a society, send her to prison?
I say she shouldn't serve a single minute of jail time. In fact, once the police conclude their investigation they should return her property and politely excuse themselves from her life.
Gun laws should not criminalize lawful behavior. They can/should be used to aggravate already unlawful behavior.
But even then gun laws will not stop annihilationist killers of the sort that sparked the current debate. They are immune to consequence by virtue of the fact they anticipate their own deaths in their actions. We can hope to intercept and treat them when they reveal their intentions, as they so often tend to do or we can stop them once they go into action but they are beyond prevention by criminal law.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)is just in the last 36 hours.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)yours will be a denuded society worse than the one you professor is intolerable now.
DetlefK
(16,670 posts)Other countries have similar levels of gun-ownership as the US and way, way less gun-violence. It's simply a matter of attitude and culture, what a gun means to you, how you are willing to use it, and in the very end, how you are willing to regulate it.
Switzerland has a gun-policy and gun-culture very close to how the 2nd Amendment was originally intended: They have militias as their army and guns are intended for defending the country. It's unpatriotic to use them in selfish ways.
EDIT: Switzerland has none of this "I-need-guns-to-fight-my-own-government"-crap.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)At least no comparable country. Coincidence?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)..the person I replied to made this false statement, "Other countries have similar levels of gun-ownership as the US"..
EX500rider
(12,581 posts)"At least no comparable country."
Comparable how, population?
The US is below both the median and average for homicides by countries worldwide.
world wide wally
(21,836 posts)Why are so many people out to get you anyway?
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)world wide wally
(21,836 posts)And how many guns do you have?
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)is any of your business, but just check the FBI stats on burglaries and home invasions and tell me they are a nonexistent problem.
I'll tell you this though, even though I have a CCL I do not carry in public.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)So why do you have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers?
ileus
(15,396 posts)
KG
(28,795 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)The history of civilizations is a good place to start....pretending we have beat history is ridiculously short sighted...
Javaman
(65,705 posts)The direct ancestor of the firearm is the fire lance, a black-powder–filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower (not to be confused with the Byzantine flamethrower); shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel so that it would fly out together with the flames.[3][4] The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-12th century silk banner from Dunhuang.[5] The De'an Shoucheng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm
history, as you say, is your friend.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Javaman
(65,705 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)
you say, "history is your friend"
I give you history and you dismiss it with a ridiculous reply.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)And I'm saying this objectively and without judgment:
Target shooting, as benign as it seems, is essentially simulated killing. You're replacing human or animal flesh with a paper target, but still, you're seeking the most optimal, precision shot from a far away distance.
Again, I'm not casting asparagus on the act of target shooting in and of itself. People who are armed for a living, such as military and police (and despite the recent rash of unjustified police shootings, I still believe in the need for police to be armed) need target shooting. Hunters wishing to remain proficient are probably going to want to target shoot for practice as well.
But honestly the idea that one wants is willing to buy a gun and go target shooting just for the hell of it, I just don't get. At a certain point there, a gun ceases being viewed as a weapon and instead is considered a cool toy instead. And that's where we begin to have the breakdown with the gun culture.
People who buy guns need to realize that what they are buying is specifically designed to take a life and that what they are buying could in fact do what it was intended to do. It shouldn't be purchased willy-nilly just because they "want" one or they "need it because the Constitution says so."
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)"Where the air smelled like snakes we'd shoot with our pistols, but empty pop bottles was all we would kill."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And arrows, what is their sole purpose?
Paladin
(32,354 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Seems the op is not quite true
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)the AR-15, specifically designed to kill people quickly and efficiently.
Isn't it wonderful that our government is so accommodating to all the psycho killers out there by allowing unlimited access to these weapons of mass murder?
Why any mental case, racist hater or social freak/reject can stumble in off the street and buy the best killing machine made for cash money easier than getting a damn drivers license anytime anywhere in insane America.
Just bring your CASH F***ING MONEY BABY, cause that's what its all about. Period.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)handguns mostly. I would not be surprised that in this latest murder spree, a lot of the murders were committed with a handgun. The one guy shot multiple times apparently with the AR lived due to the small rounds. Navy yard shooter was a shotgun, Fort hood was a pistol, Virginia tech were pistols. Even in Colorado the AR failed due to the rambo size magazine jamming.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The guy who killed Cecil the lion used a crossbow.
Didn't even need a gun to kill a fucking lion.
Bows and arrows work as well.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I choose to use a firearm, and during bow hunting season, a bow.
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)They couldn't even kill Predator with guns, they had to cover themselves with mud and confuse him.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)After being smushed by a big rock. They didn't even need the guns. Actually the guns made them a target. He didn't go after unarmed people.
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)what then?
geomon666
(7,519 posts)Considering he was bullet proof and all.
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)And winter is approaching. I'm safe.
hunter
(40,688 posts)Gun fetishes are a compulsive behavior like gambling; the gambler can't explain the compulsion to non-gamblers.
The gun manufacturers and traders prey on gun fetishists like the casinos prey on gamblers, like the alcohol manufactures prey on alcoholics. They make most of their profits from people with a problem, but they justify their market by pointing out that most people can walk away from a gun, a drink, or a bet without destroying their own lives or the lives of others.
Retreating from my initial anger about these mass shootings (but not the NRA "mental illness" diversions which will always make me furious!!!), I think the problem ought to be dealt with as we have dealt with drunk driving. As we recognize alcoholics have a problem with alcohol, we ought to recognize gun fetishists have a problem with guns. Drunk driving has gone from something that was once accepted as something that was no big deal, something that everyone occasionally got caught in, but now it's something you can lose your driving privileges over, even your automobiles.
I think we ought to treat gun fetishists the same way. Upon evidence of ANY foolish behavior with guns, including incidents where no one is injured (leaving guns in places where children can get them, shooting while drunk or drinking, etc..) ought to result in increasingly severe restrictions upon the gun fetishist's "right" to own arms.
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)or is this something you made up?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)trying to be cute
hunter
(40,688 posts)Some of them useful, most of them harmless, and some the reason I take strong prescription medicines with unpleasant side effects.
When I was young I used to obsessively run long distances, pretty carelessly too, taking a lot of tumbles, until my feet bled, etc., which is why my knees and hips now hurt like hell, all of the time.
"Off my meds" my head fills with obsessive thoughts at night, grinding against the same dead ends, over and over...
I also like mechanical things, especially old film cameras. Now that I can buy cameras for next-to-nothing, or get them free, I have to be careful not to fill my house with them.
I'd say gun love is a compulsion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56452
Most people don't carry guns for "self-protection," even people living in some very rough situations. In fact it seems the more dangerous a neighborhood is, the more likely it is that the average person there loathes guns and has zero patience with the false bravado of the gun lover; cops, gangsters, or any other flavor.
Keeping or carrying a gun, for self-defense, imaging improbable situations where a gun would protect anyone (rather than making a bad situation much, much worse) is a repetitive behaviour or mental act that is carried out to reduce or prevent anxiety or distress and is perceived to prevent a dreaded event or situation.
I've lived in rough places and witnessed gun violence too many times. I've never been in a situation where the outcome would have improved had I been carrying a gun.
I'm not afraid of guns, I've fired various sorts of guns target shooting and hunting, but I've no reason to hunt for meat these days, and I simply don't see any use for guns in the community I live in. I don't think most cops meet my own standards for carrying weapons, let alone random strangers.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I despise this country's gun culture, but it's not comparable to behavioral addictions.
ileus
(15,396 posts)1. Save / Protect Lives
2. Competition / hobby shooting
3. Hunting
Of course there's a fourth called collecting, but those at some point fell under the top three.
If you're using your firearm only to kill that's misuse, and almost anything can be misused. So I don't recommend misusing firearms.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Traditionally, this purpose has been employed to kill things. Presently, most guns are designed around this application.
There are, however, many guns that are not, and many people who use guns for purposes other than the taking of life. While I agree that it is absurd that these hobbies be prioritized over the public good, I also think it's fucking obnoxious to imply that people who, for recreation, put holes into paper from great distances suffer some pathological bloodlust, that deep down they own guns because they want something dead.
frizzled
(509 posts)With a distinct component of wanting to murder black people.
branford
(4,462 posts)including untold millions of gun-owning Democrats, the VAST majority of whom will never engage in any criminality or violence, of mental illness and racism.
Wow! Do you ever wonder why gun control is unpopular and steadily losing support?
frizzled
(509 posts)I feel quite comfortable stating a good third or so are racists, but that wasn't even implied.
Gun ownership is dropping steadily year on year, but you know that.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)nt
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)or with privacy issues, more and more people are refusing to acknowledge having a firearm in their home.
If an anonymous person called me up and asked if I had a firearm in my home, I'd answer in the negative.
frizzled
(509 posts)nt
Are you fucking serious?
Go the fuck away.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I will freely admit that is the only reason I have a firearm.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Consider that a quality alarm system with a panic button is effective in summoning the police quickly, and works when you are not there, which the firearm does not.
Consider that the only way the firearm is effective for home defense is frequent practice on a "Hogan's alley" type range against moving targets and being forced to distinguish between friend and foe.
Consider that you have vastly increased the odds of shooting yourself, a loved one, a neighbor, or a pet. The odds of any of those happening are more probable that those of shooting an armed intruder.
Consider that shooting an unarmed intruder may have a lot of unintended legal consequences (civil and criminal) depending on where you live.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Still keeping the gun.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)A Winchester 1897 Trench Gun works well for home defense.
EX500rider
(12,581 posts)And just how quick is that when seconds can matter?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Everyone in America lives within 3 minutes of a police station, even those who live in unincorporated counties out in the middle of nowhere where the roads become impassable after a couple hours of rain.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)A firearm to shoot the coyote that is going after your livestock? OK, I'll buy that. Armed home invasion is far more likely in the land where everyone is lea than 3 minutes from the cops -- and even there, it's pretty unlikely.
beevul
(12,194 posts)That doesn't cover living in a corridor used by people leaving unauthorized from the local correction center, as I do.
Its up to me, in any case. It doesn't matter if anyone else 'buys it'. As it should be.
Most home invasions happen where the police are never more than 3 minutes away? I'd LOVE to see the statistics on that.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)...and now my question for you: why be obsessed with the possibility of armed home invasion -- a highly unlikely event?
Owning a gun increases your risk of falling victim to a gun accident, a suicide or a homicide. By practicing safe gun handling you can reduce the likelihood of an accident, and of course if you choose not to take your own life you can prevent yourself from becoming a suicide statistic. However, you have little control over how other household members may handle the gun unless you lock it in a gun safe. However, if your primary reason for owning the gun is to have it easily accessible in an emergency, the gun safe may undermine your rationale for possessing the gun in the first place.
http://www.examiner.com/article/possessing-a-gun-makes-you-less-safe-not-more-safe
Throd
(7,208 posts)I admit that a home invasion is a highly unlikely scenario, but it only takes once.
The fire department is less than a half mile away, but I still have a fire extinguisher.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yeah, I know: doesn't everybody, as ubiquitous as Starbucks is? But my point is that there are cops there in the evening more often than not (this one stays open quite late). Response time where I'm living now would often be measured in seconds, not minutes. Moreover, I live in a secure building, and not on the ground floor. There is little likelihood of a home invasion where I'm living now.
Why do I have defensive firearm? Well, that "living now" part is one clue: I doubt I'll be living here forever, and my next place probably won't be this secure. I had defensive firearms prior to buying this place, and I may have more reason to have them in the future (and that's leaving aside concealed carry outside the home, although I have a different, more-compact pistol for that).
The second paragraph you cited makes some good points about things people should consider before electing to buy a firearm for home defense. In my case, I'm not remotely suicidal, and safe gun handling was drilled into me from an early age; it's completely automatic for me. I also don't have to worry about other household members getting their hands on the pistol I have outside the safe when I'm home: they have paws, not hands. But if any of those conditions were different, I'd have to re-assess.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)I'm not going to tell anyone not to purchase a firearm. I only ask them to consider all of the facts. I know some people have unique vulnerabilities: violent family members; unstable neighbors; unstable co-workers; etc. One size does not fit all. That said, I think 95% of Americans who buy a firearm would be better off with a quality home security system.
EX500rider
(12,581 posts)I have a fire extinguisher in the unlikely event of a fire and a firearm in the unlikely event of a home invasion....neither requires any obsession on my part.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)neither of which will kill myself, my guests, or my pets. Neither of which requires any degree of practice to be used effectively.
EX500rider
(12,581 posts)My pets? Why would I shoot my chihuahua?
And if I want to commit suicide is going to be carbon monoxide poisoning like a civilized person...lol
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Stay safe. If you hunt, best of luck in the upcoming Deer and Pheasant seasons.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Duh.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Could be delivering the projectile to a target.
Could be delivering a projectile toward a person.
Could be used as a means of making a hole in an object at a distance.
Could be delivering a projectile toward an animal
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Yes, we (gun owners) only want to kill. And not just animals. We will not be happy until we kill a classroom full of children. And their teacher. And ourselves. Everyone. We want to kill everyone!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)At least not for me.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I've never killed anything with my gun and I bought it over 10 years ago. It is for my personal safety and target practice. Without this gun, I would no longer be able to protect my home nor could I camp without risking a bear attack.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Color me shocked.
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)To go "pew"
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)
I like you already.
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)It won't be guns saving us
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)I'm much more a fan of solving the problem and finding the cure. The guns are irrelevant in my eyes entirely. (I was hoping to keep this little sub-tangent off the Guns topic, but since we've come full circle... *sigh*)
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)Is the brain is the ultimate weapon.
As you say, solve the problem, find the cure. We are of like mind.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)
(Kidding, kidding. Took me ages to find that one. Anyways, take care. I gotta bolt for a bit.)
beevul
(12,194 posts)
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)
beevul
(12,194 posts)
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)
beevul
(12,194 posts)My great great great grandmother!
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)
ON EDIT: Do you have -any- idea how hard it was not to make a segue joke? You owe me a beer for bypassing that.
EDIT EDIT: -SO- fuckin' glad this was my 1,001th post, not my 1,000th. At least my 1k one had something of substance.
beevul
(12,194 posts)To accurately propel a projectile down the barrel, at a target of the users choosing.
They have sights you know, as opposed to an indicator light that lights up when you point them at a living thing.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Ever wonder how that chicken thigh got in the bag?
The defensive purpose of a gun isn't dependent on the uniform of the person wielding it.
Waldorf
(654 posts)with accuracy. That's it.
How it is used is up to the person using it. Self defense, hunting, target shooting, competitive shooting or unfortunately murdering another person. So it has many uses.
Met a friend of mine today during lunch I haven't seen in several months at the indoor range in town. After firing off a little over 200 rounds between us I can safely say that the only thing injured was the paper targets.
REP
(21,691 posts)And I won't bother telling you how ridiculously easy it is to get cyanide, with which it is possible to "wipe out an entire classroom." Bleach and ammonia are legal too.
OakCliffDem
(1,274 posts)To kill something/someone. That's it.
There is no other use.
OOPS
OakCliffDem
(1,274 posts)To kill something/someone. That's it.
There is no other use
OOPS
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Someone suggested the other day that Native and other hunters living in Alaska's Back country, off the road system, should revert to the old ways of hunting their subsistence food, but I think guns are probably a lot more efficient. I'm not in favor of people going hungry.
lindysalsagal
(22,905 posts)Sorry, but you all missed that one. 
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Automobiles kill lots of people every year, but they have a positive and non-lethal purpose.
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill.
hack89
(39,181 posts)A highly addictive substance whose only purpose is to intoxicate.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)It can be a positive, social action. From the beginning of time people have found ways to intoxicate themselves for pleasure. Alcohol and other substances have been used at social gatherings as a way to relax and lose inhibitions, which again, in and of itself can be harmless and non-lethal. It also has medicinal and spiritual purposes.
hack89
(39,181 posts)all that time spend with family and friends competing. Lots of good times.
So what you are saying is that if there is one positive thing about an object or substance, the actual damage it inflicts on society is irrelevant? Or just to be tolerated the best we can so we can still enjoy the positive things?
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)There is no debating that.
The purpose of a weapon is to defend ones self, or to attack another. The gun is a weapon intended to violently defend or attack. Hunting is attacking another being; an animal.
To hunt you need to kill!
Killing is an end means of either defending or attacking.
Guns are used to kill.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)No gun fancier has yet to refute this, and never will be able to.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)It is much easier to subdue a knife wielding nutjob, than one spraying the room with bullets.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Several examples off the top of my head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/02/world/fg-stab2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanping_school_massacre
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11302916/Eight-children-murdered-in-mass-stabbing-in-Australia.html
sarisataka
(22,694 posts)A gun is a weapon- true
The purpose of a weapon is to defend ones self, or to attack another.- true
The gun is a weapon intended to violently defend or attack- partially true. There are guns designed for specialized use that are not intended, and would be extremely poor, for attack or defense
Hunting is attacking another being; an animal.- true
To hunt you need to kill! - true
Killing is an end means of either defending or attacking. -false. A defense or attack may cease before fatal injury occurs
Guns are used to kill. - partially true. {see previous} also guns may be used for purposes other than attack or defense
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)There are approximately 325,000,000 guns in the US (over 125,000,000 new ones just since 1998 when the NICS came online). There are about 480,000 gun crimes (US BJS), suicides, and fatal or non-fatal negligent discharges (CDC WISQARS).
That means that 99.86% of all guns will not be involved an any event, much less killing someone.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)used in nine Olympic shooting events and biathlons.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Do you have a problem with the military having firearms?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Only one purpose for a gun and that's is to kill!
deathrind
(1,786 posts)I have ever read here on DU, the contorted logic being displayed is phenomenal.
The comment that the intent of the firearm designer in design of a firearm was for punching holes in paper targets…was really good. Give that designer an A+ in going way over the top in their design
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)
(Wait, is that a cold dead hand on it?)
Skittles
(171,698 posts)YER KILLING ME
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Daninmo
(119 posts)Bill of rights says I have the right to have guns.