Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
This type of thinking ignores the positive effects that guns have. There's no question that there are the positive effects of self-defense and even if we take the lowball figures for defensive gun uses, the positive uses far outweigh the deaths from guns.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give me any source on this?

[ QUOTE ]
None of this changes what I said, which is that there is no way to use a nuclear weapon, offensively or defensively, that does not affect innocent third parties. This is inherent in the nature of a nuclear weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]
The power of the nuclear weapon is in its potential damage. You use it by not using it. You can prevent a force from attacking you without a single life going to waste - this makes it a very good defensive weapon.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This type of thinking ignores the positive effects that guns have. There's no question that there are the positive effects of self-defense and even if we take the lowball figures for defensive gun uses, the positive uses far outweigh the deaths from guns.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give me any source on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's one to get you started.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of this changes what I said, which is that there is no way to use a nuclear weapon, offensively or defensively, that does not affect innocent third parties. This is inherent in the nature of a nuclear weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]
The power of the nuclear weapon is in its potential damage. You use it by not using it. You can prevent a force from attacking you without a single life going to waste - this makes it a very good defensive weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]
The power of a nuke is in its ability to deter, yes. But the power of the deterrence is reduced if you demonstrate no willingness to use it. And that one single use is a crime against innocent people. So while you may be saving lives, you are threatening other lives to do so.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want me to have an assault rifle when the government collapses.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gun in your house is more likely to harm a member of your family than someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to wonder if this often used slogan is really true.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The purpose is to find out whether people who are 'against guns' are so against guns that they would choose to live in a violent world to avoid guns. Another point is to simply highlight the fact that guns do not cause violence, violent people do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am against guns because I believe they cause more harm than they do good. I feel safer knowing that it is extremely unlikely that someone around me is carrying a gun, than I do knowing that 2/5 are carrying gun and that I can protect myself because I am carrying one myself (arbitrary number).

And yes, the violence is ultimately caused by violent people. But the ultimate availability of a gun certainly makes his act of violence potentially a lot more effective.

Do you agree or disagree with this hypothetical scenario:

First, Harry Potter magically removes all civilian guns in USA. Then, the government completely bans all non-hunting-purpose guns. To get a hunting-purpose weapon you would first need to pass a written exam and get a hunting license, then there would be a substantial waiting period following a thorough registration process.

Would this USA be more or less safe than it is now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Less safe.

Leaving aside the US constitutional issues, as well as the line of argument that arms help keep government under control:

- UK has draconian gun laws, but the highest rate of crime of all industrialized nations.

- Times guns used to thwart crime and violence > times guns used for crime and violence. Unintended consequence of Harry's act is that more people are killed, robbed, raped, etc.

- Switzerland has 100% gun ownership, and little crime.

- If you don't have 100% ban (which can't happen) those that want to use guns for bad reasons will be able to get them - black market, or from outside jurisdictions. You've allowed registered guns back into the vacuum ... that means bad people will get guns, more crime. But now, good people can't defend themeselves, and we have UK level crime.

- We will always have those who are evil ... if they can't use guns they will use other means to carry out their evil. No ability to defend means crime goes up.

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This type of thinking ignores the positive effects that guns have. There's no question that there are the positive effects of self-defense and even if we take the lowball figures for defensive gun uses, the positive uses far outweigh the deaths from guns.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give me any source on this?

[ QUOTE ]
None of this changes what I said, which is that there is no way to use a nuclear weapon, offensively or defensively, that does not affect innocent third parties. This is inherent in the nature of a nuclear weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]
The power of the nuclear weapon is in its potential damage. You use it by not using it. You can prevent a force from attacking you without a single life going to waste - this makes it a very good defensive weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post in this thread has a bunch of links, pro and con on the subject:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10004553

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a little harsh, but could you list some events where it is likely that lives will be saved because you own an AR-15?



[/ QUOTE ]

I could list such events, but it only confuses the issue. My rights aren't contingent upon utility.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
"guns do not cause violence, violent people do."

I've never understood the point of this statement. If people are prone to violence, shouldn't we seek to limit the means they have with which to be violent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself. *I'm* not prone to violence, which is all that matters. And I have an individual, inalienable right to keep and bear arms. If it's true that most/many other people are prone to violence, then that only strengthens the reasons why I own guns.

By your argument, I could justify the following:

"People are prone to commit fraud, so government censorship is necessary."

"People are prone to addiction, so availability to online poker should be limited."

Etc.

[ QUOTE ]

We are seeking to limit Iran's access to nuclear weapons not because the weapons themselves cause violence, but because we fear they will be the agents of violence in violent people's hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible analogy, because:

1. A government does not possess the natural rights of individuals.

2. The government of Iran is demonstrably hostile.

3. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, i.e. they are not target-able.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want me to have an assault rifle when the government collapses.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gun in your house is more likely to harm a member of your family than someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be true in *your* house, but not *mine*.

And even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

[ QUOTE ]

How often is someone trying to attack you and your family with the intention of killing you all - and it is prevented because you own a gun? If someone breaks into your house it is extremely rare that they want something else than materialistic possessions, i.e. they are stealing. If you decide to "protect your family" and use your gun, the situation only escalates and you are potentially just going to hurt yourself, your family, or some punk who's trying to steal your DVD player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is BS, not that it would change anything even if it were an accurate characterization. Are you seriously suggesting that I would be better off if I didn't have at the least option to effectively defend myself against a home invader? Insanity.

I have a great aunt, who was elderly and lived alone (seriously). While she was home, a young male broke into her house. She retreated to her bedroom and closed/locked the door, figuring she would let him take what he wanted. She tried calling the police, but the criminal had cut her phone lines. (This was long before the ubiquity of cell phones, and the police would take too long to arrive anyway.) The thug apparently had other ideas, and he started to break into her bedroom. So she fetched her pistol, and shot through the door. The criminal fled, and was (I believe) later apprehended.

Please tell me how her situation would have been better if she did not have that gun. Be specific.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not crying over a few days waiting period if it prevented a few thousand felons and wife-batterers from easily obtaining a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a response of mine as to why we always fight gun control laws from an older thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post8295825

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some serious questions about gun control, because it's a debate I don't really understand. Everyone I talk to who is anti gun control seems to equate gun control with "ban all guns." I never saw it that way, and I don't know why some do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Most of us truly believe that the objective of the gun control lobby is to ban all guns. All guns are banned in Washington D.C., Chicago has essentially banned all handguns as has Morton Grove and a few other cities. If you read the IL State Supreme Court case where the Morton Grove ban was challenged it is clear to see that when the ban was passed in Morton Grove, its purpose was to publicize a political viewpoint, in hopes that other areas would follow suit. It was not addressing any particular crime problem in that town. Diane Feinstein was quoted on 60 Minutes as saying that if she could’ve gotten the votes, she would’ve passed an outright ban on all guns. BTW Diane Feinstein has a California carry permit and armed guards. Guns are necessary for her protection, but not for us unwashed masses.

Most gun owners believe gun banners are just taking incremental steps that are currently politically palatable with an aim to essentially end civilian gun ownership. Currently, its “assault weapons,” the definition of which gets broader virtually every time one gets mentioned on the news. Next it will be “sniper rifles (hunting rifles)” or maybe the rest of the semi-automatic weapons. Or maybe “armor piercing ammunition” which would essentially ban all hunting rifle ammunition because every center fire rifle is armor piercing if you define it the way the gun banners define it. You just have to give something a scary name and the people will accept it. The leading gun control advocate group was called Handgun Control Inc. with a stated purpose of a ban on handguns before they changed their name to the more politically feasible Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Look at the states that already have these so-called common sense gun laws. States that the Brady Campaign give a “B” or “A” grade for their gun control laws, its not like they have stopped pressing for more gun control there, they now want handgun registries, serialized ammunition stamping, etc. They will never stop, that’s why we never will give an inch.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can someone explain this to me. Let's say I'm a 23 year old who wants to buy a hand gun to protect his family. I could easily pass a criminal background check and a drug test. I walk into a gun shop and want to buy a hand gun, lets say a 9mm. What resistance am I likely to encounter? I kind of figured pending a background check and a 5 day waiting period I'd get my gun(s). Now, what I can't figure out is why gun activists would have a serious problem with this.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The 5 day waiting period is a federal law that is now kaput. Waiting periods are now based on state laws, most states don’t have one, CA has a 10 day, FL and IL have 3 day on handguns, don’t know any others off the top of my head. You basically just have to pass an instant background check. The check includes, drug convictions, felony convictions, domestic violence convictions, restraining orders or mental health issues.

Almost all gun activists have no problem with a background check, even the NRA probably supports it. BTW most hardcore pro-gun, pro-liberty guys piss on the NRA for too much compromise.

I don’t agree with the waiting period because what if I need protection today? Also, I doubt the waiting period has much significance for people who already pass the BG check. Plus, I already have gun(s), what’s the point of a waiting period now?

The background check is not really what most pro-gun activist work against. In liberal states we are usually fighting legislature that would change us from law-abiding citizens to felons overnight, or legislation that would require us to relinquish lawfully acquired property. In IL they try to pass an “assault weapons” ban every year. This ban includes various semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, handguns and “high capacity” magazines. It has no real logic to it and is not based on ballistics or any science, or crime weapons used. It recently added .50 caliber rifles. The way the most recent law was worded, it would have made 8 of my rifles and about 100 of my magazines felony counts. Three of those rifles are WWII era or Korean War era M1 Garands. It also would have made most rifles and pistols used in Olympic competition illegal. It also would have made my deer hunting shotgun illegal, in a state that doesn’t allow rifle deer hunting. They tried to get around some of these complaints with some amendments. Most didn’t pass, but the bill is unacceptable even with these exemptions. To show how ignorant they are, in response to the hunting shotgun complaint, an amendment was proposed to exempt all weapons permitted for hunting by the wildlife code. Except in the wildlife code, there is no restriction on type of rifle used for hunting coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, and a few others. So now what, my AR-15 is exempt from the ban because it is legal to hunt coyotes with it? If not, then how does that amendment protect anything?

In CA, their legislature either narrowly defeated or Arnold vetoed a bill for ammunition serialization. The bill called for serialization of every ammunition casing. It required every manufacturer to put a serial number and track every single bullet sold. Can you imagine the costs of this? Most of my gun nut buddies have 5,000+ rounds and most hunters or recreational shooters usually have a couple hundred on hand. This law could increase the cost of ammunition 10x. The stated purpose of this was supposed to be solving crime, but it would probably have minimal effect at that. It would have the effect of greatly increasing the cost of manufacturing ammunition, and it would be a great deterrent to gun ownership. The high round count for gun nuts is not some revolution fantasy, rather its due to economics, buy a lot of the cheap stuff when its around and then shoot it up, while waiting for another good deal.

Other things pro-gun activists fight for is usually less restriction on concealed carry licensees (CCL’s). Most states (48) have CCL but they either have stupid parts to it, or they greatly restrict the locations it is available. For example in OH if you have a concealed carry permit, you carry concealed, except in the car. In the car it has to be in “plain sight.” Case law has ruled that on the passenger seat doesn’t constitute plain sight. That’s pretty [censored] up. Your gun is a lot safer staying in your concealed holster than if you have to whip it out and put it on the dash every time you drive somewhere. Plus if someone sees you holstering when you stop somewhere and wets their pants and calls the police you could be arrested for brandishing.

Other states have great restrictions on where you can carry, for example places that serve alcohol (including restaurants) or churches. The knee jerk reaction is always, “Why do you need to carry in a Church. It is not safe for the children, etc.” I want to carry in a church (with the church’s permission) for the same reason I want to carry anywhere else, for lawful or moral self defense. I have passed the BG check, I have taken training, I am licensed by the state as suitable to carry, what’s the problem? Its not like churches are magic, crime-free zones, neither are schools, another place where guns are prohibited. I can point out several murders that have happened in churches or during church services in the past few years.

One more thing gun rights activists are pushing for now is what is called “Castle Doctrine.” This basically is a protection for homeowners who defend themselves on their own property. Most states already have leniency on lethal force in your own home, even CA and IL allow deadly force on B&E or felonies. Texas you can pretty much shoot anyone on your property at night. Castle Doctrine basically changes the law and presumes that someone who breaks into a home while it is occupied intends great bodily harm on the occupants. More importantly, it provides a liability shield. If someone breaks into your house, and you are proven to have lawfully defended yourself, the shot bad guy will not be able to sue you civilly. This law is important because it can cost $10’s of thousands of dollars to defend yourself from prosecution, and even if you are found to have acted lawfully, you could still lose everything in a civil suit.

This law mainly protects urban people, because not many rural DA’s are gonna prosecute someone who shoots an intruder. In IL, there was a guy, Hale, from Wilmette who got burglarized, and slept with his gun the next night. The burglar came back the next night and Hale shot him. The police and DA tried to throw the book at Hale. He owned a handgun in a town with a ban. They couldn’t get him on anything except the handgun ban. The people of this state were really pissed off by this, and the state law was soon changed so that using a handgun for lawful self defense on your own property was an affirmative defense for violating a municipal handgun ban.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My ability to buy a gun was not really impeded upon. The fact that there are more guns than cars in this Country is telling me that they are not that hard to get. Also, why would gun activists be against a police database profiling the evidence of guns. So maybe it's inefficient and not as effective as people who watch CSI would like to think. Why is this an issue pro-gun folks would pick to fight? As long as they are using their guns for legal purposes, they should have nothing to worry about. Why care if your gun's "fingerprint" is in a database? Fighting something like this just makes pro-gun folks look like criminals. I just don't understand why people treat gun control as all or nothing issue.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The high availability of guns means that most laws have little effect on criminals but great effect on law abiding citizens.

Why can’t George Bush listen to your phone conversations, as long as you are doing nothing illegal, what’s the problem? Why can’t the police just enter your home without a warrant? If you aren’t a criminal, what’s the problem?

We don’t trust the government, that’s kind of the point to free speech and a right to bear arms, another check on government power. We don’t want a database of who owns guns because it greatly lowers the costs of confiscation for the government. Also because we know the restrictions wont stop there.

It basically comes down to what I said before, we wont accept anything because the anti-gun groups will never stop pushing for gun control. Its not like we will come to a compromise and then they will just leave us alone. They didn’t stop after NFA 1934, they didn’t stop after GCA 1968, we actually gained ground with FOPA 1986, then Bush I and Clinton brought about various “assault weapons” bans and the Brady law.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is allowing anyone, to buy any gun they want, at any time, really the issue here? Can't the government regulate and monitor the sale and useage of firearms in this country while doing very little to impede the ability of law-abiding citizens to buy guns? To me it looks like that's what the pro-gun folks are lobbying against, and I can't for the life of me figure out why!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes to your first question, with the exception that criminals may be prohibited with due process. If I am a responsible citizen and not a criminal, what difference does it make what kind of gun I am buying. Yes to your second question, which would be accomplished with some changes in the system we have in place.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I really object to is the assumption that since democracies could result in very bad things, democracy is bad. This still seems like a weak argument to me when we have lots of up and running democracies that aren't, for example, enslaving 49% of the population. So, to me, saying that democracy is bad because this could happen when it is visibly not happening is not convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how bad do things have to be before it's "convincing"?

And I don't really care if you're convinced, honestly. If you like democracy, or some variant thereof, then by all means, participate in one. Just explain to me why I should be compelled to participate in one simply because you and a bunch of other people want to.