The Thread Formerly Known As: Kerry Found...

[muert0]

How many times has someone you know been confronted by someone with a gun?

[Adron]

So we shouldn't be prepared? The circumstances that your microwave will shortcircut and start a fire are unlikely, so we shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher to have in our home? I'm sure you have empirical evidence you can cite for me on the ideas you just put forward.

You should prepare, in the right way. You shouldn't buy and install a Halon gas fire extinguishing system, even though that's the most effective means for extinguishing a possible fire in your microwave, because a Halon gas system is dangerous. If you trigger it unintentionally, and someone is in the area that is covered by the Halon gas system, it may cause suffocation. You should get something that is reasonably effective in comparation to the risks it will incur.

[Arta]

Totally. And yes: I have cited emipirical evidence in this thread, and Mejal quoted the same statistic, but you still appear to be oblivious to it.

[MrRaza]

Emipirical is not a word, its empirical. I'm just being a smartass on you, but if you're going to use hazard's new word of the day spell it right.

[Naem]

If he had shot his attackers, people would not of respected him as much for killing two teenagers, if he pepper sprayed them, he would of gotten away, pepper spray hurts, really. What are you doing in a dark alley way anyway, if your trying to be safe, be smart about it, stay in well let area's and in public places or in a group.

You realize that by using pepper spray you're just opening up yourself to more violence? Yes, it hurts. It induces rage from the spray victim so you better hope to God that you hit both of them square in the eye because if you didn't you're going to be beaten to death or close to it.

Anyway, this thread has changed my mind quite a bit on guns. Hazard's weak arguments made me think: "could I come up with any better arguments?" and the answer was "not markedly so." While his arguments make sense in theory - that if three men were charging at you with knives then you'd want to shoot all three of them - the chances of that situation occuring are slim to none unless you're a cop or a drug dealer or Carrot Top.

[Hazard]

So we shouldn't be prepared? The circumstances that your microwave will shortcircut and start a fire are unlikely, so we shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher to have in our home?

You should prepare, in the right way. You shouldn't buy and install a Halon gas fire extinguishing system, even though that's the most effective means for extinguishing a possible fire in your microwave, because a Halon gas system is dangerous. If you trigger it unintentionally, and someone is in the area that is covered by the Halon gas system, it may cause suffocation. You should get something that is reasonably effective in comparation to the risks it will incur.

I'm not saying that you must have a M-16 Tri-Set submachine gun for home protection, or that you should have a belt fed .50 caliber by your front door, even though these would surely be the most effective means of stoping an intruder. If you were to trigger those unintenionally you would turn whatever you hit into swiss cheese. You could get a .20 gauge shotgun, or perhaps a .9mm handgun that is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks that will incur.

[Adron]

I'm not saying that you must have a M-16 Tri-Set submachine gun for home protection, or that you should have a belt fed .50 caliber by your front door, even though these would surely be the most effective means of stoping an intruder. If you were to trigger those unintenionally you would turn whatever you hit into swiss cheese. You could get a .20 gauge shotgun, or perhaps a .9mm handgun that is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks that will incur.

Ah, good, you acknowledge that the most effective means of defense isn't necessarily the right thing.

Your previous standpoint has seemed to be that the only thing that's ok is the most effective means, no matter the risks incurred, like say:

Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron.

The big question is: What is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks incurred?


And my standpoint is at it has been: Guns are effective for defense in certain cases, but those cases are few, and by far outweighed by all the negative things that guns bring.

[Grok]

I completely disagree that guns are defensive.  Guns kill.  Their intent is not to stop something.  Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.

[Hazard]

I completely disagree that guns are defensive.  Guns kill.  Their intent is not to stop something.  Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.

Give me an example. If somebody comes at me with a weapon I have the right to defend myself and other to the best of my ability. Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.

[Hazard]

I'm not saying that you must have a M-16 Tri-Set submachine gun for home protection, or that you should have a belt fed .50 caliber by your front door, even though these would surely be the most effective means of stoping an intruder. If you were to trigger those unintenionally you would turn whatever you hit into swiss cheese. You could get a .20 gauge shotgun, or perhaps a .9mm handgun that is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks that will incur.

Ah, good, you acknowledge that the most effective means of defense isn't necessarily the right thing.

Your previous standpoint has seemed to be that the only thing that's ok is the most effective means, no matter the risks incurred, like say:

Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron.

Guns are the most effective means of defense from armed assailents, just as a fire extinguisher to a fire.

The big question is: What is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks incurred?


And my standpoint is at it has been: Guns are effective for defense in certain cases, but those cases are few, and by far outweighed by all the negative things that guns bring.

Guns are effective for defense of ones life or someone elses life. In a case of life or death, it is better to kill the assailent.

MY entire standpoint is the basic notion of self defense. Why should I not be allowed to protect myself to the best of my ability? The police can't be with me at all times, I have to make my safety my responsibility. A firearm is like a safety belt. Seat belts keep you safe in a car in the unlikely event the worst should happen. A firearm will keep you defended in the unlikely event that the worst should happen - your life or somebody elses is threatened. Safety and training is a must. Background chucks are a must. But if you do away with them you kill the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from armed assailents.

You keep claiming that it would reduce the avalability of weapons. I recently had a talk with the head of the Crime Scene Unit for the Tampa Police Department. I asked him how many times a violent crime involving a firearm he had invesitgated had a gun used that was obtained legally. Out of hundreds of crimes, he could count them on one hand.

[iago]

I completely disagree that guns are defensive.  Guns kill.  Their intent is not to stop something.  Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.

Give me an example. If somebody comes at me with a weapon I have the right to defend myself and other to the best of my ability. Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.

I've said this 3 or 4 times, but it keeps getting ignored: Stupid people DO have guns.  And that will never change as long as anybody can own a gun.

[Hazard]

I completely disagree that guns are defensive.  Guns kill.  Their intent is not to stop something.  Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.

Give me an example. If somebody comes at me with a weapon I have the right to defend myself and other to the best of my ability. Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.

I've said this 3 or 4 times, but it keeps getting ignored: Stupid people DO have guns.  And that will never change as long as anybody can own a gun.

And I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.

[Kp]

As an interesting aside, the U.S. government's standing stance against drugs has proved pretty effectively that gun-bans won't work too well here.  Consider: the U.S. has been in a "war on drugs" for decades trying to get rid of them, and we still have people smuggling drugs in successfully!  For reasons that I haven't fully explored, the government seems to be incapable of keeping prohibited items out of the country, whether it be drugs, guns, or even people (consider how many illegal immigrants get through...).  Given the failure to block the import of drugs, it seems unreasonable to expect that the government could stop the black market import of guns, since stopping more imports would require more work than they're already doing, and they clearly can't even handle their existing workload adequately.  If they can't disarm the criminals, then why disarm the well trained and law abiding citizens?

I think it'd be nice if it was actually practical for people to give up personal defense and rely on the government to protect them from violence.  However, as of now, that is not a realistic solution in this country.

The other factor that I don't see addressed in the posts I've read in this thread is deterrence.  A variety of violent crimes are less likely in the states which permit relatively easy firearm access.  The criminals can't be sure which people are armed and which are not, so they become skittish about attacking anyone.  Not all of the criminals are sufficiently scared of being shot that they will avoid committing a crime, but some is better than none.  This also accounts for another type of defensive gun use: the victim brandishes a weapon and the assailant surrenders or flees, rather than risk being killed trying to proceed.  Again, this doesn't occur in all cases.  As Adron handily pointed out, criminals who want to be armed in preparation for a crime will come prepared.  So, the ones that really are prepared to kill in pursuit of their crime will come armed and will make an attempt to get the jump on the victim.  However, for crimes intended to be bloodless (e.g. break in, take TV, leave), the criminal is often either under-armed or under-prepared when confronted by the citizen.  Faced with a choice of surrender/flee or get shot trying to draw his/her firearm, get aimed, and get a shot off against the citizen who has prepared before interrupting the theft...

[Hazard]

Finally somebody has an open view of reality.

[Arta]

It wouldn't be so bad if the law required waiting periods; required permanent records of gun ownership; required mandatory training that was very thorough; required secure, lockable storage for firearms; imposed sensible restrictions on the arms people can own - no one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons...

Even with those kinds of restrictions, it's still just a flawed system, IMO. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it does need fixing.