heywood on 25/5/2016 at 17:46
Quote Posted by catbarf
I think in these discussions it's very easy to mistake 'more gun bans != more safe' for 'more guns = more safe'.
Both of those arguments are full of holes, and yet they dominate the discussion, which is one of the things I hate about debating gun rights.
Another problem is that gun debates tend to spin up after the reporting of a mass shooting or accidental shooting, which exaggerates the significance of these events. Even if you use a liberal definition of a mass shooting, they account for only about 1% of gun deaths in the US. And accidental shootings account for about 2%.
Something like 2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicides. But the overall suicide rate in the US is pretty average compared to the rest of the world, so it's hard to argue that the US has a suicide problem because of guns. It's also questionable whether the suicide rate would decrease significantly if guns were banned.
About 1/3 of gun deaths are homicides. Most of these have been linked to criminal activity, predominantly gang violence and drug dealing & distribution. And the highest rates of occurrence are in socially and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of major cities, which often have the strictest gun laws. Liberalizing gun laws will not turn these places into bastions full of responsible gun owners who carry. And banning guns outright will not stop the circulation of guns on the black market or stop the illicit cross-border gun trade from bringing more guns into the black market. The best way to reduce gun homicides is to improve the social and economic conditions in those areas.
Pyrian on 25/5/2016 at 18:50
Quote Posted by catbarf
There's a lot of misinformation out there about how that works.
It's a patchwork quilt that
doesn't work. Gun advocates like to harp on the fact that if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns - but we make it so easy that it can happen by accident. I might move from one city to another (or in some cases across the street in urban sprawls), totally break the gun laws, and not even know it. If we're going to bother having such laws at all, we might as well at least make them go through with a smuggling operation.
Volitions Advocate on 26/5/2016 at 02:34
I wonder what people here think of this potential policy. This is one of the proposals that the firearm advocacy group that I am a member of has drafted.
(
https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-10-concealed-or-open-carry/)
I like this group because their platform is to educate the public in all matters regarding firearms, since honestly, most people don't know much about them, and in Canada especially, don't know what the laws are unless they are a firearms owner.
If you really are interested in it at all, I suggest reading all of their policies along with the rationale behind each one. Remembering this is Canada, not the USA or some parts of Europe.
Tony_Tarantula on 27/5/2016 at 03:22
Quote Posted by Muzman
You want a shotgun because of some mad relative. Ok. I think you're kidding yourself about how much of a deterrent that's going to be if said person is as determined as you imagine him to be at murder (and I'd wager he's probably not that determined. But I don't know. I'm all the way over here).
But leave that aside for a moment. Can you prove to some reasonable standard that that's how it will be used, that it will be hard to steal, for kids to get at and you won't drink too much and shoot at lost black people who knock at the door late at night or something?
All good then. Enjoy what I would contend is in most cases a largely imaginary increase in personal and/or domestic security.
Your post comes off less like actual thought, and more parroting talking points. Perhaps next you'd like to say that he shouldn't have a gun because he's more likely to shoot himself with it?
Exactly who does he "have to prove to some reasonable standard that that's how it will be used" to? If it's his own damn house and property I'm pretty sure that he understands exactly how he intends to use it.
Making it "hard to steal" and so kids can't get at it is easily done....as you would know if you knew anything about firearm storage. Another thing to the kids part: it doesn't work without ammo.
Quote:
"You'll drink too much at night and shoot at lost black people who knock at the door late at night"
Do you really think EVERYONE with a gun is that much of an imbecile? Hell look at Canada. There's some provinces which have a rate of gun ownership even higher than the US and I assure you that people aren't getting shot left and right.
Your post demonstrates that you have absolutely zero comprehension of a trained gun owner's mentality. You don't just shoot anything that moves because it fulfills some man-child fantasy. You shoot ONLY when there is an imminent and clear threat to life or limb....e.g. if someone is in your house with a weapon visible. Emphasis on the "weapon visible" part.
Stop getting your ideas about life from movies and go visit a concealed carry class if you're interested in not coming across as ragingly ignorant.
Quote:
Enjoy what I would contend is in most cases a largely imaginary increase in personal and/or domestic security.
Ah yes...the old "it doesn't really do anything" argument. So then why do professional militaries arm their soldiers with rifles instead of having them battle hand to hand? Why do cops carry shotguns in the trunk instead of just keeping a backup roid raging ex athlete in the buddy seat?
It's extremely obvious that you have no experience with firearms or violence. Nobody who has experience with either(which I have both) would have written any of the things you did. You're simply parroting things you've heard on TV and read in blogs. I've seen it happen on multiple occasions (and was the one doing it one time) where violence was averted by a party being armed. In one instance someone was getting beat down by a gang who left after a shot was fired in the air, and in the other a group of guys was deferred from starting a fight because someone had a weapon and was willing to use it.
It also is important in other situations. What, exactly, is going to allow a 110lb woman to level the playing field against a 210lb rapist? There's no amount of kickboxing classes that will allow her to have immediate physical superiority. On the other hand even a .22 will do a lot to make one back off.
At the end of the day there is one other thing that needs to be considered. You don't keep a weapon so you can be guaranteed of being perfectly safe. You do it because it dramatically increases your chances if something does happen. In other words, I don't anticipate getting into a car accident but I buckle my seatbelt anyway.
nicked on 27/5/2016 at 07:40
The car analogy isn't great. It's more like, "I don't anticipate getting into a car accident, but I strap large metal blades to the front of my car so that if someone does crash into me, at least I'll guarantee they get fucked up."
Muzman on 27/5/2016 at 08:41
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Your post comes off less like actual thought, and more parroting talking points. Perhaps next you'd like to say that he shouldn't have a gun because he's more likely to shoot himself with it?
Exactly who does he "have to prove to some reasonable standard that that's how it will be used" to? If it's his own damn house and property I'm pretty sure that he understands exactly how he intends to use it.
Making it "hard to steal" and so kids can't get at it is easily done....as you would know if you knew anything about firearm storage. Another thing to the kids part: it doesn't work without ammo.
Dude, you realise you accused me of doing nothing but parroting talking points by parroting talking points back at me? Well you did.
You know perfectly well people do this stuff badly with fairly disasterous consequences. Me basically listing a few typical aspects of licensing and firearm education aren't saying all that much. You're even asking dumb libertarian style questions I expect you already know the answer to. To whom should he prove these things? Why the law, as proxy for the community of course. But you knew that. Don't be an ass.
The rest is pretty much different versions of "guns have violent utility, in action or potential action". Well thanks. I think we all knew that. I've been in and know of enough violent situations where a gun would not have made any difference and probably made things worse (and so do you, in all likelihood, if you thought about it for a while) and even some where I think someone waving one around would have made all the difference and/or nipped something worse in the bud.
It's a constant tension. Intriguingly, none of this really tells us all that much about the form and function of regulation schemes and other things around this subject. I favor fairly strong regulation because it helps keep them out of the wrong people's hands, among other things. Yeah, it actually does. This is a fact people have to accept as part of the conversation. But you won't find anywhere I suggest this is some answer to personal safety or high crime in all instances (gun based or otherwise). It's complicated.
Tony_Tarantula on 2/6/2016 at 00:11
Quote:
The rest is pretty much different versions of "guns have violent utility, in action or potential action". Well thanks. I think we all knew that. I've been in and know of enough violent situations where a gun would not have made any difference and probably made things worse (and so do you, in all likelihood, if you thought about it for a while) and even some where I think someone waving one around would have made all the difference and/or nipped something worse in the bud.
You're completely ignoring what I said. First off, I referred to HAVING guns and I've been in situations where the presence of one was able to prevent violence.
I'm explaining the difference between a Mentality and Actions. To date every anti-gun nutter I've found has been completely incapable of grasping the difference.
In other case nobody's arguing for "waving one around". You seem to have completely missed the part where I railed against "waving it around". If you "wave a gun around" trying to threaten someone you're either an idiot or massively insecure. The gun ONLY comes out in a kill or be killed situation. At that point you're not trying to prevent violence, only trying to make sure that whoever is involved isn't the victim of it. If they choose to back down then it saves everyone a bad day.
Also, nothing you've said is "typical aspects of licensing and firearm education" any more than portraying Japanese as being four foot high with buckteeth is "discussing typical issues involved in race relations". You listed common myths about gun ownership that have existed for decades. Unlike you I don't assume that gun owners are racist, trigger happy yahoos until proven otherwise. Believe it or not most gun owners aren't looking forward to killing anyone.
Quote:
The car analogy isn't great. It's more like, "I don't anticipate getting into a car accident, but I strap large metal blades to the front of my car so that if someone does crash into me, at least I'll guarantee they get fucked up."
No, it's NOT "more like" your example....in fact your example is an even worse analogy and here's why: will putting large metal blades on the front of your car prevent you from being killed in a head on collision? Absolutely not.
If you have a gun and you know how to use it then you've got much improved odds that it's going to be the perpetrator of violence and not the victim who dies.
nicked on 2/6/2016 at 05:38
Preeeetty sure if you have a gun in any situation, you're more likely to die.
scumble on 2/6/2016 at 07:57
I'm pretty sure the debate about guns doesn't ever progress anywhere or get more logical. I'm not convinced either side has very conclusive evidence. The only truth I can see is that guns aren't going away and there are problems with them everywhere.
zacharias on 2/6/2016 at 08:09
I don't see why this thread is just about violence inflicted by others. Late 30s here, and have had zero serious violent encounters in my life. Touch wood, that continues. But what about violence inflicted by yourself with the gun, either to a loved one or to yourself?
I don't want a gun in the house because I've weighed the risks of it falling into my sons hands (extremely unlikely to be loaded I concede but still possible) and also I honestly think the suicide option would become much more tangible if you had one. Not that I class myself as remotely suicidal (at present) but who knows what you are capable of at a really low point.
Anyway, those reasons outweigh the pros of gun ownership for me.
Edit: well Pyrian & heywood did mention the suicide thing already (must read thread in future). But yeah, for me that would be just as big a risk I reckon as external violence. Probably makes me sound like a suicidal nutter..which isn't the case. I just don't live in a violent enough city for guns to be worth it.
