catbarf on 15/6/2016 at 02:47
Quote Posted by faetal
As for the personal responsiblity on safety point, it's also an arms race issue - since you only really need a gun to defend your home if your assailants have guns. So it's a chicken-egg situation. The only reason you aren't having to factor in grenades to this idea is because it is illegal to carry grenades and they are not commercially available in the US (please tell me that's true). Hence, guns are just considered the baseline of
threat as well as defence. In the UK, in France etc.. I don't think I need a gun for defence since the ownership rates are so low. I've never seen a gun since I lived here other than those held by police / military. The risk of terrorist incidents is still vanishingly small too - more chance of being killed by a car while crossing the street. I'd imagine the risk of guns in the US is a lot higher though, depending on where you live. Take bjack for example - he feels he needs a gun to defend himself and probably not because he's worried about something throwing a baseball at him from range.
First, as an aside, grenades are legal in the US. They're just restricted Destructive Devices and you need to jump through a bunch of ATF hoops and pay $200 to own one, so pretty much nobody bothers for something that you get to use once and is worthless. To my knowledge no registered DD has ever been used to commit crimes in the history of our country.
Second, again, I really don't buy into that 'arms race' idea. As Kleck and other criminologists report, most home invasions occur when a homeowner is not present. When a homeowner is present, the brandishing of a firearm almost always causes the invader to retreat. In most street muggings, an unarmed target is not killed, but left bruised and bloody on the sidewalk. The reason is simple- most criminals aren't willing to engage in a gunfight, or escalate an investigation for burglary or assault into homicide. Concealed carriers carry because they can't decide when or where they'll be targeted, but criminals have the luxury of picking targets that won't fight back. It's important to note that even with an estimated one
million defensive gun uses per year, the actual number of shootings is far lower, because when a gun is drawn the situation usually ends non-violently.
Also, regarding this:
Quote:
since you only really need a gun to defend your home if your assailants have guns
To get personal for a second, I have a close friend who was sexually assaulted by a home invader while she was in college, and it understandably really shook her up. She's barely five feet tall and can't compete physically with a man, so now she keeps a rifle by her bedside. Just throwing this out there, but the idea that guns are only relevant if your assailants have guns really isn't true. There are a lot of people who need something more than physical strength to defend themselves.
Quote Posted by Vivian
The thing about waiting for ages outside is weird though, I thought the whole point in having such heavily armed police was that they could get handy in a matter of minutes.
No, this is absolutely common in the United States. Like I said a few pages ago, there are huge cultural differences that inevitably skew the discussion. England has around 1,000 people per square mile. The US has 84. We have under a
tenth the overall population density. Our population is spread out and scattered across suburban areas where police response times can be upwards of 30 minutes or more, and SWAT team response times even greater. Combine that with (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) court rulings that the police have no obligation to protect the populace, and it's no surprise that people don't trust the police to keep them safe and would rather take matters into their own hands.
Tony_Tarantula on 15/6/2016 at 02:58
Quote Posted by TheDarkOne93
So, who else besides me loves guns?
I currently own seven of them (six handguns and one shotgun) and open or conceal carry depending on where I'm going. The only reason I carry is that I refuse to become a victim again (I won't go into details) and the fact that it is one of the old forms of American tradition and it gives tyrannical governments a moment of pause between before they commit serious action against us.
Love them? Sure. Going out to play with tannerite targets is more fun than any game could ever be.
Doesn't count for much when I don't own them though. I probably should take up skeet shooting again at some point though.
Quote:
No, this is absolutely common in the United States. Like I said a few pages ago, there are huge cultural differences that inevitably skew the discussion. England has around 1,000 people per square mile. The US has 84. We have under a tenth the overall population density. Our population is spread out and scattered across suburban areas where police response times can be upwards of 30 minutes or more, and SWAT team response times even greater. Combine that with court rulings that the police have no obligation to protect the populace, and it's no surprise that people don't trust the police to keep them safe and would rather take matters into their own hands.
Not to mention a dominant culture among law enforcement that protecting themselves from harm comes first and foremost.
And if you're a minority, this:
Inline Image:
http://media.ifunny.com/results/2015/09/05/cq0wnqzqlx.jpgfaetal on 15/6/2016 at 08:40
Ok, ignoring bjack from now on.
That is an interesting point catbarf - can you link me to some of these analyses and some stats? I have to admit that I find the defence against burglary situation to be a tricky one. I have friends in London who were burgled by a guy with a gun who basically held them all at gunpoint and took what he wanted. They were woken by him pointing a gun at them though so I don't see that any kind of arsenal would have helped them, but I guess in the UK, the assailant figured he could count on there not being any guns.
It's far from a simple issue, but this is where I re-iterate that gradual gun control away from the current state of affairs is the thing which most lucid people seem to agree would start to address the problem in the US. That said, I don't live there and have no plans to go there, so it doesn't really affect me, but that doesn't stop me finding the whole thing ludicrous. There seems to be this impossible to penetrate belief in the US that the gun worship is somehow necessary and positive because of [insert various ideas about freedom, safety etc...], which for some reason don't seem to apply to any other country. I'm a bit bowled over that grenades are legal over there tbh.
Your second paragraph seems to contain some contradictory statements though. So you're saying that unarmed victims tend not to be shot and that armed victims tend to be left alone, but where are the stats for what happens to armed victims set upon by armed assailants? Or is this a rarity by some miracle of probability? Similarly, the paragraph makes it seem like criminals tend not to use guns against the general population and that the average person is thus safer if they carry a gun around, because mainly the unarmed people will be targeted instead. Does this mean the US doesn't have a gun crime problem?
To make it easier for me to see where you're at, tell me the scenarios where the gun risk is, to complement your above scenarios of where it isn't. Also, some links to flesh out the above scenarios as more than partisan would be nice if you have anything to hand.
Vivian on 15/6/2016 at 10:33
Quote Posted by TheDarkOne93
That is right on point my good sir. What freedoms will we have left if we let the government creates arbituary laws that are in violation of supreme law? If they continue to go unchallenged, then freedoms will only become priviledges that the government can regulate at will.
Is this meant to sound like wafty bollocks? What the hell is 'supreme law'?
That is fucking nuts. Wow.
catbarf on 15/6/2016 at 13:20
The AR-15 is actually very popular for self-defense. Unlike a shotgun it doesn't have shoulder-battering recoil, and frangible ammunition is much less likely than buckshot to go through three walls and injure a neighbor. It's lightweight so it's manageable for women, and can be customized to suit the purpose (for example, mounting a flashlight for home defense). I'd also throw in that it's not just purchased for self-defense or sporting, it's also popular for hunting small game and hogs. Bottom line is it's really not the 'mass murder weapon with no legitimate purpose' that the media likes to make it out to be.
To answer your question, in most states rifles and pistols aren't treated differently. That article is commenting on how pistols have a three-day 'cooling-off' period in Florida, I guess to try to prevent an angry person from buying a gun and killing someone immediately. But no matter what you buy, the background check is conducted with a phone call to the National Instant Check System maintained by the FBI, and typically they return a yes or no within a few minutes, so those additional days aren't being used for a more comprehensive check or anything like that. It might seem surprising given how quick the check is, but the NICS has proven to be effective at preventing prohibited persons from acquiring guns, which is why most criminals get their guns from theft, friends/family, or straw purchase.
However, that goes out the window if relevant information hasn't been sent to the FBI. For example, someone with a state-level psychiatric record might pass the background check, because HIPAA prevents the information from being passed on to the feds, or a state-level criminal conviction might not show up because someone in the state legal system screwed up the paperwork.
Quote Posted by faetal
That is an interesting point catbarf - can you link me to some of these analyses and some stats? I have to admit that I find the defence against burglary situation to be a tricky one. I have friends in London who were burgled by a guy with a gun who basically held them all at gunpoint and took what he wanted. They were woken by him pointing a gun at them though so I don't see that any kind of arsenal would have helped them, but I guess in the UK, the assailant figured he could count on there not being any guns.
I think you've kind of got the gist of everything there with your anecdote. If you wake up held at gunpoint, having a gun isn't going to help- but then there are also intangible factors like you said, with the knowledge that a homeowner might be armed influencing criminal behavior. Keep in mind also that a much greater percentage of our population lives in houses rather than apartments, so we have a lot more cases of 'I woke up because I heard glass breaking downstairs', giving the homeowner time to act.
If you'd like to see some stats, you could start with (
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html) Kleck & Gertz's well-known study of defensive gun use in the US. Be aware that there has been a
lot of controversy over the past twenty years around these numbers, but even if you work off the assumption that their conclusion is off by a factor of ten, you can still see far more defensive gun uses than actual shootings.
Quote Posted by faetal
It's far from a simple issue, but this is where I re-iterate that gradual gun control away from the current state of affairs is the thing which most lucid people seem to agree would start to address the problem in the US. That said, I don't live there and have no plans to go there, so it doesn't really affect me, but that doesn't stop me finding the whole thing ludicrous. There seems to be this impossible to penetrate belief in the US that the gun worship is somehow necessary and positive because of [insert various ideas about freedom, safety etc...], which for some reason don't seem to apply to any other country. I'm a bit bowled over that grenades are legal over there tbh.
I hear you about gun worship. I can't stand it either and I'm starting to get really tired of the predictable 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' and 'criminals will find a way' soundbites which could just as easily be applied to all sorts of things we already ban.
That said, I think the example of grenades really highlights a legitimate difference in mentality. Is there any practical reason to own a grenade? Absolutely not. But if they're not being used in crime, and they're properly regulated, there's no justification to ban them outright. It's not on us to justify a need to own something that might be dangerous, it's on the government to demonstrate a public health risk. I know that may sound kind of trite but this 'freedom-first' mentality to our legal system really shapes the discussion. If you ask gun owners why they
need a thirty-round magazine, you probably won't get very far with the conversation, because they don't feel a need to justify themselves- they expect other people to have to justify a ban.
Quote Posted by faetal
Your second paragraph seems to contain some contradictory statements though. So you're saying that unarmed victims tend not to be shot and that armed victims tend to be left alone, but where are the stats for what happens to armed victims set upon by armed assailants? Or is this a rarity by some miracle of probability? Similarly, the paragraph makes it seem like criminals tend not to use guns against the general population and that the average person is thus safer if they carry a gun around, because mainly the unarmed people will be targeted instead. Does this mean the US doesn't have a gun crime problem?
I remember seeing a study with stats about violent confrontations, I'll try to find it later, but yeah, it is rare for armed criminals to confront armed victims for a couple of reasons. The first is, most people in the US don't carry, and muggings at gunpoint aren't especially common even in our more crime-ridden cities, so statistically it's a rare matchup. The second is, people who carry tend to look less like easy targets- a woman, or a guy buried in his smartphone, is much more vulnerable than a man who has trained not only to be armed, but to be alert and aware of danger before it happens. Of course there are oblivious gun owners and there are a lot of women who carry, but a majority of CCers are men and if you've gone out of your way to get a gun and license to carry you're already more proactive about avoiding victimization than the general populace.
Because of how concealed carry laws work in most states, CCers have to be very careful about hiding their weapons, because generally if a weapon is noticeable it is no longer considered 'concealed' and that can lead to brandishing charges. So it's not 'strap on a gun and nobody will want to mess with me'* since it has to be hidden, and it's more about being prepared if the situation requires it, since while muggers shooting their victims is rare, it does happen and a lot of people don't want to simply hope the attacker leaves them unharmed.
It's a similar idea with home defense- maybe the guy rummaging around in the living room is just stealing the TV. Or maybe he's a methhead looking for a fight. Or maybe he's a rapist. Most reputable training resources stress (
http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/five-fundamentals-of-home-defense/) avoiding the attacker and calling the authorities, using a gun only as a last resort. There's a prevailing meme that you just have to rack a shotgun, and the burglar will run for the hills. Well, that's bad advice to rely on, but it does reflect how the primary goal is to dissuade a confrontation rather than instigate it, while being prepared to survive the confrontation if the attacker persists.
* The exception to this being people who open carry, who IMO are all but asking to be either relieved of their weapon by an opportunistic mugger, or targeted first by a mass shooter. Dumb idea.
Quote Posted by faetal
To make it easier for me to see where you're at, tell me the scenarios where the gun risk
is, to complement your above scenarios of where it
isn't. Also, some links to flesh out the above scenarios as more than partisan would be nice if you have anything to hand.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for, but if you're curious about real-world examples, have a look at Reddit's (
https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/) defensive gun use subreddit, and in particular look for the posts with an orange CCW tag. (
http://www.panews.com/2016/06/03/beaumont-robbery-victim-shoots-suspect/) Here's a recent article showing that it is possible for a concealed carrier to get the drop on an armed attacker that I thought you might find interesting.
Quote Posted by Vivian
That is fucking nuts. Wow.
The American public has a lot of reasons to distrust the police, from the court telling us police aren't there for our protection, to numerous cases of innocent homeowners or bystanders being shot by trigger-happy cops, to documented racial bias, to abuse of power and cover-ups, to victims being arrested for unrelated offenses the police notice while they're there. A big part of the vitriol you see in response to calls for gun bans is that many Americans perceive that when it comes to their safety, they're on their own. I'm not trying to score any points here, I just think non-Americans should try to keep these cultural differences in mind. If we had a more effective and less corrupt police system, with the funding and distribution to respond to calls in a timely manner instead of showing up after the crime is complete, there probably wouldn't be nearly as much resistance to stricter gun control.
faetal on 15/6/2016 at 13:41
Catbarf - I have to go away and have a think about this for a bit.
Answer me these though if you want to:
1) Is there a problem with guns in the US?
2) Where does this happen and who to?
3) How to curtail?
4) What final scenario do you see as favourable vis gun ownership in general?
PigLick on 15/6/2016 at 14:30
actually catbarf (you should really think about your nick) has given me a lot of food for thought regarding gun ownership, thanks for the perspective. From where I stand the US sounds like a shit-arse place to live, but I am sure its mostly propaganda, just like Australia is full of deadly animals waiting to kill you once you step outside your home.
although kangaroos man, dont mess with those fuckers
scumble on 15/6/2016 at 14:56
Imagine if it was legal for kangaroos to own guns?
Catbarf has indeed made it more difficult for everyone to be so sure about the gun situation in the US. I've read quite a bit myself about how unaccountable the police and swat teams are and I'd be a bit edgy about it myself living there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PigLick on 15/6/2016 at 15:08
Roos dont need no stinking guns. I once hit a 3 wood at close range into a kangas jawbone and it just turned and looked at me in contempt.
I took a penalty shot.
