Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

I was dying to weigh in on this earlier, but wasn't gonna do so in a incorrect topic. But it seems there is enough interest to hold this discussion, so.....


Would anybody like to show me some evidence...statistics...anything of that nature that indicates that your 57% more likely to shoot someone in your family than an intruder with a personal firearm?

I'm not a gun owner and won't be, but I would like to see that statement actually supported by something before it's used as an argument.

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

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

I agree completely, TA. I'm glad someone started the topic other than me. Here's my take on guns...

Guns are a tool, like anything else. A tool is not evil or good in and of itself. It's just a tool. The person who picks it up and uses it is the one who decides whether it will do good or evil. A gun is just like... say... a hammer. A hammer is very useful. It helps create houses, hang up pictures, pull out old nails.... But it can also be used to crush a skull. If someone uses a hammer to bash a person's head in, does that make the hammer evil? Of course not. Same thing with guns. While they are not toys, guns can be used for recreational target shooting, or hunting, or, yes... home defense. None of those things in and of themselves are wrong. Taking a gun and robbing a convenience store is wrong, but is that the gun's fault? What if the place had been robbed with a katana? Would that make katana's evil? No, of course.

So, guns are tools, and their use is determined completely by their wielder. Now, that brings up some interesting points. Should everyone be allowed to own a gun? I believe the answer should be no. If I was making and enforcing the laws, no one under 21 would own any gun of any kind. Anyone applying for a gun would have to take mandatory gun safety and use classes, and pass a criminal background check. This would ensure that no one who "shouldn't" have a gun could get one. But, we all know that you can get a gun very easily off of the street. So, lawless people will always have guns.

With that being said, what happens if you disarm the law abiding citizens? Only the lawbreakers will have guns.

This is unconstitutional and dangerous.

I own a gun. I keep it loaded, in a locked box, in my home in a location that my children ages 4 and 8 months cannot access. It is in a place that would be readily accesible to me should I need to use it to defend my home and family. My son has seen me use my gun on the range and in the woods. He has seen me clean it and care for it. It will be an heirloom that will be his someday. He has had it drilled into his head since he was old enough to walk that he is never to touch the gun unless I hand it to him. He knows about gun safety and isn't scared of a gun in and of itself. He will someday learn to fire, clean, and care for the gun. He will not be afraid of it, because it is a tool, not unlike a hammer or kitchen knife.

These are my thoughts. I'm sure a topic like this will spawn passionate responses on both sides of the issue, but this is my take on it. Thanks for listening.

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

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

I don't think that's what he wanted to talk about, Hamedo. I think he just wanted some stats to back it up.

I think this is what he was looking for.

This post has been edited by Zephir on 30th July 2004 20:46

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

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

Sorry.... I see a topic that states: Let's talk about guns and I kindof figured this was the place for what I wrote....

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

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

As the topic title is "Let's talk about guns", I'm assuming there's more to it then the stats.

U.S. gun laws are extremely liberal in my view. I have no knowledge on gun laws around the world, so I won't make that comparison. A stronger restriction on them in the US is unlikely to happen in the near future as there are simply too much people who will protest, all votes that cannot be lost.

So, let's assume a society where handguns and shotguns and semi-automatic candy are strictly prohibited. I'm not necessarily talking about the Netherlands, but that's an example. And now, let's imagine what would happen if the gun laws as they are in the States would be adapted. This is my opinion about how things could turn out.

Who are the first to go to the store? People who like to think of themselves as more of a "man" then other men: Raging Macho's. Amature hunters. Criminals. And a few people who think they're going to have a problem with previously named criminals. Not much at first; most will still believe in the no-gun society.

Then, accidents start happening. There's no denying that more lethal accidents *will* happen if more people own a gun. People get drunk. When it's late, it gets dark. People can get into drugs such as cocaine and get totally paranoid. And then there's the crime passionelle. And yes, there will be burglars who get caught who end up shooting the owner of the house.

More and more newspaper reports about death leads to a feeling of unease and eventual fear of the common man; the common man who is now likely to buy a gun to protect what he feels he should protect.

What leads this chain of event to? Nothing but trouble. Tragic, fatal trouble which could easily be avoided in my eyes. I've discussed quite a lot with my cousin when I was in America - he carries a gun almost every day - and I quickly shut him up even though he's an intelligent man. He just said "People are used to it now, it's really no problem".

And here's this. I believe that it really should be the way as it is here, arrogant as that may be. However, should I find myself in your society? Would I buy a gun? I'd consider it. Strongly.


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

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

I disagree with the gun/hammer analogy, and similar ones that have been given in the past.

The fact is, a hammer is designed as a tool for construction, labour, etc. It can simply be used in some unfortunate ways (as can just about anything heavy, if we're honest). Same goes for a kitchen knife/cutting food/anything sharp.

A gun, however, is designed as a weapon. Its purpose is to injure and kill. Recreation, target practice etc. are secondary functions. Besides which, target practice itself implies another usage (practice for what, if we're never going to use it in another context?) and while recreation is of course important, I think it's fair to place that way under the potential utility of a hammer kitchen knife, or something similar. (And I completely disagree with unnecessary hunting of animals, but that's a whole separate topic and best avoided here.)

A nuclear warhead is just a tool, like a hammer. Sure, it can be used to obliterate human life on masse, but you could also use it for target practice on asteroids in case one drops by to obliterate Life on Earth sometime soon. (Okay, weak analogy, but you see what I'm saying: you can defend most human creations with the "can be used for good" argument).

I'm not personally interested in discussing the rights and wrongs of owning a gun (or nuclear weapons for that matter), so please don't take this as any statement of my position on the matter or an invitation to counter it. I've just always though that the "just a tool" argument is pretty weak.

This post has been edited by Tiddles on 30th July 2004 22:11

Well I just want to point out that it was our founding fathers who put into the Constitution these rights to own and defend your home. Did they do it for no reason? No because at the time guns were the livelihood people needed them to survive. Out on the farm when you are hungry and the crop is not yet ready to harvest you go and shoot some deer. When someone is trying to steal your herd, you shoot them. This might seem a little extremem in today's society but that is the purpose of guns.

We won't get rid of guns because they are a necessity. I have a friend that lived in an apartment and his home was the target of 3 or 4 roberries. One of them he was about to get attacked with a screwdriver but he pulled out his 9mm and missed the guy by about 12 inches. Sure this is just one guy that actually got to use his gun in self defense.

Guns however should not be so easy to acquire to teenagers because they are the ones that are the most emotionaly unstable and are liable to go "colombine" on society. I am one i should know.

This reminds me of all those article that blame video games for killings... because you arent getting the full story. Neither am i for that matter.

Well my bottom line is a great old saying. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

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

"Isn't ramza a girls name?" -me

i havent changed my avatar or anything in a long time! time for a change yall!

I still hold to the "tool" idea, but I appreciate your input, Tiddles. I won't argue the point to beat it into the ground. Promise.

The bottom line for me, despite all the statistics that say I'll never need to use a gun... or that someone in my house will get hurt by it.... despite all of that, the point is that I feel safer at night knowing that I have some type of power in my hands that is capable of defending my family from an intruder.

Let's say, just for instance, that your house is broken into. You can't escape the house due to any number of reasons. (your bedroom is on the 2nd or 3rd floor, you have kids across the house in their room that you can't abandon, whatever) You open your door and see a person in your livingroom prowling around with a flashlight. They have an object in their hands that looks like it might be a gun, but you aren't sure. They start to head your way... (or worse, towards your kids room)... and you do not own any type of firearm that you can call to use. What do you do? Now, same situation, but you have a handgun in your bedroom. What do you do then? This is the nightmare, however improbable the odds are that it will happen to me in this lifetime, that I envisioned when I got married and had a kid, and is one of the main reasons I bought a gun.

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

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

The reason the second amendment exists isn't really so much home protection as it was country protection. At the time we were fighting a war that was pretty much fought in the streets by regular people. This isn't really the case anymore. Home protection is important, I'll admit. And I do not have kids yet, Hamedo, and might feel different if I did, but I think if I wanted to protect my family the best would be to not confront the intruder. The good majority of the time the person is not going to be violent unless provoked, so I think I would try to not provoke him, and not get into a gunfight over a TV. (I'm also a pacifist, though, which greatly affects my position on this.)

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

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

I have seen that statistic too, though I don't remember if it was exactly 57%. I tried to find some stats, and found a few interesting articles:

These people seem to think it's not a great idea to have guns in the home.

A few stats on guns (though not what we're looking for, yet)

And this interesting quote, when looking for the exact number 57:

"REPORT 8 New England Journal of Medicine

In the week after buying a handgun, the purchaser was 57 times more likely than the general population to commit suicide, according to a study of California handgun buyers published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. The study, which followed 238,292 people who bought a handgun in California in 1991, found that men were four times more likely to commit suicide in the year after they purchased a handgun than men in general. Women, who bought just 12 percent of guns in California, faced a suicide risk 16 times higher than the rest of the female population during the first year of gun ownership, the study found. The report found that higher suicide risk persists for at least six years after a gun is bought."

I would question this quote, if it were not in the New England Journal of Medicine, a periodical that I happen to have respect for. I don't read it, but my father (a doctor) does religiously.

Source for above quote

My personal beleif is that a gun is a dangerous weapon, and should at all times be treated with respect and care, and only be handled by someone who has learned how to use it properly and safely. Never point a gun at anything you don't want to obliterate, always treat it like it's loaded, and don't let anyone who doesn't know how to use a gun and/or who doesn't respect the rules and morals of owning a gun to use/handle your gun.

Guns make me uncomfortable. I'm Canadian, and not used to this "you can have a gun in your sock drawer" thing. Not that all Americans keep them in their sock drawer, but I bet some do. I have uncles that have hunting guns, but these are kept unloaded in locked cases, and only used when out hunting. I have never, ever seen these guns just out sitting around, they are always locked away, out of sight. Admittedly, I have only held a gun twice, and it wasn't really a dangerous gun; once, an air gun, once a BB gun. I didn't shoot either of them, though I had the chance to shoot at a target.

Quote

They have an object in their hands that looks like it might be a gun, but you aren't sure. They start to head your way... (or worse, towards your kids room)... and you do not own any type of firearm that you can call to use. What do you do? Now, same situation, but you have a handgun in your bedroom. What do you do then?

One concern that I have with this, Hamedo, is this: At night, when you're jumpy and nervous, and you shoot at this intruder, what's the chance of you actually hitting him? Compared to the chance of him being annoyed/scared by the missed shot, and shooting you? I know it's a scary situation, but I think I'd be happier with the idea of throwing a large object at an intruder, or skulking away to find a phone to dial 911, than to try to shoot the person.

This post has been edited by Elena99 on 31st July 2004 05:41

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

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

From age 13 until age 17, I owned a handgun, as I stated in the Weapons topic (a DD44 Dostevel). I sold it to the local sport shop for $500 store credit (that I can't access until I'm 21 or accompanied by someone 21 or older). I got the gun from my dad, who picked it up while he was in Russia on a Navy mission.
Why he gave me a gun when I was 13 is still beyond me, and it didn't exactly thrill my mother either. But still the fact remained, my dad was afraid of being unable to defend myself in case of an intruder, I take it. I kept the gun between my mattress and boxspring of my bed. Fortunately, until I sold it, that gun stayed right there (except for 2 times when I went to the shooting range with friends).
Even if an intruder had entered my home, I don't think that I would have the audacity to actually fire the weapon. With that instrument, you hold another person's life and well-being in your hands, and firing that trigger is a life-taking decision. I don't think I could have another person's life on my hands by way of a gun, self-defense or not. So even if we were burglarized, I couldn't pull the trigger on him. Now, give me a baseball bat or a 9-iron and that's a different story. I woud swing it like the Hammer of God on the guy. But the difference is with a bat or club, you're only trying to incompacitate the guy, which works just as well (please don't correct me and say "but you can kill someone with a bat or golf club as well"... yes, that's true, but only if you bludgeon them over and over and over... or a crushing blow to the head...)
I have no problem with video games and action movies and watching the firefight there becase I know it's fake (despite stupid people on parental-boards who think kids do everything they see)... I couldn't shoot someone though... Not at all. Guns are fun to shoot in recreation, but that's where I draw the line.

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

"When I turn the page
The corner bends into the perfect dog ear
As if the words knew I'd need them again
But at the time, I didn't see it."

~"This Ain't a Surfin' Movie" - Minus the Bear

As far as the argument for or against guns goes, Tiddles took all the words out of my mouth. I've already posted much of what I think about guns in a far older topic, so I'll save a recitation of my previous post.

As far as the 57 statistic goes, I personally knew a girl from 5th grade who was playing with a gun (found, coincidentally enough after seeing Elena's post, in her parents' sock drawer, fully loaded), and accidentally shot and killed her brother.

Having said that, I don't own a gun, and I never plan on it.

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

SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"

I just had a thought.

A burglar isn't going to kill anybody unless he feels like he's in a tight spot: you catching him. Really, would you rather let him take your tv away - which is insured anyway, I take - then confronting him and living the rest of your life with blood on your hands?

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

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

Quote (Elena99 @ 31st July 2004 00:35)

One concern that I have with this, Hamedo, is this: At night, when you're jumpy and nervous, and you shoot at this intruder, what's the chance of you actually hitting him? Compared to the chance of him being annoyed/scared by the missed shot, and shooting you? I know it's a scary situation, but I think I'd be happier with the idea of throwing a large object at an intruder, or skulking away to find a phone to dial 911, than to try to shoot the person.

this is foolishness. we might expect that a burgler who is commiting FELONY would be certainly much more "jumpy and nervous" so *obviously it logically follows that he would be even more likely to miss you.* mhmm. the large object, however, would be 100% accurate each and every time and naturally wouldn't have *any* chance of annoying or scaring the intruder, thus making it a far more worthy method of self-defence...that being said, here is an interestnig table of statistics for you all "omfg guns cause accidental deaths" arguers to consider. here is a list of accidental deaths by various causes in the USA in 1998.

41,200 - motor vehicles
16,600 - falls at home or work
4,100 - drowning
9,400 - poisoning
3,700 - fire or severe burns
3,200 - choking
900 - guns

wow, not just that incredibly mass-murderous now, are they? criminals, BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!111!11!, are unconcerned with anything the law has to say about how they should live -- and this includes gun laws. this is to say that gun laws would do nothing but effectively disarm common people against their criminal analogues. believe it or not, i have a gun in my sock drawer. ok, realistically it's the bottom drawer that just hold a couple of pyjama pants that i never wear anymore, but it might as well be my sock drawer. i have yet to kill my cat (the only living thing who shares the house with me), but due to that menacing contraption in my "sock drawer," i am able to sleep better at night, and if it comes to it, i'll be able to protect myself (and my cat) from an intruder just in case i didn't have an unabridged dictionary or a piece of large pottery handy (unfortuantely for me; clearly they would be more accurate and thus better home defence choices).

yes, guns are weapons. yes, guns are designed to *kill.* this is not a perfect world. soemtimes, some places, for some people, it's kill or be killed (or watch your kids be killed). if it happens to you, won't you be angry that all you have is "a large object" that you're not going to hit him in the dark across the room with anyway?

edit~
these statistics are from the archives of the national safety council.

oh an further edit -- i have a gun in my sock drawer. of course i've shot something with it before. targets at several hundred feet may not be extermely simple to hit directly, but an intruder 10 or 20 feet away is a different matter.

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 1st August 2004 17:38

Quote

this is foolishness. we might expect that a burgler who is commiting FELONY would be certainly much more "jumpy and nervous" so *obviously it logically follows that he would be even more likely to miss you.* mhmm. the large object, however, would be 100% accurate each and every time and naturally wouldn't have *any* chance of annoying or scaring the intruder, thus making it a far more worthy method of self-defence...that being said, here is an interestnig table of statistics for you all "omfg guns cause accidental deaths" arguers to consider. here is a list of accidental deaths by various causes in the USA in 1998.

Geez, goz, lay off of the coffee will you?

Did I even say, anywhere, that the large object would hit the intruder 100% of the time? No. I said that I felt (me. Personally.) that there'd be a better chance of hitting someone with an object rather than shooting a tiny bullet. Have you ever shot anything with a gun before? It's not easy. It's not like in the movies. And even professionals miss, because it's a little bullet, shot from a gun, when you're surprised, usually in semi-darkness at least.

I still think most people would be jumpy and nervous upon figuring out that there is an invader in their house. People, I'm sure you've noticed, are terrified of home invasions. That's why they have these guns in the first place.

Edit

Where did you get those stats? The numbers seem really low, for all the categories.

This post has been edited by Elena99 on 31st July 2004 23:12

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

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

Hey, let's all be nice.

I have no problem with responsible people owning guns, but there does have to be better screening processes to ensure this. I read in the OC Register a couple of days ago that about 7,000 criminals were aloud to buy guns last year because of the shoddy background checking system.

On the other hand, let's think about this statistic. How many times have you needed a handgun to defend yourself? For us civillians the answer is almost always zero, right? I'm much more confident spending my self defence time practicing Jujitsu, so that I know if I'm in a situation where I'm better off fighting I'll fight well. In a gun situation though, it will very frequently be better to stay locked in your room and let them steal your TV. (Burglar lifts 27" Panasonic flat screen glass TV and crushes himself to death )

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

Get me off this Disciplinary Committee so I can play any FF except for FF8!!!

Guns kill people very, VERY rarely. In fact, a gun is pretty much uselss as a weapon. Its the bullets that are dangerous.

Edit

R51, I was in no way joking. Legalized 'kill bullets' is just plain wrong. I believe that only nonlethal ammunition should be available to the public. You know, like beanbag shots, stuff like that. Good for defense, yet safe to have.

This post has been edited by Wind God Gau on 1st August 2004 00:19

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

Uwao. aooh! I'm Gau!
I'm your friend!
Let's travel together!

Quote (Wind God Gau @ 31st July 2004 19:52)

Guns kill people very, VERY rarely. In fact, a gun is pretty much uselss as a weapon. Its the bullets that are dangerous.

I respect the right to own guns, and do so myself quite willingly. But I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who says what WGG just said. It is the most ridiculous argument ever, and even if WGG is joking, there are peoplle who make this argument seriously. Oh, and WGG: If you're joking, it's still inappropriate and spam. Boy, did you put yourself in a bad situation. >_>

People do not buy a gun and not buy bullets. They do not THROW the gun at an intruder or the object of their agression. On the flip side of the same coin, throwing a bullet at someone tends not to do very much damage unless they ingest the bloody thing. Therefore, the bullets can not be considered a separate entity from the guns used to fire them, unless you're really just stretching for a pro-gun argument.

Any accidental death by any reason is too many. Yes, guns cause accidental deaths in homes. They also cause them in the military, where the wielders are trained by professionals to use them. It's irresponsibilty that causes a father to shoot his child, after mistaking the child for a burglar. It's sheer idiocy to leave a loaded gun accessable by a child.

I come from a family of expert shooters in one method or another - my grandfather was an expert rifleman in the Army, and nearly world-class as a shotgunner. My brother is a pistol expert, with my father not too far behind. They all taught me gun safety and responsibility. Ask someone who accidentally shot a family member or whose child accidentally killed him or herself, or a friend, with a gun. See if their backgrounds match up. It's just like anything else - responsibility and education are key. Blind concern toward the issue tends to leave that out.

Yes, I am a gun rights advocate, to an extent - it's one of my more conservative traits. But only to an extent. I see no reason to lift the ban currently in place on weapons like TEC-9s, mini-UZIs, or assault rifles. I also see no reason to extend it to other sorts of firearms.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 19th August 2004 14:20

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

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

i have a double-barrel shotgun (like rufus lol) but its not loaded and i dont have ammo.nothing wrong with guns if u know how to use them.like it was said before,there just tools.

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

This is my shrine to my enternal love,Yuna.if u wanna see it,click HERE .And i like con.btw i hate sex.but thats just a opinion.(i have to say it is to stay unbanned).

And...I LOVE YUNA!!!!!

Signed,Koji,destroyer of hentai.

i was actually very unclear with my comment on another thread which seems to have caused reason for this thread to be created.

the 57% stat is a little more specific than i made it out to be, a gun OWNER is 57% more likely to shoot a family member in the case of a home intrusion, and im sure that stat is outdated anyway, because these things change like the weather.

but...

zephir really drove my point home with the link in his post, as it turns out that a family member is FOUR times more likely to be shot than any intruder, if all circumstances are considered. so thats 400%. i commend hamedo for wanting to protect his family, but it seems to me that the overall danger of the firearm is being grossly underestimated, and saying a gun is a tool doesnt quite sit right with me, its an understatement. a gun is a weapon. guns were invented to kill, no other purpose was in mind when they were created. a WGG, thats like saying OJ didnt stab anyone, it was all the knifes fault.

im a gun owner myself, but i always have my gun disassembled when im not using it, and locked up. i dont keep ammunition in the house unless im planning on hunting or going to the range within the next few days. to me, keeping a loaded gun in the house, locked up or not, is just plain irresponsible and trouble waiting to happen. and you can tell the boy not to touch the gun all you want, but when i was a little kid, i would do the opposite of everything i was told anyway, and i dont think im the only one. look out for your familys safety, but dont go thinking that a gun in the house is security, because its quite the opposite, particularly when its kept loaded and a four year old knows all about it.

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

You watch the world exploding every single night
Dancing in the sun, a newborn in the light
Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death
Hello to eternity and live for every breath

Your time will come...

This has blossomed nicely, I'll weigh in now. I'm somewhat skeptical of statistics that say your 4 times more likely to accidentaly shoot a family member. Regardless, I do without question believe homes with guns are far more likely to see a suicide. So I think a responsible parent would keep it locked up and inaccessable if there was an angst ridden teen in the home. Or if there is a little child in the home. Or pretty much in any circumstance. And there's the catch. We aren't all responsible and there is no way to ensure that all gun owner's are responsible, but there are ways to help ensure that. I think moves in this direction are far more likely to accomplish something than general gun control, especially in the U.S. (meaning gun control will never accomplish much here, given owning a gun is protected in the Constitution).

A gun is a deadly weapon, but it is only to be feared in the hands of an immoral or irresponsible person. I'll never own a gun, as I don't believe they do provided extra protection, but I do support the right to own a gun...it was included in the U.S.'s Constitution for reasons other than personal security.



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

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote

to me, keeping a loaded gun in the house, locked up or not, is just plain irresponsible and trouble waiting to happen. and you can tell the boy not to touch the gun all you want, but when i was a little kid, i would do the opposite of everything i was told anyway, and i dont think im the only one. look out for your familys safety, but dont go thinking that a gun in the house is security, because its quite the opposite, particularly when its kept loaded and a four year old knows all about it.

Therandyhroads- You can make an argument for this if the gun owner was, in fact, leaving a loaded gun in an accesable place. As I said in my post, though, it is nowhere near accesible to anyone in the house but myself and my wife. Now, how is keeping a loaded gun in a secure place in your house irresponsible? I think what is irresponisble is not taking any precautions at all to protect yourself, should the need arise. Irrseponsible, or pacifist, at least. I like to think that I'm neither.

Quote

41,200 - motor vehicles
16,600 - falls at home or work
4,100 - drowning
9,400 - poisoning
3,700 - fire or severe burns
3,200 - choking
900 - guns

Thank you for the numbers, Gozaru~. I appreciated your point of view on the subject. Just be careful next time you reach in there to grab a pair of underoos, eh?

Quote

Have you ever shot anything with a gun before? It's not easy. It's not like in the movies. And even professionals miss, because it's a little bullet, shot from a gun, when you're surprised, usually in semi-darkness at least.  I still think most people would be jumpy and nervous upon figuring out that there is an invader in their house. People, I'm sure you've noticed, are terrified of home invasions. That's why they have these guns in the first place.

Elena, I totally agree that shooting a gun with accuracy is not always the easiest of actions.... and yes, the movies GREATLY exaggerate the average person's apptitude with a gun. BUT, within the confines of my home I think I would have a much greater chance of hitting a target than I would on a 25 yard shooting range. My wife, a slender lass named LaDonna that we discussed in chat the other day, is a wee 93 lbs, and can hit accuratly with my big .45 at 15 yards.... and that's saying alot, for anyone who's felt the kick of a .45 revolver of any make. As Gozaru~ said earlier, though, I would think that the shock and sound of hearing a gun go off would preturb most criminals from sticking around for a second shot.... and probably from ever comming back.

Quote

Any accidental death by any reason is too many. Yes, guns cause accidental deaths in homes. They also cause them in the military, where the wielders are trained by professionals to use them. It's irresponsibilty that causes a father to shoot his child, after mistaking the child for a burglar. It's sheer idiocy to leave a loaded gun accessable by a child.

Couldn't agree with you more, R51.




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

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Rangers51 @ 31st July 2004 19:12)

Any accidental death by any reason is too many. Yes, guns cause accidental deaths in homes. They also cause them in the military, where the wielders are trained by professionals to use them. It's irresponsibilty that causes a father to shoot his child, after mistaking the child for a burglar. It's sheer idiocy to leave a loaded gun accessable by a child.

I come from a family of expert shooters in one method or another - my grandfather was an expert rifleman in the Army, and nearly world-class as a shotgunner. My brother is a pistol expert, with my father not too far behind. They all taught me gun safety and responsibility. Ask someone who accidentally shot a family member or whose child accidentally killed him or herself, or a friend, with a gun. See if their backgrounds match up. It's just like anything else - responsibility and education are key. Blind concern toward the issue tends to leave that out.

Yes, I am a gun rights advocate, to an extent - it's one of my more conservative traits. But only to an extent. I see no reason to lift the ban currently in place on weapons like TEC-9s, mini-UZIs, or assault rifles. I also see no reason to extend it to other sorts of firearms.

I agree completely... I think that those who have gun accidents happen in their homes are just irresponsible.
I noticed that some one earlier said that if someone breaks into your home it's just better to give him what he wants anyway, but I don't see how I should give him what he wants if his desire is to kidnap my child or rape my wife or something like that... so on that note,

Quote (gozaru~)

this is foolishness. we might expect that a burgler who is commiting FELONY would be certainly much more "jumpy and nervous" so *obviously it logically follows that he would be even more likely to miss you.* mhmm. the large object, however, would be 100% accurate each and every time and naturally wouldn't have *any* chance of annoying or scaring the intruder, thus making it a far more worthy method of self-defence...that being said, here is an interestnig table of statistics for you all "omfg guns cause accidental deaths" arguers to consider. here is a list of accidental deaths by various causes in the USA in 1998.

41,200 - motor vehicles
16,600 - falls at home or work
4,100 - drowning
9,400 - poisoning
3,700 - fire or severe burns
3,200 - choking
900 - guns

wow, not just that incredibly mass-murderous now, are they? criminals, BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!111!11!, are unconcerned with anything the law has to say about how they should live -- and this includes gun laws. this is to say that gun laws would do nothing but effectively disarm common people against their criminal analogues. believe it or not, i have a gun in my sock drawer. ok, realistically it's the bottom drawer that just hold a couple of pyjama pants that i never wear anymore, but it might as well be my sock drawer. i have yet to kill my cat (the only living thing who shares the house with me), but due to that menacing contraption in my "sock drawer," i am able to sleep better at night, and if it comes to it, i'll be able to protect myself (and my cat) from an intruder just in case i didn't have an unabridged dictionary or a piece of large pottery handy (unfortuantely for me; clearly they would be more accurate and thus better home defence choices).

yes, guns are weapons. yes, guns are designed to *kill.* this is not a perfect world. soemtimes, some places, for some people, it's kill or be killed (or watch your kids be killed). if it happens to you, won't you be angry that all you have is "a large object" that you're not going to hit him in the dark across the room with anyway?

edit~
these statistics are from the archives of the national safety council.

oh an further edit -- i have a gun in my sock drawer. of course i've shot something with it before. targets at several hundred feet may not be extermely simple to hit directly, but an intruder 10 or 20 feet away is a different matter.

I completely agree with this also Goz.

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

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

Quote (Sephiroth @ 3rd August 2004 01:28)

I noticed that some one earlier said that if someone breaks into your home it's just better to give him what he wants anyway, but I don't see how I should give him what he wants if his desire is to kidnap my child or rape my wife or something like that.

I think you might be referring to the thing I said about letting them steal your TV. In that case I'll explain what I was saying a little better.

If someone is trying to rape or kidnap your family at gunpoint your gun is useless because you won't get to it before their bullet gets to you, right? If they don't have a gun drawn on you then you have an oppurtunity, but if someone was busying themself trying to rape my hypothetical wife, then I could dislocate the criminal's elbow in a second or two. I like this better than shooting a gun which could kill one of my loved ones instead.

In the scenario of my other post- someone is downstairs stealing your TV. They might have a gun and you definitely have one. If you get out to try to stop them, they might shoot you before you can shoot them. Why bother trying? It's a bloody TV.

I have no gripe with responsible gun ownership, but I just want to drive the point home that oppurtunities to make good sensible use of your firearm are so tremendously few and far between in civillian life that I can comfortably say that it is ten times better to practice Martial Arts.

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

Get me off this Disciplinary Committee so I can play any FF except for FF8!!!

I think those who want a gun, should have a phsycological examination, as well, to make sure they are stable, and also have a background check to see if anything bad recently happed to make them want to lash out and/or commit suicide.(bad as being as parents dead, suicides, bullying at school)

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

THE LIZARDSSS SHALL EATSSS YOU

Quote (Angry_Lizard @ 6th August 2004 07:20)

I think those who want a gun, should have a phsycological examination, as well, to make sure they are stable, and also have a background check to see if anything bad recently happed to make them want to lash out and/or commit suicide.(bad as being as parents dead, suicides, bullying at school)

If someone who has already committed suicide tried to buy a gun, mental stability probably shouldn't be your biggest concern.

This post has been edited by Dark Paladin on 6th August 2004 21:41

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

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

As I mentioned in the Weapons topic, I have a greater affinity for blades. Again, if there was an intruder in my house and I was aware of it before he/she was aware of me, I would unsheath my sword, sit quietly in a corner of my room and wait for them to come in, and in the meantime, dial 911 on my cell. If the intruder entered, and I could discern they had a weapon, I'd hack them before he/she got the chance to retaliate. An intruder would likely expect someone to come and confront them, or for people to still be asleep and bolt at the first sign of commotion. They aren't expecting someone to be hiding in a corner waiting for them to expose themselves. A deep gash to the legs or the gun arm would leave them pretty much defenseless without killing them; however, then they are bleeding profusely, and their first priority is sudden going to be getting medical attention before they bleed to death. I got baseball bats I could use too, if I wanted to avoid bloodshed, but also, blades have a psychological edge: believe it or not, people are more freaked out by blades than guns. If an invade breaks into the house, and suddenly, they are missing an appendage, and theres a man holding a sword blade to his neck, I think their first reaction will be to crap their pants. If they have a gun, they'll likely drop it from the reaction to the unexpected, likely massive pain.

Keep in mind, this would of course have to happen in the first couple of seconds of a fight. Soon as they know where you are, at that range, you're as good as dead.

So, in comes your ranged weapon. If, of course, you can't ambush the invader, and you for some reason absolutely have to confront them, you're going to need a ranged weapon to be safe. But, of course, do you really want to kill them? Do you want a death on your hands? Do you want to clean all that blood out the carpet and off the walls? Probably not. And what if an unintended victim gets hit instead of the person? For all of you who are paranoid about killing people, take note: There is such a thing as rubber tipped bullets. Granted, even a rubber bullet at close range is likely to cause serious damage, but it won't kill them. So you can vent your rage and incapacitate your invader by shooting them till your clip is empty, and leave them a painwracked mess on the floor, without having to take their life. At the very least, you can shoot them, enough to knock them down and give you time to get in close range and hit them with a bat, or drop a chair on them, or fling various household items at them or trap them by knocking a bookshelf on top of them or flipping the couch on top of them.

Now, granted, in real life, people aren't as likely to be such "action heroes" when it comes to defending the home. The smartest thing to do if you are being invaded, is to barrickade yourself (and everyone else) in your room, pull out your weapon of choice and call the police.

If its a common burglar, there's no way you're they are going to go through the trouble of breaking down a blocked up door beyond which an armed individual is sitting patiently for them to get in range of their weapon, all while they police are coming.

If the person is seriously trying to kill you? Make for an escape route and get the hell out of there. Bring a weapon in case they catch up, but call the cops by cell or once you are in a safe zone.

If your family/friends/loved ones are in danger, or you have no choice but to confront the person? It your call. Just know that the invader has the upper hand, and you got to play it carefully. Do what you have to if push comes to shove, but in situations that extreme, no amount of statistics or policies are going to save you or provide much guidance. Its up to your own compitence and will power.

Most problems can be avoided if people just use common sense and keep a level head. This is hard to do when scared out of your wits, and truth be told something this dramatic is likely never or very rarely to happen to you. Any smart criminal will make damn sure no one is even in the house if they are trying to rob it in the first place. And if you got a murderer on your ass, then, well that's a whole nother situation entirely.

The point is, you can list statistics and quote articles and gripe back and forth at each other, but whether it be a gun, a sword, a bat, or yourself, whether you are defending your own life, your loved ones, or your material possessions, you must do so with proper preperation, smart thinking, and a healthy amount of caution. If you can't handle a situation like this, or are unsure, you should do what you can to not get yoruself in such a situation. Unless you are not given any alternative, take the defensive; don't go out looking to kick some ass, take cover, call for help, and lay low, fighting only when you know you can take the person, and you have no other alternative.

I suppose I'm being a bit unrealistic or idealist. But as ever, that's just me. Take it or leave it.

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

And behold, I saw a Pale Gaming System, and the name of he who rode it was Squaresoft, and Enix followed him.

"The point is, you can list statistics and quote articles and gripe back and forth at each other, but whether it be a gun, a sword, a bat, or yourself, whether you are defending your own life, your loved ones, or your material possessions, you must do so with proper preperation, smart thinking, and a healthy amount of caution. If you can't handle a situation like this, or are unsure, you should do what you can to not get yoruself in such a situation."

we are lead to wonder whether or not sharkerbob has seen a burgler with a gun walking into his child's room, and how much proper preparation and smart thinking the situation afforded.

the fact of the matter is *not* that some of us are advocating murder. this has turned from a discussion of gun control to a discussion of the topic "is a gun an acceptable weapon of choice to use for protection of my family in times of crisis?" i believe it is safe to say that most of us who would answer "yes" to the makeshift topic i have presented likely also support the right to own a firearm for other reasons besides personal protection (even if they may not indulge in those practises themselves). therefore, that the discussion has degraded into an argument over simply one use for firearms (by both sides) shows us how close to home this particular argument can hit. it disturbs me that you choose to include such polemic (if even unintentionally) phrasing such as "So you can vent your rage," and "don't go out looking to kick some ass." i don't believe that any of us who advocate the use of a firearm for self-defencive reasons are really looking to "kick some ass" or "vent rage." to have your home invaded by an armed burgler would be a very frightening situation indeed -- an no matter how strong we may perceive our consciounesses to be, we are imperfect and have inclinations to falter in the face of grave danger of terror. again, sometimes, there are occasions in which there is simply no *time* available to prepare, think, or contemplate the most cautious solution to dreadful issue you must deal with. at these times, it may be an instant's difference that dictates the consequences: a dead intruder and a carpet that will need replacing, or a dead child.

i don't mean to sound detached. i can say, personally, if i were thrust into such a situation, i wouldn't have the solution mapped out in my head. that is to say, i wouldn't *know* what to do -- and i'm quite sure that many, if caught speaking candidly, feel the same way about themselves. we're not full of rage and itching to commit a murder. we're looking for our safeties and the safeties of our loved ones. there are vices in the world, and if ones comes knocking on your children's bedroom door, you want to be prepared for it -- even if it means prepared to take a life.

You don't sound any more detached than I do. I sound worse.

No, I have not encountered a burgler invading my house.

No, I haven't had an invader threaten my children. I don't have any. I never will, so that will never be a problem. More than likely, I will never have a wife, either, or pets, so the only person who will ever be at risk from an invader will be myself, unless I have roommates. This is the way I chose to live my life. Single and loving it. I fully admit that fear of being unable to defend loved ones is one of the many reasons I will never raise a family, though it is low on the list. I am afraid to die, but I would be even more afraid to lose something so close to my heart. I avoid the nightmare of this unbearable failure by not setting myself up for it. Cowardly? Certainly. But one must also take into account, I have more important things to do with my life as well. I have other goals to reach.

As I said, my thoughts on dealing with inaders were on the idealistic side, and probably unrealistic. I am no expert, nor am I claiming to be some self defense guru. I am simply putting forth my thoughts.

I use blunt terms like "kick some ass" and "vent your rage" because a lot of people who get into these types of arguments do sound like that's why they have a gun. They seem very gung-ho about having a gun for defense, almost like they are actually wishing someone would break into their homes just so they can "pop a cap in their ass". Granted, people also talk big (*points to self*), so when push comes to shove, they would probably freak out like the rest of us, should something like that happen, unless they lived a life where that sort of danger was ever present anyway, and they were used to dealing with it. I do not mean to insult or disturb anyone, and I know no one here as of yet has fully projected that kind of callous mentallity, however the mentallity has been mentioned. I am not advocating murder. I am not advocating brutality. Simply saying that is how some people approach this subject, and some people just may actually react that way.

When a situation like this is actually happening, there is little to no time to map out a strategy/"battle plan" to deal with the intruder. What I meant was prepare for the instance before it happens, so that when it happens, you know what to do. Its not that much different from preparing for escape from a fire, or defense against a tornado. Prepare ahead of time. Those who can afford it, set up alarms in their homes. This is a good defense. But those who can't afford it? Or those who live in places where help isn't likely to come at a moments notice? All I'm saying is be aware of the danger, and prepare for it ahead of time. Know the risks and try to work as many options for future referance. I know this is hard to do, especially when you go your whole life without an incident happening to you or anyone you know. Doesn't mean it can't happen to you. Don't be a paranoid nut about it, but don't ignore the risk, either.

I suppose I rambled too much about "dealing with the situation", so you can feel free to ignore everything I said and label me a delusional day dreamer. And I'm sorry if I've wondered off topic.

Side note: Also, why does everyone have to use children as the focal point or prime example of an argument? Why is it always "if you don't do this, a child suffers?" "Its either you die or the child does"? "Its either you kill someone or they kill your child?" Why are children that much more important than anyone else, huh? If they were my children, sure, I'd want to protect them, but they would be of no more or less importance than the other loved ones in my life. If I had to chose between my child or my wife (not that I'll have either) I wouldn't be able to just pick one or the other. Don't know what I would do if I situation like that should arise.

Futher, I'll be blunt: I dislike children. I dislike them a lot. Using them as an argument against me serves only to annoy me to no end. Callous? Sure. Why not. If they were my own children? That's got nothing to do with them being children. Its got everything to do simply with the fact that they are loved ones.

Getting back on the gun issue...

Like some have said, keeping the gun in a safe place only those who can be responsible with it have access to, properly teaching their children to respect the gun and never abuse its power (in other words, it isn't a toy, its not something to mess around with, its dangerous and should never be used except by those who are authorized, etc). It seems to me, most of those statistics result from being being irresponsible with the gun. Improperly storing it, leaving it loaded, etc. Granted, its impossible to account for all variables. As human beings we are inherantly flawed out the wazoo, and the gun, though intended to be a weapon for injuring and killing, is only dangerous to the "innocent" when used irresponsibly or for "evil" intent.

Guns, or weapons in general, will always be around, as will people who will use them for ill intent. I personally believe those who can handle the responsibilty of possessing a gun should be allowed to have one for whatever purpose is needed.

Sweet jebus I'm a windbag today. I'm shutting up now. Again, no offenses or disturbances intended. I'm not out to insult anyone or say they are wrong. I'm just providing my thoughts on the matter.

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

And behold, I saw a Pale Gaming System, and the name of he who rode it was Squaresoft, and Enix followed him.

My stance on gun control is fairly non commital, I suppose. I see no reason why a law abiding citizen should not be allowed to have a gun in their own home, if they are responsible with it. The second amendment is pretty clear on the issue, and the right to personal security is one that everyone deserves to have. I have two major problems with gun ownership, however (one personal and one practical):

1. I personally could never fire a gun into a living thing. I don't have a wife or kids, so perhaps that would change later if they get threatened one day, but if it were a choice between being shooting or being shot, I would probably be shot. That or shoot for a kneecap or something. I realize that makes me sound like a pussy, because I sort of am, but I don't think I could take the life of another, whatever the justification. I realize that's not a reason no one should be able to own a gun, just a reason I never will. An aluminum bat and a security system will be it for me. I certainly would not hold it against someone else for killing in self defense, but I couldn't.

2. There are far more people out there who want a gun than there are people who are responsible and have knowledge of gun safety. People shrug off the fact that 900 accidental gun deaths occur each year, becuase hey, it's less than choking or burn related deaths. It's still far too many when the number could be 0 if gun control laws were enacted (or if the general populace were less ignorant). I also have an issue with the main self defense argument. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would think that the intent behind most burglars in the "you wake up and there's a man in your house" scenario would be to rob you whilst you are asleep, not to rape your wife and murder your children. Why is it necessary for him to die? Or to piss him off, thus making him panic and kill you?

I realize that I'm sort of arguing both sides, but I have conflicting ideas. I could be wrong in either assertion, and perhaps in both. But hey, it's what I was thinking at the time, and that makes it right.