Do we NEED guns?

Bartdanr I am going to be gone most the day. You debate though. Just real quick I listed those 6 arugments because those are the ones I saw the most. If there is another one you would like to entertain that I skipped throw it in.

Give us your definition of an assult rifle. To me it means rifle designed for modern military warefare as its primary purpose. Within the context of that statement it would need to be automatically fed, shortened barrell and/or stock for close quater combat, semi-automatic and fully automatic capablity with multiple rounds fired per trigger pull, or able to be converted to such by nature of its design. Arms outfitted with lasers and infra-rednightscopes.

I would consider at 30.06 to be a deer rifle today. It was designed for combat but now with its single shot bolt action operation is closer to modern hunting rifles than an assult weapon.

I will reply to your other posts later.

Hi again, Robtex--thanks for your continued posts.

robtex said:

4) any gun control is an infringement on ones civil liberties:

Click to expand...

I know of only a few strong libertarians who take this point of view. Even strong pro-gun rights groups (such as the NRA) support things like not allowing convicted felons to own guns, restricting access to Class III weapons (machine guns, silencers, and other such devices), instant background checks, etc. This might be somewhat of a strawman, just as saying that you support the total banning of all firearms (from your other posts it's clear that you do not.)

a) Not allowing someone to drive drunk by the same token is an infringement on the drunk's civil liberties. After all it is his liver or is it? It is not just his liver at risk but the other drivers on the road. By the same token it isn't just the gunower's risk that should be measured by socieities at large who will my margin have a number of people killed because someone had a gun.

Click to expand...

I don't find the cases parallel at all. My ownership of a gun does not endanger other people; but if I got into the car drunk, it clearly endangers others. Certainly, criminal ownership of firearms endangers others. "Someone" owning a gun doesn't lead to murder; someone irresponsible and/or criminal owning a gun leads to murder.

Your analogy suggests that someone getting stinking drunk at home endangers others because "someone" is driving drunk.

5) comparision small when compared to victimless crimes such as driving deaths, drug use and others

a) the comparisions made thus far are for victimless crimes such as highway accidents drug use and high risk activies. This makes the comparision weak when considering that as a society there is a community impact by the level of gun control we inact or do not in act. A homocide with a gun is not a victimless crime but a victim crime and only comparisions of vicitm based crimes are valid parallels.

Click to expand...

I agree.

6) impractical of removing them from society or "if we ban guns only outlaws will have them"

a) This is a very negative way of looking at this. It only looks at short term gain and immediate gratification. It is a true statement that we will never get rid of all guns but we could over time get rid of most assult rifles and concealed pistols. I am thinking long-term when I argue against this statement and would further state that because a plan won't work immediatly or in the short term, say like in a year, is a really poor reason to scrape the whole plan.

Click to expand...

But the immediate effect would be the disarming of the peaceful populace and the continued presence of an armed criminal element. If you dismiss the defensive use of firearms by civilians, then perhaps your argument would be valid.

Regardless if a particular person defends themselves with a firearm or not is not really the issue. If criminals know for a fact that the victim they are attacking has a high probability of being disarmed, they are emboldened to act. Short term it would not simply eliminate the actual defensive use of firearms, but also the fear that criminals have concerning being defended against.

However, your point about long-term is valid, if illegal arms trading would be controled. Looking at the current state of the "war" on drugs, I am a bit skeptical that it would be close to effective.

b) when this arguement is made it is a "sour grapes" approach. What I mean is that the real reason anti-gun control advocates make this arguement, isn't because they think gun removal will never work it is instead because they are against gun removal. If most or many of them thought is would not work they wouldn't worry about hard it is to do nearly as much as they do. As such I would consider this arguement a red herring to the issue.

Click to expand...

Actually, the only people who really wouldn't care would be those who have no intent of following the law. It's those who care about being law-abiding citizens who care.

c) The arguement when used, confirms that anti-gun control people see an issue with gun ownership being hazardess to our society. The arguement in essense is guns are dangerous to society, so we need one too. If you are in fact acknowleging the danger of it why advocate propogating more of that danger in society instead of a long-term goal of making society safter by its removal.

Click to expand...

But it's not just guns per se that most pro-self-defense people look at. It doesn't really matter if a criminal is attacking you with a knife, a bare fist, a club or a gun--people who support the right to self-defense want to have adequate means of self-defense. (I know you mentioned non-leathal means of self-defense, and I'd like to see some more information about that.) Since criminals will always be with us (though I believe we could take many measures to reduce the criminal element in society, but that's for another thread), potential victims want the means by which they can defend themselves.

next post will be the rambo post and a question of anti gun control.

Click to expand...

Ok, I look forward to the continuing dialogue.

Peace

Hi Robtex, thanks again for your post.

robtex said:

Has been one of the most informative debates I have been in. For instance I thought there was a much higher percentage of first time shooters than presented by stats on here. At this point I have to confess I am tired of looking at this thread. I may make more posts tomarrow but right now I am not feeling gun control at all.

Click to expand...

I can understand getting weary over this debate. I myself grow tired of it periodically. This horse has been beaten to death so many times that it's dust.

But it is really gray. Hard to qualify many parts of it and much of theories for gun control, not having been tested are speculatory at best. The commonality may be more than people wanting order. I am thinking both sides want safetly and the bigger question may be what level of gun control from 0 -100% would afford the most freedom to the highest number of people.

Click to expand...

I agree; I think it's important for those involved in the debate the recognize that those who don't agree with them are nearly all acting in good faith and really hope for a better society.

Many of these posts on both sides revolve around this issue of safety and maybe in the lobbying game in Washington that would be a professional angle to take and an accurate reflection of societies wants and needs on gun control issues.

Click to expand...

Although it's hard to get past the rhetoric of politicans and their hangers-on to really see, after all the facts are presented, what people would really want. But I recognize that even politicians and lobbiests are often acting on sincere belief.

Peace

Hi again, Robtex--thanks for your post.

robtex said:

Bartdanr I am going to be gone most the day. You debate though. Just real quick I listed those 6 arugments because those are the ones I saw the most. If there is another one you would like to entertain that I skipped throw it in.

Click to expand...

Just one: self-defense is a basic human right. Certain firearms (in particular, handguns) are one of the best means to exercise that right. It's related to some of the other arguments that you presented. The debate really is (or should be) does the right to have access to handguns outweigh the potential for criminal misuse of handguns (assuming that a handgun ban would significantly eliminate both)?

Give us your definition of an assult rifle. To me it means rifle designed for modern military warefare as its primary purpose. Within the context of that statement it would need to be automatically fed, shortened barrell and/or stock for close quater combat, semi-automatic and fully automatic capablity with multiple rounds fired per trigger pull, or able to be converted to such by nature of its design. Arms outfitted with lasers and infra-rednightscopes.

Click to expand...

I did in my first post on this thread, but I'll add it again here. A true assault rifle is a rifle capable of selective fire, usually firing a shortened round for close range combat (200 meters or less).

The so-called "assault rifles" of the 1994 ban refer not to selective fire weapons, but semi-automatic (i.e., self loading) only. Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the 1930's.

The definition you have above seems a bit too specific. For example, the M-16 does not have a shortened barrel (though the M-4 does), nor does it have a shortened or collapsable stock (again, the M-4 does). Lasers and infra-red nightscopes are nice touches for either indoor combat or night combat, but are useless during the daytime outdoors.

A key understanding that I can't emphasize enough is the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic." "Automatic" firearms are those that can shoot more than one round at the pull of a trigger--i.e., a machine gun. "Semi-automatic" are self-loading, and cannot shoot more than one round for each pull of the trigger.

Barrel lengths under 16" and fully automatic firearms have been controlled about seventy years. The so-called "assault rifles" that were addressed in the 1994 law and are railed against by many people are semi-automatic versions of these rifles.

Before the 1994 ban, the ATF tightly regulated guns that they felt were easily convertable to fully automatic fire. If a weapon could be easily converted into fully automatic fire, it was banned. (Keep in mind that even a hunk or raw steel can eventually be converted into a fully automatic weapon, so there is some level of convertability in any firearm--or a hunk or raw steel.)

I would consider at 30.06 to be a deer rifle today. It was designed for combat but now with its single shot bolt action operation is closer to modern hunting rifles than an assult weapon.

Click to expand...

One clarification: most bolt-action 30-06 rifles have a multiple round magazine (4-5 rounds) and are not single-shot. "Single-shot" usually refers to a weapon with a magazine limited to one round.

I will reply to your other posts later.

Click to expand...

Ok, I look forward to our continuing discussion.

Peace

While I was out running, I realized that I didn't consider something in regard to what Robtex said about comparing gun-related crime to automobile accidents and drunk driving.

Auto accidents are rarely truly "accidents". They are generally caused by irresponsible or criminal behavior. Driving drunk (or on both perscription or non-perscription drugs), driving while too tired, speeding, driving at a speed too high for the driving conditions (rain, snow, etc), following too closely--all of these things (and many more) are irresponsible (and criminal) behaviors. Actual mechanical failure being the cause for accidents is pretty darn rare. So in many ways, comparing misuse of firearms to misuse of automobiles is fair. Calling "automobile accidents" as "victimless crimes" only applies if only the irresponsible driver is involved in the accident--even though before the accident the driver was endangering all other drivers on the road with him or her.

In addition, the "drunk driving" comparison: if one would advocate abolition (of all alcohol) as the solution to drunk driving, then one can comapre the abolition of firearms as the solution to gun-related crime. The same concept is behind both proposals: the benefits of having alcohol (or guns) legal is outweighed by the dangers of having them legal.

Peace

That's a very good point, bartdarn; one I had never thought of. personally, when I was drinking alcohol, I always made it a rule not to drive within 12 hours of have had a drink; the alcohol content in the blood ruling, is, I believe absurd; there should be no trace whatsoever.


Even if my son (as I must admit I used to think, in the sixties) believes that he is a better driver after a drink or two, because he is less tense.

bartdanr said:

Hi again, Robtex--thanks for your post.
Just one: self-defense is a basic human right. Certain firearms (in particular, handguns) are one of the best means to exercise that right. It's related to some of the other arguments that you presented. The debate really is (or should be) does the right to have access to handguns outweigh the potential for criminal misuse of handguns (assuming that a handgun ban would significantly eliminate both)?

Click to expand...

I am going to go backwards though your post if that is ok. If rifles cannot be converted to multi-shot weapons and do not hold 20 plus round clips I wouldn't be for banning them. I am, for me just worried about multishot high bullet capcity rifles. My understanding though, is that currently a civilian can own an m16 or m 14 and those are convertable.

On the self-defense issue. I think that has become the key issue in this thread and I would like to make some points on it too. First I am not advocating taking away anyones right to self-defense. However, I am also not saying firearms are the only or main way of self-defense. I think alot of the anti-gun control arguements have centered around the notion that firearms are either (a) the only (b) the primary means of self-defense.

I would say to you that there are tasers, pepperspray, metal whips called "sippos" or other slang names. I would be much more pleased to see a trend of taser concealers instead of 38 and 9mm concealers because upon successful impliminatation the results are the same--successful self-defense but the end result for tasers and p spray is non-lethal by a much greater margin.

I also want to explain here the two complications with handgun self-defense .

1) If you are outside your home and you are in a situation where you need to protect yourself understand that you likley will have "jumped" or in a situation where the proximity of you to other assailiants makes drawing it and aiming it before you are in grappling range impossible. The idea you will pull your gun and save your neck isn't likely. The places where many fights happen outside of the home are bars and sporting events neither of which allows you to have your concealed firearm. However with pepper spray or a hollow steel whip like a sippo you will fair much better with drawing and implimenting the instruement in a close proximity stressful encounter. In addition understand that when you take your gun out and shoot paper on the weekend this has little overlay in application of using it close quater combat which is what you are advocating when you say self-defense. Under stress I am going to guess that many people will fire way off target (trying to avoid being grabbed), have possiblty of shooting themselves and/or a non-involved party. From a practicality standpoint tasers, pepperspray and sippos (if physically able) make sense not only because they are non-lethal but they are more applicable to common assult senerios that involved rapid movement in close proximity.

I think that because profit margin involved in firearm sales and due to current consumer drive with a current product over newer prospects manufacters and retailers are less apt to present the above arguement and because tasers pepper spray and steel whips to private citizens are not frequent it is hard to qualify this on paper at this time.

2) In domestic situaitons the current state gusn in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder. Why?

a) shot at loved one when thought it was an intruder
b) misfired in wrong direction
c) criminal found firearm
d) domestic violence and gun was opportunistic.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Again in the home tasers and pepper spray probably in pro/cons outweigh a firearm for the following reasons:

1) if the assilant is armed and in your home and you get "first shot" p spray and taser will be as affecting in stopping him as a firearm

2) If you make a mistake and shoot a loved one with p spray or a taser death is less likey a result

3) p spray and taser will if more common shrink spousal deaths by non-lethality of them.

If the anti-gun control camp can for me, explain why a handgun is the ONLY or main option over the others I would appreciate that.

bartdanr said:

True...but numbers vs. percent as significant is I guess a personal judgment. Certainly no one wants to be a casualty, even if "statistically insignificant." The numbers are what the numbers are, but two people can look at the same statistics and say "7%--that's low" or "7%--that's high!". It's a matter of personal judgment.

Click to expand...

Give me a number. What is a reasonable amount of deaths given the options and constraints of firearm deaths that are not self-defense deaths. I just see other countries with hundreds of firearms deaths annually and us with 10k plus annual and think how nice it would be to trade stats with some of them. This leads me to think how and than gun control comes to mind.

bartdanr said:

True. Although (1) so-called "assault rifles" are used in very little crime and (2) there are few incidents of 30 round magazines used to kill 30 people at a time. (Yes, those incidents are tragic--but they are a tiny percent of the total. Again, it could be that "percent-vs.-numbers" disagreement.)

Click to expand...

We seem to have not reached an agreement on what is an assult rifle, so if I may let me say rifles that have multi-bullet discharge capcity per trigger pull or are convertable for such and rifles with high round capcity. For instance mac 10's ak 47's m16's type guns. My arguement isn't about the percent of crime or numbers by those types of rifles, but the lack of neccissity they have in society. They are dangerous, designed for killing humans, and have no recreational pupose that is legal other than shooting paper targets on the weekend. So why have them?

bartdanr said:

First, we really need to define "military type rifle." Remember, the Springfield .45-70 single-shot black powder cardridge rifle is "military type"; the Springfield .30-06 bolt-action rifle is "military type", etc. The linage of a rifle does not determine its eventual use.

Click to expand...

Throw out your definition. I am only worried about rifles that can discharge mutiple bullets on one trigger squeeze like m16's ak 47's uzis and guns with high round capacities and auto feeds like a spas 12 shotgun

bartdanr said:

It's quite evident that if the government decides to use all means at its disposal to eradicate an insurrection, it probably could do so. It could also then alienate the populace and rule over a barren nuclear wasteland.

Unless a government is completely ruthless it will not necesarily be able to eradicate insurrection. Consider Iraq and Vietnam, for example. Sadaam was able to control Iraq through means that the US government is unwilling to use. It is not evident that we can control it with our current means.

Now, not all dictatorships are alike. Certain dictatorships are (or at least begin) with a lot of popular support, and they are more authoritarian than totalitarian. If the government, even a popular one, starts using ruthless means against an insurrection, it may actually pour fuel on the fire.

My main point is this: we've entered the era of 4th generation warfare, and a military with aircraft carriers, M-1A1 tanks and Apache gunships is not equipped to fight it. It's equipped to fight 2nd or 3rd generation warfare very effectively, but a 4th generational war is something beyond its scope.

Click to expand...

Can you please stat why you fear the goverment of the USA. have nothing to debate other than you have a fear but not why.

bartdanr said:

Although I agree that we are currently not in danger of being enslaved by our government, it does not necessarily take years to turn a republic into a dictatorship. 9/11 influenced many Americans to gladly hand over some of their civil liberties. Another 9/11 (God forbid) might bring out the cry to eliminate more of them.

Consider what Pearl Harbor did to the civil liberties of Japanese-Americans. It has happened here, and it can happen again.


I also believe that through non-violent means we Americans have been very effective at checking the growth of government control--even during 9/11.

Finally, it should be clear that not every country that uses strong gun control automatically leads to oppressive government. Much of Europe has strong gun control, and yet these same governments have strong respect for civil liberties (in many cases.)

Click to expand...

Same question as above. I'd like to see how well each method practically is used for self-defense. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

to be continued...[/QUOTE] I would say that is would be a very encumbersome project to convert the democratic republic of the usa into an oppressive govement for the following reasons:

1) We have 4 branches of federal goverment multi-level state goverments and tens of thousands working in a plurasitic goverment. Most of them would have to collaborate to get the desired result of an oppressive goverment.

2) The officials are elected to most positions by the people who can evaulate and make judgemental distinctions in who they are electing

3) Our goverment, mostly hires people born and raised in the USA meaning we are our goverment.

Also, what liberities did you see lost by 911? Other than airport liberties which I, personally see as a good thing, I didn't see many changes.

bartdanr said:

I would like to see some statistics to show in real life how (a) those who resist crime with a gun fare, (b) how those who resist without a gun fare and (c) those who don't resist with anything fare. I have heard stats in the past, but I don't know where they were from. Talk about dart guns and PVC pipe is fun, but real-life data is, well, real.

Click to expand...

I don't think we will be able to find any either way because not many studied seem to have been done ( i can't find any either) and the results are not easy to quality. Dart guns and pvp pipes are alot closer to reality than any stat that may or may not exist. The reality is that the data isnt' easy to measure on close quater fighting with a firearm but simulations with similar conditions are. The point of putting up the pvc and dart gun drill was/is two-fold:

a) Shows that most people who daydream of "saving the day" with their concealed pistol don' t have even a vague idea of what that would be like because they have never explored it.

b) Because of lack of data a safe controlled experiement becomes a viable option by default.

bartdanr said:

Hi again, Robtex--thanks for your continued posts.
I know of only a few strong libertarians who take this point of view. Even strong pro-gun rights groups (such as the NRA) support things like not allowing convicted felons to own guns, restricting access to Class III weapons (machine guns, silencers, and other such devices), instant background checks, etc. This might be somewhat of a strawman, just as saying that you support the total banning of all firearms (from your other posts it's clear that you do not.)

Click to expand...

I am going to let this one drop then. I saw others use it as an arguement so I posted on it. So i posted on that issue.

bartdanr said:

I don't find the cases parallel at all. My ownership of a gun does not endanger other people; but if I got into the car drunk, it clearly endangers others. Certainly, criminal ownership of firearms endangers others. "Someone" owning a gun doesn't lead to murder; someone irresponsible and/or criminal owning a gun leads to murder.

Click to expand...

Actually it is more that guns make it really easy compared to other instruements to whose primary use is death. I posted a lot but gonna re-write cause everybody seems to overlook it. If you compare a gun to a knife or stick you will discover two things:

1) A stick or knife takes physical skills to use. Footwork, hand-eye coordination, continous attack, and hip rotation to make it effective. A gun takes pulling a trigger. This takes us from x amount of populatation that is lethal with a knife or stick (sharp or blunt insturment) to 100 % that is lethal with a gun. A gun's primary purpose again is killing.

2) Mental committment. To kill someone with a knife or stick repeated successful attacks are generally neccessary. Blood is splattering during this and the person implimenting this instruement is right next to the person being attacked. It is a very personsal and excuse the word choice, "intimate" activity. Many people do not possess the mental foritude for such an exercise. However, a gun can be used at a greater distance and the mental committment is detached to "pulling the trigger."

bartdanr said:

But the immediate effect would be the disarming of the peaceful populace and the continued presence of an armed criminal element. If you dismiss the defensive use of firearms by civilians, then perhaps your argument would be valid.

Click to expand...

Have to find some numbers. Get back to you on this.

bartdanr said:

But it's not just guns per se that most pro-self-defense people look at. It doesn't really matter if a criminal is attacking you with a knife, a bare fist, a club or a gun--people who support the right to self-defense want to have adequate means of self-defense. (I know you mentioned non-leathal means of self-defense, and I'd like to see some more information about that.) Since criminals will always be with us (though I believe we could take many measures to reduce the criminal element in society, but that's for another thread), potential victims want the means by which they can defend themselves.

Click to expand...

what else do they and you look at and why are both needed?

Hi Robtex, again, thanks for your post.

robtex said:

I am going to go backwards though your post if that is ok. If rifles cannot be converted to multi-shot weapons and do not hold 20 plus round clips I wouldn't be for banning them. I am, for me just worried about multishot high bullet capcity rifles. My understanding though, is that currently a civilian can own an m16 or m 14 and those are convertable.

Click to expand...

By "multi-shot" do you mean fully automatic weapons? That is, weapons that can fire more than one round for every single pull of the trigger?

"Conversion" is a tricky issue. As I stated before, even a hunk of raw steel is "convertible" to a fully-automatic machine gun. However, fully automatic weapons have been carefully controlled for about seventy years. The BATF also specifies that a semi-automatic firearm cannot be easily converted to fully automatic. For example, in the semi-automatic version of the M-16, the AR-15, the receiver is modified in such a way as to not accept full automatic parts.

Can someone modify the receiver to accept full automatic parts? Sure--but it's probably easier to build one out of aluminium with the proper machine tools. It's also a crime to do so, that carries stiff penalties.

As for high-capacity magazines: yes, the semi-automatic versions of the M-16 and M-14 (which as I said before are semi-automatic and not fully automatic) can hold any magazine designed to fit in the magazine well--it can be 5 round, 10 round, 20 round, 30 round, etc. Any firearm with a protruding magazine can take a magazine designed to fit in its well. Many bolt-action rifles could be modified to accept a protruding magazine as well.

On the self-defense issue. I think that has become the key issue in this thread and I would like to make some points on it too. First I am not advocating taking away anyones right to self-defense. However, I am also not saying firearms are the only or main way of self-defense. I think alot of the anti-gun control arguements have centered around the notion that firearms are either (a) the only (b) the primary means of self-defense.

I would say to you that there are tasers, pepperspray, metal whips called "sippos" or other slang names. I would be much more pleased to see a trend of taser concealers instead of 38 and 9mm concealers because upon successful impliminatation the results are the same--successful self-defense but the end result for tasers and p spray is non-lethal by a much greater margin.

I also want to explain here the two complications with handgun self-defense .

1) If you are outside your home and you are in a situation where you need to protect yourself understand that you likley will have "jumped" or in a situation where the proximity of you to other assailiants makes drawing it and aiming it before you are in grappling range impossible. The idea you will pull your gun and save your neck isn't likely. The places where many fights happen outside of the home are bars and sporting events neither of which allows you to have your concealed firearm. However with pepper spray or a hollow steel whip like a sippo you will fair much better with drawing and implimenting the instruement in a close proximity stressful encounter.

Click to expand...

I am not certain-and correct me if I'm wrong--that many states prohibit carrying any kind of weapons, not just firearms, into bars.

Second, your example of getting "jumped" is but one example of possible attackes, not necessarily the most common.

In addition understand that when you take your gun out and shoot paper on the weekend this has little overlay in application of using it close quater combat which is what you are advocating when you say self-defense. Under stress I am going to guess that many people will fire way off target (trying to avoid being grabbed), have possiblty of shooting themselves and/or a non-involved party.

Click to expand...

As you say, this is a guess.

From a practicality standpoint tasers, pepperspray and sippos (if physically able) make sense not only because they are non-lethal but they are more applicable to common assult senerios that involved rapid movement in close proximity.

Click to expand...

All in all, I agree that non-leathal means of self-defense should be explored by anyone seriously commited to self-defense.

However, consider the research by Gary Kleck (you can see a summary here ). (Yes, I used "GunCite", a pro-gun website--however, I felt that since you have used it in your research here it would be ok to do it as well. If you object, I can go to another site that is less controversial.) The data here suggests that means of self-defense other than a gun are more likely to lead to injury than using a gun.

I think that because profit margin involved in firearm sales and due to current consumer drive with a current product over newer prospects manufacters and retailers are less apt to present the above arguement and because tasers pepper spray and steel whips to private citizens are not frequent it is hard to qualify this on paper at this time.

Click to expand...

Well...perhaps. But this goes back to the idea that others in the debate are acting out of bad faith, and I'd rather not start those accusations here.

2) In domestic situaitons the current state gusn in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder. Why?

a) shot at loved one when thought it was an intruder
b) misfired in wrong direction
c) criminal found firearm
d) domestic violence and gun was opportunistic.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Click to expand...

Ok, this is definately from an advocacy group. However, I will take the time to look at the data.

First, the actual quote is:

While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

- Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40

Click to expand...

Second, Kellerman's study has been discussed and has some serious flaws. See this site for details.

Again in the home tasers and pepper spray probably in pro/cons outweigh a firearm for the following reasons:

1) if the assilant is armed and in your home and you get "first shot" p spray and taser will be as affecting in stopping him as a firearm

2) If you make a mistake and shoot a loved one with p spray or a taser death is less likey a result

3) p spray and taser will if more common shrink spousal deaths by non-lethality of them.

If the anti-gun control camp can for me, explain why a handgun is the ONLY or main option over the others I would appreciate that.

Click to expand...

I woudl say that Kleck's studies demonstrate that the handgun, though not the ONLY option over others, other options carry a greater risk than the handgun.

Peace

Hi Robtex, thanks for your continued posts.

robtex said:

Give me a number. What is a reasonable amount of deaths given the options and constraints of firearm deaths that are not self-defense deaths. I just see other countries with hundreds of firearms deaths annually and us with 10k plus annual and think how nice it would be to trade stats with some of them. This leads me to think how and than gun control comes to mind.

Click to expand...

I can't come up with a number of acceptable deaths--each one is a tragedy. But consider that using guns to kill an assailent is not the only way that they are used in self-defense. I would love to see the number as low as possible--perferably zero. However, I also recognize that a perfect society is not an option.

Second, I know you have stated on more than one occasion that other countries have different cultures than we do, and comparisons are fraught with difficulties. However, if we do so, then also consider that there are countires with more liberal gun ownership laws than the US, and their murder rates are lower than ours.

Third, firearm deaths per se are not the problem; the problem is unlawful or accidental deaths. Sometimes guns are the means, but sometimes not.

We seem to have not reached an agreement on what is an assult rifle, so if I may let me say rifles that have multi-bullet discharge capcity per trigger pull or are convertable for such and rifles with high round capcity. For instance mac 10's ak 47's m16's type guns. My arguement isn't about the percent of crime or numbers by those types of rifles, but the lack of neccissity they have in society. They are dangerous, designed for killing humans, and have no recreational pupose that is legal other than shooting paper targets on the weekend. So why have them?

Throw out your definition. I am only worried about rifles that can discharge mutiple bullets on one trigger squeeze like m16's ak 47's uzis and guns with high round capacities and auto feeds like a spas 12 shotgun.

Click to expand...

I agree that fully automatic weapons should be tightly controlled, and they have been since the 1930's.

As to the SPAS-12, it is semi-automatic, not fully automatic. Many hunting shotguns are also semi-automatic. (It is also dual-mode--you can operate it with a pump action instead of semi-automatic).[/quote]

Can you please stat why you fear the goverment of the USA. have nothing to debate other than you have a fear but not why.

Click to expand...

Let me make it again clear: I do not fear the government of the USA. I am a supporter of our government, indeed, I have taken an oath to support it. Frankly, I believe that the "armed resistance to an oppresive government" argument to be fairly weak, for the reasons I've stated before (such as the example of the internment of Japanese American citizens--their armed resistance would have been futile and counter-productive.) Thus, I don't use this argument.

However, I think it naive to assume that the government, motivated by popular pressure, would not turn oppressive in a short period of time to select members of society. The interment of Japanese-Americans is but one example. Our government has before taken action to severly limit the civil liberties of particular classes of people.

I would say that is would be a very encumbersome project to convert the democratic republic of the usa into an oppressive govement for the following reasons:

1) We have 4 branches of federal goverment multi-level state goverments and tens of thousands working in a plurasitic goverment. Most of them would have to collaborate to get the desired result of an oppressive goverment.

Click to expand...

Just a question, off-topic: what do you consider the four branches? I am familiar with only three (executive, legislative and judicial.)

Also, local governments can often act independently from other governments to cause local repression. (The typical example given is the small-town sheriff who abuses his or her power.) But as you point out, we have recourse to higher levels of government to address this.

2) The officials are elected to most positions by the people who can evaulate and make judgemental distinctions in who they are electing

Click to expand...

True.

3) Our goverment, mostly hires people born and raised in the USA meaning we are our goverment.

Click to expand...

True, we are our government.

I agree that our government would not overnight turn into a repressive society similar to, say, the old Soviet Union. But I think it's clear that we can and have oppressed others with are unpopular at a given time--again, the example of the Japanese-Americans.

Also, what liberities did you see lost by 911? Other than airport liberties which I, personally see as a good thing, I didn't see many changes.

Click to expand...

Personally, I have not lost any--but individuals have. See this site for more information. I agree that the additional security for air transportation is good; but there are other apsects of the PATRIOT Act and other practices that are troubling. Here is another troubling development. One could say that they are not American Citizens, but being the grandson of immigrants and married to an immigrant, I have a certain concern for what happens to them.

I don't think we will be able to find any either way because not many studied seem to have been done ( i can't find any either) and the results are not easy to quality. Dart guns and pvp pipes are alot closer to reality than any stat that may or may not exist. The reality is that the data isnt' easy to measure on close quater fighting with a firearm but simulations with similar conditions are. The point of putting up the pvc and dart gun drill was/is two-fold:

a) Shows that most people who daydream of "saving the day" with their concealed pistol don' t have even a vague idea of what that would be like because they have never explored it.

b) Because of lack of data a safe controlled experiement becomes a viable option by default.

Click to expand...

As I posted above, there have been studies made--and they indicate that firearms can and are used for defensive purposes, and are often more effective than other means of resisting.

Peace

Hi Robtex, thanks for your post.

robtex said:

I am going to let this one drop then. I saw others use it as an arguement so I posted on it. So i posted on that issue.

Click to expand...

Ok, fair 'nuff.

Actually it is more that guns make it really easy compared to other instruements to whose primary use is death. I posted a lot but gonna re-write cause everybody seems to overlook it. If you compare a gun to a knife or stick you will discover two things:

1) A stick or knife takes physical skills to use. Footwork, hand-eye coordination, continous attack, and hip rotation to make it effective. A gun takes pulling a trigger. This takes us from x amount of populatation that is lethal with a knife or stick (sharp or blunt insturment) to 100 % that is lethal with a gun. A gun's primary purpose again is killing.

2) Mental committment. To kill someone with a knife or stick repeated successful attacks are generally neccessary. Blood is splattering during this and the person implimenting this instruement is right next to the person being attacked. It is a very personsal and excuse the word choice, "intimate" activity. Many people do not possess the mental foritude for such an exercise. However, a gun can be used at a greater distance and the mental committment is detached to "pulling the trigger."

Click to expand...

Agreed; although I don't necessarily see how this addresses what I wrote. I was responding to your comparing lawful gun ownership with people who think that they can drive drunk safely. Using a firearm safely and legally one thing is like drinking safely and legally; using a firearm unsafely and illegally is like drinking unsafely and illegally.

Guns are easier to use than other methods of defense. That's a two-edged sword, of course: easier to stop an attacker, and easier for an attacker to stop you. Ideally, we'd live in a world were people of good will are given the best possible means of defense and people of ill will are denied the best possible means of attack...and I support laws that have this as a goal.

Have to find some numbers. Get back to you on this.

Click to expand...

Ok, sounds good. However, I suspect what might come about in these studies is this: studies that appear on links from anti-gun advocacy groups will tend to say guns are bad; studies that appear on links from pro-gun advocacy groups will tend to say guns are good; and there will be refutations of studies that suggest otherwise on each site. That leaves it up to us to dig through the studies themselves and try to see if the studies are valid or junk science. It also requires a commitment to see beyond our prejudices, and this is very difficult in such an emotional issue (just like the abortion debate.)

what else do they and you look at and why are both needed?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but I understand you to be asking about what measures people will look to for self-defense other than firearms. I think you mentioned some of the common forms--tasers, pepper spray and others. I would say that multiple measures of self-defense should be available because self-defense is not a one-size fits all proposition. There are some people who won't or shouldn't chose firearms; there are some people would won't or shouldn't chose tasers.

Any way, I appreciate this debate and your contributions to it.

Peace

Wow, this chat room really surprised me!! When I first started reading the comments, I was thinking to myself…wasn’t the Second Amendment ratified in 1791….why do the Americans feel they still have to arm themselves against a foreign power? Upon further reading….it really concerned me that, in fact, the American way of thinking was that their own government was going to turn on them, and they would have to arm themselves. "The founding fathers of the US made a good point. There is a natural tendency of government to grow, arrogate power, and develop into tyranny. An armed citizenry, as the Federalist papers point out, is a check against this tendancy."

After living my past 50 years all over the world, including the US, I feel that I have observed a lot of different cultures. But it continually amazes me that the US citizens live in a world driven by fear and greed. You are so rich and strong as a nation, why is there so much fear in the US? Fear inevitably turns to violence. Why so violent? Why so many guns?

It seems, upon some research, that state and local government in the US are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose. Currently there are over 20,000 existing gun laws throughout the US, many of which are unenforceable because of the sheer numbers involved! If its not the number of guns, what factors do contribute to the violent nature of society?

Back to your fear of your "own government turning on you". I guess, I can agree that the US has had an interesting history on what they have done to other countries, while telling the US public a different scenario. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, because I am not, I'm just confused:

1. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran. U.S. installs the Shah as dictator.

2. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 20,000 civilians are killed.

3. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

4. 1963-1975: U.S. military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

5. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a military coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende is assassinated. Dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet is installed. 5,000 Chileans are murdered.

6. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 7,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

7. 1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow Muslim terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

8. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "Contras" to fight government. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

9. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

10. 1983: The White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

11. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.

12. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

13. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

14. 1998: U.S. bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. The factory turns out to be making aspirin.

15. 1991-making of the film: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The United Nations estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

16. 2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

I see no problem with private ownership of firearms. I see no improvement in social law and order in governments that DO ban firearms. I am in possession of my father's old shotgun, but I don't have a round of ammo in the house. When I was in my younger 20's I hunted - mostly upland game birds - but have not fired a weapon in - gosh, thirty years. I enjoy contemplative shooting, but do not care to go to the expense of getting a rifle or handgun to do that.

Regards,
Scott

To quote famous copy (as this is a religious forum)...

Hi Debater, thanks for your post.

Debater in Calgary said:

Wow, this chat room really surprised me!! When I first started reading the comments, I was thinking to myself…wasn’t the Second Amendment ratified in 1791….why do the Americans feel they still have to arm themselves against a foreign power? Upon further reading….it really concerned me that, in fact, the American way of thinking was that their own government was going to turn on them, and they would have to arm themselves. "The founding fathers of the US made a good point. There is a natural tendency of government to grow, arrogate power, and develop into tyranny. An armed citizenry, as the Federalist papers point out, is a check against this tendancy."

Click to expand...

First of all, this is only one of the reasons that the private ownership of firearms is defended by those who believe in it. It isn't necessarily the primary reason. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the large standing armies of European states were a source of oppression, and the US wanted to avoid that. However, we are fortunate that our large standing army has never shown ambitions on controlling the government. Sadly, that is not the case in much of the world, where the government directly or indirectly controls the government.

For me, the "armed citizens vs. a growing government" argument isn't particularly a strong reason--there are other, more compelling reasons to support firearms ownership.

After living my past 50 years all over the world, including the US, I feel that I have observed a lot of different cultures. But it continually amazes me that the US citizens live in a world driven by fear and greed. You are so rich and strong as a nation, why is there so much fear in the US? Fear inevitably turns to violence. Why so violent? Why so many guns?

Click to expand...

I don't know what nations you've lived in, so I'm not sure what your comparisons are based on. However, there are many more violent nations than the US, and many of those have stricter gun laws than the US (for example, Mexico and Brazil have far higher murder rates than the US, but far stricter gun laws.) Indeed, according to the UN, there are at least 23 nations that are more violent (in terms of murder rates) than the US. In my own (quite limited) experience in Latin America, I find a culture far more addicted to violence than the United States.

It seems, upon some research, that state and local government in the US are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose. Currently there are over 20,000 existing gun laws throughout the US, many of which are unenforceable because of the sheer numbers involved! If its not the number of guns, what factors do contribute to the violent nature of society?

Click to expand...

That last question is the $20,000 question. Countries like Switzerland and Israel are more heavily armed per capita than the United States, but they have far lower murder rates. I don't think there is a simple answer.

Back to your fear of your "own government turning on you". I guess, I can agree that the US has had an interesting history on what they have done to other countries, while telling the US public a different scenario. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, because I am not, I'm just confused:

1. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran. U.S. installs the Shah as dictator.

2. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 20,000 civilians are killed.

3. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

4. 1963-1975: U.S. military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

5. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a military coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende is assassinated. Dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet is installed. 5,000 Chileans are murdered.

6. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 7,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

7. 1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow Muslim terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

8. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "Contras" to fight government. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

9. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

10. 1983: The White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

11. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.

12. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

13. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

14. 1998: U.S. bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. The factory turns out to be making aspirin.

15. 1991-making of the film: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The United Nations estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

16. 2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

Click to expand...

Ok, I think you're drifting from the OP here--though what you brought up is worthy of its own thread. I would suggest you start a new thread on it, because it should be addressed.

Peace

This might seem like a surprising answer, coming from a pacifist, but I believe the people have the right to arm themselves and to defend themselves -- whether against criminals, against foreign invaders, or against their own government.

Jesus teaches us not to resort to violence, and experience teaches us that violence just begets more violence. But pacifism should be freely chosen, and not enforced by a government that is itself given to excesses of violence. When the government uses force against the people, and the people have no means of self-defense, tyranny results.

Yes....I would die without my guns.

Well I knew bangbang would say yes when I saw he was the last to answer.:biglaugh:


I have to say yes...it's part of our rights in bearing arms. Those of us who have guns need to remember that it's also a big responsibility to teach the respect for life and the guns as well.

fromthe heart said:

Well I knew bangbang would say yes when I saw he was the last to answer.:biglaugh:


I have to say yes...it's part of our rights in bearing arms. Those of us who have guns need to remember that it's also a big responsibility to teach the respect for life and the guns as well.

Click to expand...

:biglaugh: When I vote I vote against any anti-gunners......regardless of political party. Happiness is a warm gun.:biglaugh: