Gun Control: Does Owning Guns make some people feel Special?

[Comicaze247]

Which is why Washington DC is a safe place to live, right?

I'll give you that, but don't forget that crime rates are naturally higher in densely populated cities. Violence begets violence (cliche, I know). It just takes one gang member shooting a rival gang member. Then the other gang will find a way to get a gun and take out more of the first gang. Then vice versa, on and on.

I've known people to be killed by being punched in the chest. Seriously, it just struck him in a right way and stopped his heart. It's a one-in-a-million thing, but it happens.

Yeah, that's a very rare occurrence. You'd either have to be incredibly strong, or trained to kill in one punch. Or your target would have to have some sort of heart problem.

Being beaten by a baseball bat can be awfully fatal, and isn't much harder to do than shooting someone. A few swings, especially once someone is on the ground and there body cannot move with the strike, and you'll start shattering bones beyond repair. Hell, even bare-handed you can have in someone's skull with a few of those.

I was comparing single swings to single shots. Also, (generally) you could fire off more than one round in the time it takes to swing a bat (I'd imagine more-so with semi-automatic handguns).

Now the effects of a bullet can vary pretty drastically. People can, and often do, survive being shot in the head. My cousin did medical work in Iraq, and treated an Iraqi man (who was not at all happy about being treated by a white blonde female) for a bullet lodged in his skull. To be fair, he wasn't shot, per se, they'd just been firing shots in the air and, well, what goes up must come down. But that's more a funny story than an example of what i'm talking about.

Yeah, brain injuries are strange. Sometimes you die from them, sometimes not, even if the amount of damage seems ridiculously insane. There was this case of a man (Michael Hill) who was stabbed in the head with an 8-inch knife and survived (though with some permanent brain damage, as one could imagine).
Michael Hill (stabbing survivor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, being shot is much the same as any puncture wound, especially if we are dealing with full metal jacket rounds*, in that the bullet will enter and exit with (all things considered) minimal damage. It's like being stabbed with a very long, thin knife. Very quickly and with a lot of force.

I don't think that's a good comparison.

A bullet will destroy or damage any tissues which it penetrates, creating a wound channel. It will also cause nearby tissue to stretch and expand as it passes through tissue. These two effects are typically referred to as permanent cavitation (the hole left by the bullet) and temporary cavitation (the tissue displaced as the bullet passed).
The degree to which permanent and temporary cavitation occur is dependent on the mass, diameter, material, design and velocity of the bullet. This is because bullets crush tissue, and do not cut it.

Stopping power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hollow-points can create a more severe exit wound, but are still rarely immediately fatal if you are not shot in the heart or head.

They're designed to do more damage to "soft" targets, right?

Basically what i'm getting at is you're no more likely to survive getting jumped by guys with baseball bats than guys with firearms.

But you're talking multiple assailants. That's a different situation. But even if they had bats, you have a chance to run, as they can't hit you if you're far enough away. With a gun, they just point and shoot.

Now the first point is actually a huge selling point for firearms. Anyone, no matter how small, weak, or frail, has the ability to defend themselves thanks to firearms. A little old lady need not fear the 6' 6" 250 lb gangster when she has a piece in her purse. She's on equal grounds with him now.

Yes, I understand that. It evens the playing field for everyone. My point was to demonstrate how much deadlier a gun is than a knife or a bat.

Also, weapons don't generally just go off when you drop them. This is one of those areas where you're showing how truly little you understand about weapons. I've seen a cop lock back the hammer on his sidearm and throw it on the ground to demonstrate how safe it is. They do not go off unless you tell them to.

I'll give you that. I've never actually fired a gun before (though I've always wanted to) so I didn't know that guns firing when dropped was fixed.

*Not the movie. Full metal jacket rounds have a hard metal case around the soft core of the shell to prevent reshaping. This means it will enter the target and exit with minimal damage. Most military munitions come in this form, but it is not recommended for civil use because the bullet can carry through the target and strike something or someone behind it. Hollow-points are usually used for self-defense and by law-enforcement for this reason.

That part, I understand

1) A stab wound is just as fatal as a gunshot wound, you can just be further away with a gun. Also, more gunshot victims survive than those who are stabbed.

Oh really?

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.[37] Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[38] The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[39]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) It takes a complete retard to believe you can actually set off a gun by dropping it. Stop watching movies. The only way to fire a gun is to pull the trigger.

Read my response to Gunfingers.

3)These restrictions are only hurting law-abiding citizens who truly want to defend themselves. They're not stopping anyone who doesn't want to follow these rules.

People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims.[11] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[34] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[11][35] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[36]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I live in Boston, I can sit outside my door right now with 50 bucks and have a gun in 20 minutes. Literally.

Team 5 Investigates Exposes Underground Gun Trade - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston

John Rosenthal is the founder of the anti-gun group Stop Handgun Violence. "I'd say being a gun dealer and a gun trafficker is great business when the federal government has virtually no effective gun laws to prevent it. We are surrounded by Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont where you don't even need an id or a background check to buy a gun," said Rosenthal.

I believe that could explain why. All the more reason that the entire system should be revamped. I'm not saying that banning guns is the answer nor am I saying allowing a gun-ownership-free-for-all is the answer. Just that the system needs a nation-wide change that would allow more effective gun law enforcement.

 

[Gunfingers]

I believe that could explain why. All the more reason that the entire system should be revamped. I'm not saying that banning guns is the answer nor am I saying allowing a gun-ownership-free-for-all is the answer. Just that the system needs a nation-wide change that would allow more effective gun law enforcement.

In that case what exactly are you proposing?

 

[enchanted_one1975]

All the more reason that the entire system should be revamped. I'm not saying that banning guns is the answer nor am I saying allowing a gun-ownership-free-for-all is the answer. Just that the system needs a nation-wide change that would allow more effective gun law enforcement.

Are you aware that The Brady Bill required an FBI background check each time a new firearm is purchased? States are also allowed to apply stricter restrictions. The best solution to the problem is that if you do not want to live around guns then you should move to a state that makes it harder for honest citizens to buy and/or carry guns, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, or Washington DC. Of course, as has been mentioned before, you are more likely to be killed in a violent gun crime in these "gun free" zones.

 

[Comicaze247]

In that case what exactly are you proposing?

Hell if I know. I'm not an expert nor do I claim to see the problem from every perspective at once. To be at all effective, (intelligent, critical thinking) people from all different walks of life would need to come together to create a law that would fit every potential problem that could arise.

Are you aware that The Brady Bill required an FBI background check each time a new firearm is purchased? States are also allowed to apply stricter restrictions.

I wasn't aware of the name of the bill, but I was aware of the background check requirements. I just don't believe that is enough, as it only checks recorded incidences of their past. There could be some untreated, mentally unstable person with no criminal record, and the background check wouldn't be able to tell that if it wasn't diagnosed, which may usually be the case because of people's general distrust of "shrinks."

The best solution to the problem is that if you do not want to live around guns then you should move to a state that makes it harder for honest citizens to buy and/or carry guns, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, or Washington DC. Of course, as has been mentioned before, you are more likely to be killed in a violent gun crime in these "gun free" zones.

Hence why I'm saying that the system is flawed and needs to be changed. As I understand it, there are no customs checks between states, which is why single states having stronger gun restrictions is ineffective, especially when nearby states are very lax about their gun laws, as described by the last quote I provided in my last post.

We are surrounded by Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont where you don't even need an id or a background check to buy a gun," said Rosenthal.

Note: The following are just my own theories.
Yes, criminals disobey laws, including gun laws. But if strong gun restrictions were the same nation-wide, it would lessen the amount of sources from which criminals can illegally acquire guns. It would be just as big of a hassle, if not bigger, for petty, small-time criminals to get them, as they likely don't have many connections that could bypass the system. So the sources for illegal weapons that small-time criminals might have would have to go through all the hassle to get one, then sell it to them. With that amount of work, they would either think it wasn't worth it, or they would increase what they charge to an amount that a small-time criminal might not be able to afford.
In terms of big-time, well-connected criminals, they will always have someone on the inside that would allow them to get anything more easily. Things like that would have to be dealt with through internal affairs, I'd imagine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you aware that The Brady Bill required an FBI background check each time a new firearm is purchased? States are also allowed to apply stricter restrictions.

That's odd. I've bought long guns with no background check whatsoever. I've bought handguns too, but the background check was done
only once to get my concealed carry license. Thereafter, there's no subsequent check. An exception for groundskeeprs, perhaps?

 

[Comicaze247]

I've bought handguns too, but the background check was done only once to get my concealed carry license. Thereafter, there's no subsequent check. An exception for groundskeeprs, perhaps?

Yeah, that is a potential problem. Somebody could have a clean record before they buy the gun, then commit a crime afterward, never having to get the background check done again. Or they could have a clean slate and be the gun solely to commit suicide.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that is a potential problem. Somebody could have a clean record before they buy the gun, then commit a crime afterward, never having to get the background check done again. Or they could have a clean slate and be the gun solely to commit suicide.

Commit a crime, & your concealed carry license is revoked immediately.
I don't even dare exceed the speeding limit cuz that could be a pretext to yank it.

 

[Comicaze247]

Commit a crime, & your concealed carry license is revoked immediately.
I don't even dare exceed the speeding limit cuz that could be a pretext to yank it.

Yeah, I'd imagine that would be the case.
I was talking more about each purchase of the gun, as enchanted mentioned about the Brady Bill. If that's not enforced (which it obviously isn't) then those scenarios could easily happen.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

That's odd. I've bought long guns with no background check whatsoever. I've bought handguns too, but the background check was done
only once to get my concealed carry license. Thereafter, there's no subsequent check. An exception for groundskeeprs, perhaps?

Some states may have a provision allowing you to bypass the background check because you have a CHL. None of the states I lived in had this provision so I was not aware of it. It makes sense though. Rest assured, the sale was still recorded. Or, maybe it was an exception for groundskeepers.

 

[madhatter85]

I own a Mossberg 500 and a Kimber .45.

I have my CPL and concealed carry, however would prefer to open-carry once my wife is more comfortable with the idea.

The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. Any laws that restrict this right is unconstitutional.

The fact remains that States with "strict" gun control laws (such as D.C.) have the worst violent crime per-capita rates in the country while other states such as Virginia where you can open-carry uninfringed, has the lowest violent crime rates per-capita.

Bad guys will get guns no matter what and police officers can only respond to calls. the only pro-active action by police officers can be done if they are already present. Police officers will even tell you that people need to learn to protect themselves because police officers cannot do it all. How long does it take for a person who has gone bat-s* crazy to kill you? less than a second? how long does it take for police to respond?

Police officers only ever have to draw thier weapon less than 2% of thier entire career on average. Even if you divide that by 10,000, and span it across a 70 year lifespan of the average human, they will need to defend themselves by force 5 days in thier life. I would rather have my gun on those 5 days than not have a gun.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

If I owned a gun, It might make me feel safer, but I wouldn't feel special.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Note: The following are just my own theories.
Yes, criminals disobey laws, including gun laws. But if strong gun restrictions were the same nation-wide, it would lessen the amount of sources from which criminals can illegally acquire guns. It would be just as big of a hassle, if not bigger, for petty, small-time criminals to get them, as they likely don't have many connections that could bypass the system.

Changing gun laws nation wide would be no more effective than the war on drugs have been.

Actually, the more restrictive the gun laws, the more money a gun runner could make. The higher the profit selling guns, the more illegal guns sellers would be attracted and make even more guns available to people who should not have them.

Right now having a gun does not make a criminal special because law abiding citizens have them too.

Take away the guns from law abiding folks and you enhance the fact that having a gun makes you very powerful indeed.

Right now, home invasions are not a good idea because a criminal might get shot. You do not even have to own a gun to enjoy the rewards of this fact. Just because you might have a gun is deterrent enough for criminals.

Change the laws and now the odds are a law abiding citizen does not have a gun.