Gun Rights Outweigh Gun Control - Pew Survey

[bilby]

How long should the process to retrieve a "properly stored" firearm take? What do you consider a reasonable amount of time for a person to have access to his own property?

As long as it takes to ensure that such property is reasonably secure from access by unskilled and/or unauthorised persons who are otherwise likely to be harmed by it, or to use it to cause harm.

The owners of a quarry who left explosives lying around unsecured, in the interest of preventing delays in accessing them, would quite correctly be held criminally liable if those explosives were stolen and used in a crime, or if an unsuspecting person was to blow themselves up by accident.

The same duty of care should be applied to firearms owners.

If you 'need' a firearm in a hurry, you are doing it wrong.

A very skillful dodge of my question. If you are threatened, what do you feel is a reasonable length of time to retrieve a "properly stored" firearm? Should you have any access to a firearm to protect yourself from a threat?

Or do you mean "you are doing it wrong" means you always have your firearm on your person?

You should not have access to a firearm to protect you from a threat, because a firearm is a piss-poor defence against any credible threat.

If the threat is non-lethal, then having access to a firearm makes a dangerous but non-lethal encounter into a lethally dangerous encounter.

If the threat is lethal, then having access to a firearm is only of value in a minority of situations; in most cases, attempting to engage when attacked is a less safe option than running away.

Unless you live in a movie, where good guys can always shoot more accurately than bad guys; bad guys kindly identify themselves in advance by their clothing and/or incidental music; bullet wounds to good guys are purely cosmetic; and bullet wounds to bad guys are instantly effective in stopping their attack, in which case it would be reasonable to go armed for self defence.

Your cultural delusion that you have control of a dangerous situation if you are armed is just that - a delusion. In the real world, you are better off without a gun, not least because possession of both gun and delusion leads people to remain in harm's way for far longer than is sensible - and indeed is often a large contributing factor to their getting in harm's way to begin with.

When I was younger, I used to watch The A-Team on TV. Loads of gunshots, never a single gunshot wound to anyone that required more than a simple bandage to fix. The good guys always out-gunned the bad guys into surrendering. Pure fiction.

The American 'self defence' myth is deeply ingrained, but it is still a myth.

A glance at the rest of the world shows that crime rates in OECD nations with few gun owners, and no right to use firearms in self defence, are not significantly higher than in the USA - and in many cases are lower. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself or your property. You might WANT one, but that desire is not founded in a rational consideration of the pros and cons.

I have never carried a firearm (or indeed any weapon) for self defence. I do not fear for my safety, nor do I fear that someone will steal my property - because I am protected by a society in which the means, motives and opportunities for such attacks upon me are minimised.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You should not have access to a firearm to protect you from a threat, because a firearm is a piss-poor defence against any credible threat.

Then why do cops carry guns? Why do soldiers carry guns?

If the threat is non-lethal, then having access to a firearm makes a dangerous but non-lethal encounter into a lethally dangerous encounter.

Here we consider a dead rapist a better outcome than a raped woman. Apparently you think the opposite.

If the threat is lethal, then having access to a firearm is only of value in a minority of situations; in most cases, attempting to engage when attacked is a less safe option than running away.

You're assuming running is an option.

1) You may be cornered.

2) What if you are protecting someone who can't run?

Unless you live in a movie, where good guys can always shoot more accurately than bad guys; bad guys kindly identify themselves in advance by their clothing and/or incidental music; bullet wounds to good guys are purely cosmetic; and bullet wounds to bad guys are instantly effective in stopping their attack, in which case it would be reasonable to go armed for self defence.

You're forgetting the deterrence aspect. The usual outcome is the bad guy runs away without a shot being fired.

A predator faces a much greater risk in a confrontation than a defender because the predator must engage in many confrontations. Predators normally will not engage prey that poses any realistic threat to them even if victory is likely.

A glance at the rest of the world shows that crime rates in OECD nations with few gun owners, and no right to use firearms in self defence, are not significantly higher than in the USA - and in many cases are lower. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself or your property. You might WANT one, but that desire is not founded in a rational consideration of the pros and cons.

1) Less violent societies in general.

2) The crime rates are higher. It's only the US murder rate that's high, in other regards the US is safer.

 

[bilby]

Then why do cops carry guns? Why do soldiers carry guns?

Because both groups are expected to seek out and deliberately engage in conflict. Note that for the police, it is not necessary to be armed with a gun to be effective - see the UK for a good example of this.

If the threat is non-lethal, then having access to a firearm makes a dangerous but non-lethal encounter into a lethally dangerous encounter.

Here we consider a dead rapist a better outcome than a raped woman. Apparently you think the opposite.

I consider everyone remaining alive to be a better outcome than a false dichotomy. Apparently you prefer logical fallacies to actual logic.

You are, I hope, aware that 'Dirty Harry' was not a documentary?

If the threat is lethal, then having access to a firearm is only of value in a minority of situations; in most cases, attempting to engage when attacked is a less safe option than running away.

You're assuming running is an option.

It is an option far more often than engaging with a firearm would be. Your assumption that it is not an option is a large part of the problem here.

1) You may be cornered.

In which case you are dead, if the attacker wants you dead, whether you have a gun or not.

2) What if you are protecting someone who can't run?

Then you should wait for the director to call 'Cut!', and go check with the script department how the situation is to be resolved.

Seriously, your objections are absurd. In the real world, your 'what if' scenarios are vanishingly rare. That you propose them seriously makes you sound like a nine-year-old boy who watches too much violent TV (or an American man of any age, apparently)

Unless you live in a movie, where good guys can always shoot more accurately than bad guys; bad guys kindly identify themselves in advance by their clothing and/or incidental music; bullet wounds to good guys are purely cosmetic; and bullet wounds to bad guys are instantly effective in stopping their attack, in which case it would be reasonable to go armed for self defence.

You're forgetting the deterrence aspect. The usual outcome is the bad guy runs away without a shot being fired.

There is nothing 'usual' about any of the fantasy scenarios you are presenting. TV and movies are not an accurate reflection of real life. If you can scare someone off with a gun, then you can likely scare them off without a gun. The difference made by the gun is that if you are gung-ho (and I note that you are) they may not have a chance to retreat - whether or not they were a real threat to you to begin with.

A predator faces a much greater risk in a confrontation than a defender because the predator must engage in many confrontations. Predators normally will not engage prey that poses any realistic threat to them even if victory is likely.

That you view your fellow human beings as predators and/or prey says a lot of very unpleasant things about you; but doesn't actually constitute an argument unless you can show that your trite analogy is, in fact, analogous - (hint: It's not).

A glance at the rest of the world shows that crime rates in OECD nations with few gun owners, and no right to use firearms in self defence, are not significantly higher than in the USA - and in many cases are lower. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself or your property. You might WANT one, but that desire is not founded in a rational consideration of the pros and cons.

1) Less violent societies in general.

So you agree that the high level of gun ownership in the US makes it a more violent society in general, then? Or do you want to claim that the US is more violent due to some other fundamental cause? Perhaps they are all really pissed off at having to use a minus sign in front of their Longitude measurements or something?

2) The crime rates are higher. It's only the US murder rate that's high, in other regards the US is safer.

And I take it that the evidence to back this bald claim is on its way? Should be posted here any time now, I shall just hold my breath....

 

[DBT]

You are not asserting that nobody actually needs a gun? The discussion isn't "this is what Australian gun laws are" but "what should gun laws be". Do try to keep up.

I am more than keeping up, I am ahead.

I am talking about reasonable gun regulation. Regulation that ensures, to the best possible degree, that guns are not misused. That individuals who are incompetent or dangerous do not have access to firearms. And that law abiding citizens who are licensed gun owners are not too quick to use a gun in a situation that does not require a gun, and thereby cause a needless tragedy.

 

[dystopian]

In that case it is YOU begging the question.

Feel free to come up with a legitimate example where random civilians living in a gun-free society would need guns except for sporting or hunting activities.

After more than a decade of presenting this question to gun advocates, I have yet to hear an answer that doesn't try to claim it's necessary for them to own guns to protect themselves from other people with guns, and that is the real circular argument.

I had to go that far back to find a situation that was even remotely similar to the shooting hysteria fantasy that many subscribe to here. The belief is that if one person starts firing in a place where many have guns, then everyone will start firing back, and then start firing at anyone nearby who is firing, etc, until there is only one person at most still standing. Except there are no recorded instances of that. This is the closest event that has ever come to the daydream wishful fantasy that is accepted as real around here.

First of all, nobody believes that; you're just setting up a strawman.

Second of all, there are most certainly recorded instances of people with guns... even those with actual training... opening fire and hurting or killing innocent people to try and stop a criminal (perceived or real). Is your memory so short that you, for instance, don't remember that shootout outside the empire state building a few years back? Cops panicking when someone raised a gun to them, unleashing a hail of bullets leading them to shooting nine innocent bystanders? Doesn't ring a bell? These cases are hardly unusual; and that particular case involved two people who'd actually received training.

The worry isn't that *everyone* starts shooting back; the worry is that *anyone* starts shooting back while panicked and incapable of guaranteeing that bystanders won't get caught in the crossfire.

 

[dystopian]

Then why do cops carry guns?

In many countries they don't.

And where they do carry guns, it's because the nature of their job means they actively go *looking* for trouble and will therefore encounter dangerous situations at a far higher rate than a civilian. Even then, it's normally assumed that cops are trained in the responsible and effective use of firearms, and don't employ them as a first resort or when they risk hurting bystanders.

Why do soldiers carry guns?

Is this a real question, or did I accidentally swallow some LSD?

To kill people, obviously.

A civilian will generally be surprised by a violent encounter and will thus be unable to properly respond using firearms. Civilians don't have military intelligence informing them of threat levels in their mission theatre, they don't have UAV's providing them with real-time intel on hostiles, and civilians don't generally move about in ways designed to minimize the possibility of ambushes and maximize the chances of an effective response in case they do get ambushed.

But no, you're right... walking around the city is exactly like walking through an active warzone.

Here we consider a dead rapist a better outcome than a raped woman. Apparently you think the opposite.

I don't know about bilby, but yes, I do. As terrible as rape is, murder is worse. The self-defense argument doesn't apply since there are more effective ways to stop a rapist than killing them. Plus you know, there's the whole fact that rape doesn't carry the death penalty; so why on earth would you think it's okay to kill a rapist? They're to be arrested and put on trial, not shot and left to bleed out in the streets.

You're assuming running is an option.

1) You may be cornered.

2) What if you are protecting someone who can't run?

Once again, there are more effective ways to defend yourself, even in these scenarios. Plus, you seem to be imagining some highly unlikely scenario where you get cornered by a bad guy who just stands there, telegraphing his intentions while he waits for you to draw your gun and aim at him.

You're forgetting the deterrence aspect. The usual outcome is the bad guy runs away without a shot being fired.

Do you have ANY evidence to support this claim? Because you once again seem to be imaging a highly unrealistic scenario; one in which both potential shooters are perfectly calm and rational while they're pointing their guns at each other, even though one of them has malicious intent and the other one just got surprised and wasn't expecting any of this. In a situation like that, *neither* of them is going to calm and composed; if a bad guy has a gun aimed at you, and you pull out a gun too, basic human psychology is going to dictate that chances are at least one of you is going to shoot. It's pure idiocy to assume both actors are rational and calm enough to avoid nerves getting the better of them.

A predator faces a much greater risk in a confrontation than a defender because the predator must engage in many confrontations. Predators normally will not engage prey that poses any realistic threat to them even if victory is likely.

Comparing criminals to predators obviously doesn't work very well; especially since if what you were saying were true, then we'd expect there to be a hell of a lot more predatory crimes in countries with low gun-ownership; but of course we don't see that.

1) Less violent societies in general.

How convenient. I wonder why that is? Maybe it could have something to do with them not having a gun culture like the US does?

2) The crime rates are higher. It's only the US murder rate that's high, in other regards the US is safer.

Wrong.

While it's true that the US scores quite well on *overall* crime; it's most certainly NOT the safest in terms of crime. It's also a somewhat absurd argument because the total crime rate includes shit like tax fraud; which hardly outweighs murder. What you want to do is compare the violent crime rates (so not just murders, but also things like robberies and muggings); not overall crime rates. When we do that, we find the US ranking *well below* the rest of the developed world.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Feel free to come up with a legitimate example where random civilians living in a gun-free society would need guns except for sporting or hunting activities.

In a free society it is not up to me to justify wanting or needing any good or service. The burden of explaining why a person shouldn't have that good or service is on the person who wants to forbid it. That doesn't mean you cannot make said explanation, although in your particular case I would be surprised if you could articulate said argument, but it means that you must make the case instead of me.

In an unfree fascist society it is up to the person wanting a good or service to explain their need, and if they are unable to do so their request is denied. In that case I have to answer your question, if you are assuming that we are not in a free society. Is that an assumption you are making?

I believe that this society hasn't become entirely unfree yet. I also assert my need. Prove me wrong.

After more than a decade of presenting this question to gun advocates, I have yet to hear an answer that doesn't try to claim it's necessary for them to own guns to protect themselves from other people with guns, and that is the real circular argument.

You sound like every theist who ever said "prove my god doesn't exist."

I had to go that far back to find a situation that was even remotely similar to the shooting hysteria fantasy that many subscribe to here. The belief is that if one person starts firing in a place where many have guns, then everyone will start firing back, and then start firing at anyone nearby who is firing, etc, until there is only one person at most still standing. Except there are no recorded instances of that. This is the closest event that has ever come to the daydream wishful fantasy that is accepted as real around here.

First of all, nobody believes that; you're just setting up a strawman.

Ha!

Second of all, there are most certainly recorded instances of people with guns... even those with actual training... opening fire and hurting or killing innocent people to try and stop a criminal (perceived or real). Is your memory so short that you, for instance, don't remember that shootout outside the empire state building a few years back? Cops panicking when someone raised a gun to them, unleashing a hail of bullets leading them to shooting nine innocent bystanders? Doesn't ring a bell? These cases are hardly unusual; and that particular case involved two people who'd actually received training.

Yes. Those were cops. The only ones you trust with guns. The funny thing is that the story I found is the only one with armed civilians. I'm well aware of the panicked cops.

 

[dystopian]

In a free society it is not up to me to justify wanting or needing any good or service. The burden of explaining why a person shouldn't have that good or service is on the person who wants to forbid it. That doesn't mean you cannot make said explanation, although in your particular case I would be surprised if you could articulate said argument, but it means that you must make the case instead of me.

Ah yes, of course. Free market uber alles.

Would you allow people to buy nuclear weapons? I should certainly hope not. Could you articulate why? Something about the potential for genocide, mass murder, accidents, and so on? Contrasted with very limited use that doesn't fuck up someone else's shit? Well now, you've described the exact same reasons why people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. There's no fundamental difference between the two; it's just a matter of degrees. The same reasons for why we don't want people just buying nuclear weapons, apply to why we shouldn't want them to buy guns. This means that you must either A) Allow people to buy both (FREEDOOOM!), B) Allow them to buy neither (booh! fascism!), C) try to establish a line that separates the two by the risk they carry which is going to be arbitrary and a cop-out since they still both carry more risk than they're worth, or D) pretend that you didn't read the argument so you can keep on trucking.

In an unfree fascist society it is up to the person wanting a good or service to explain their need, and if they are unable to do so their request is denied. In that case I have to answer your question, if you are assuming that we are not in a free society. Is that an assumption you are making?

I believe that this society hasn't become entirely unfree yet. I also assert my need. Prove me wrong.

Wooh! Free market! Let's buy some nukes!

The fact that you have to do more than just assert your need to have something doesn't mean you live in a fascist state (a claim that is highly offensive to historians, sociologists, and people who've actually lived under fascist regimes); it just means you don't live in an anarchy.

You sound like every theist who ever said "prove my god doesn't exist."

Ofcourse. So let's see; your arguments at this point are:

1) "Making us justify why we need things that can kill people is fascism! You're like hitler!"

and,

2) "You pointing out that our reasons for owning guns are circular is exactly like those people who are the anti-thesis of everything the forum you frequent stands for! Doesn't that make you feel angry? Doesn't it?"

Ha!

Are you claiming some of us *do* believe that? Because I'm sure nobody here has ever made the argument that people carrying guns means that the moment a criminal pops along, everybody suddenly starts randomly shooting and killing each other. Therefore, it's a strawman argument.

Yes. Those were cops. The only ones you trust with guns.

Yet another strawman argument; I never said they're the only ones I trust with guns. I certainly don't trust *American* cops with guns; so pointing out that they were cops doesn't help your case much. It just proves that even people with professional training can and *do* fuck up; meaning you really don't want *untrained* people armed en masse. A statement that is common sense everywhere on the planet except the US and active warzones.

The funny thing is that the story I found is the only one with armed civilians. I'm well aware of the panicked cops.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

kthnxbye.

 

[funinspace]

I would like to see 100% federal background check requirements; no buying 5 38-specials at a swap meet in 15 minutes, ready to go off on some adventure.
I would like to see change of ownership requirements, like we have for cars, when one sells a car.

The first category of restrictions you wish to have in place, tracing the transactions. The background check would prohibit some from owning firearms, but mostly you are aiming at tracing the transaction here.

Yeah, it is about breaking the easy connection between the legal sale of guns at gun shows, to the untraceable re-sale to the underground market where so many land and then are used in crimes.

I would like to see civil liability for negligently managing a dangerous weapon. Like when some idiot leaves his AR15 on the kitchen table overnight, while his buddy sleeps over. And then his buddy bugs out early in the morning with his friend’s AR15, and goes on a shooting rampage in a nearby mall. That is a real story; and nothing happened to the fuckwit who owned the AR15. If a guy left his backyard gate wide open with a swimming pool, and some 4 year old drowned, we all know the pool owner would be fucked for real.

Does this mean you want, say, liability insurance for gun owners? What about poor people who also wish to own guns, or do you wish that only the wealthy can have the right to own a gun?

It is called part of living in a society. Everything in life has costs. And I think doing the right thing to reduce our insane homicide rate is worthy of that cost. We infringe upon the poor when they have insure to a swimming pool as well, and when we require automotive insurance.

My proposal to reduce gun violence - end the drug war.

Yeah, that would help as well. Though it really isn’t an either-or issue.

By the way, DBT and funinspace, who will pay for the background checks? This, along with the secure storage requirements, might be another way to try to price the poor out of owning firearms.

And what constitutes "secure storage"? If you need your firearm in a hurry, is it quick to retrieve?

Much of the background check system is already in place. I’m ok with any added cost coming out of the general budget, if that will keep gun rights people happier. Some states even require one to keep their cars lights working, have non-bald tires, and working brakes…they must really hate the poor.

I’d let the legal experts handle the definitions of storage and liability. I didn’t bring up “storage”, but it is about taking responsibility for dangerous things. Like the example I already gave. If one has an AR15 laying on the kitchen table overnight, when one lets a friend sleep over, the owner is not being responsible regarding that weapon. Say for example if you have a handgun, and you are letting your buddy sleep over; if one put it on the side table by your bed and went to sleep, that would seem reasonable. If one woke up and noticed it gone, along with your friend, it would be time to call the police. If one left that handgun on the kitchen table, and woke up to make coffee and then noticed your gun is missing and one simply went about ones day, that would be irresponsible.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah yes, of course. Free market uber alles.

...

Wooh! Free market! Let's buy some nukes!

Actually, I wrote "free society", not "free market", although I do believe a free society has a free market. And you were accusing me of straw man arguments?

The fact that you have to do more than just assert your need to have something doesn't mean you live in a fascist state (a claim that is highly offensive to historians, sociologists, and people who've actually lived under fascist regimes); it just means you don't live in an anarchy.

All I have to do is assert my need, and you have to tell me why I'm wrong. You have the burden of proof, and you are failing to give even the simplest of reasons why I should not have a gun other than your "feelings".

 

[dystopian]

Actually, I wrote "free society", not "free market", although I do believe a free society has a free market.

Yes you did. And we both know that to people like you, they're one and the same. Certainly the fact that you right away state that one requires the other shows that your objection to my post is just a distraction.

All I have to do is assert my need, and you have to tell me why I'm wrong.

You are very much mistaken. He who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. The theist who asserts god exists has the burden of proof. The gun-fanatic who asserts he needs a gun has the burden of proof. Your statement of need is simply not enough. I am under no obligation whatsoever to explain to the theist why his assertion fails to convince me. Nor does society have any obligation to grant you your demands based merely on the fact that you make them. This is not some unjust infringement of your freedom; the right you demand represents a risk to society and it is well within its rights to limit access to dangerous resources and expect that those who demand them anyway can make a good case for why they should be allowed to have them.

and you are failing to give even the simplest of reasons why I should not have a gun other than your "feelings".

Quite the contrary, we have provided you with a number of reasons, both simple and complex. Not unexpectedly, you have chosen to ignore these reasons, pretending as if they were never uttered in the first place. The statistics have been discussed to death. The logical arguments too, as to why widespread gun ownership decreases safety for everyone involved and represents a societal liabilty, have been presented.

Indeed, the only ones who appear to be offering up nothing more than their feelings in support for their position are the American pro-gun advocates. The 'feeling' that having a gun makes you safer (despite solid statistical evidence to the contrary). The 'feeling' that you have a right to anything you want simply by asserting you want or need it. The feeling that you're being victimized by people who want to take away your freedoms. At no point have you presented an argument *for* gun ownership; every time you're asked to provide one you immediately retreat into this bubble where it is everyone else who must provide reasons and arguments, but never you. Why is that, I wonder? Why, I do think it's because you realize you don't actually have a reason or convincing argument. Why can't all us annoying people just go away so you won't have to deal with all this cognitive dissonance?

 

[arkirk]

Yes you did. And we both know that to people like you, they're one and the same. Certainly the fact that you right away state that one requires the other shows that your objection to my post is just a distraction.

All I have to do is assert my need, and you have to tell me why I'm wrong.

You are very much mistaken. He who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. The theist who asserts god exists has the burden of proof. The gun-fanatic who asserts he needs a gun has the burden of proof. Your statement of need is simply not enough. I am under no obligation whatsoever to explain to the theist why his assertion fails to convince me. Nor does society have any obligation to grant you your demands based merely on the fact that you make them. This is not some unjust infringement of your freedom; the right you demand represents a risk to society and it is well within its rights to limit access to dangerous resources and expect that those who demand them anyway can make a good case for why they should be allowed to have them.

and you are failing to give even the simplest of reasons why I should not have a gun other than your "feelings".

Quite the contrary, we have provided you with a number of reasons, both simple and complex. Not unexpectedly, you have chosen to ignore these reasons, pretending as if they were never uttered in the first place. The statistics have been discussed to death. The logical arguments too, as to why widespread gun ownership decreases safety for everyone involved and represents a societal liabilty, have been presented.

Indeed, the only ones who appear to be offering up nothing more than their feelings in support for their position are the American pro-gun advocates. The 'feeling' that having a gun makes you safer (despite solid statistical evidence to the contrary). The 'feeling' that you have a right to anything you want simply by asserting you want or need it. The feeling that you're being victimized by people who want to take away your freedoms. At no point have you presented an argument *for* gun ownership; every time you're asked to provide one you immediately retreat into this bubble where it is everyone else who must provide reasons and arguments, but never you. Why is that, I wonder? Why, I do think it's because you realize you don't actually have a reason or convincing argument. Why can't all us annoying people just go away so you won't have to deal with all this cognitive dissonance?

I recall a camp out I went on 30+ years ago that spells out why we should not all be packing firearms. We were in the wilderness of Nevada. It was night time and three of us were camping. We each had new pistols...and a lot of beer. As the evening wore on, into night, we started telling each other horror stories...getting more than a bit tipsy. The stories started to move into the danger area when they became about people sneaking up on campers in the night. One of us got overly excited and started shooting into the underbrush around the campsite when he heard a noise. It made me think twice about camping in that area again. If there was another person like him nearby, I might just get my ass shot. We calmed him down and I went with a flashlight to make sure he hadn't done something terrible. People panic. When they panic with a gun, somebody can get hurt. He was shooting at a NOISE. There has to be some control of who gets these guns. Not everybody should have one. He had a 357 magnum.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, in most of the world if you have a violent stalker after you that's willing to die (which almost never fucking happens but okay), you go to the police and they actually protect you instead of shrugging their shoulders and suggesting you get a gun and pray that you get the first shot in.

It happens. Everywhere. Sometimes a nutter decides that if they can't have you nobody can.

And the police can't provide 24/7 protection.

Like the lady who shot into the wall instead of actually killing the guy. He was in a fit of rage because of jealousy. But then again, you didn't defend her.

 

[DBT]

I recall a camp out I went on 30+ years ago that spells out why we should not all be packing firearms. We were in the wilderness of Nevada. It was night time and three of us were camping. We each had new pistols...and a lot of beer. As the evening wore on, into night, we started telling each other horror stories...getting more than a bit tipsy. The stories started to move into the danger area when they became about people sneaking up on campers in the night. One of us got overly excited and started shooting into the underbrush around the campsite when he heard a noise. It made me think twice about camping in that area again. If there was another person like him nearby, I might just get my ass shot. We calmed him down and I went with a flashlight to make sure he hadn't done something terrible. People panic. When they panic with a gun, somebody can get hurt. He was shooting at a NOISE. There has to be some control of who gets these guns. Not everybody should have one. He had a 357 magnum.

That's right, not everyone is capable of driving a motor vehicle safely, that's why we have licensing laws for drivers. The same principle applies to firearms, not everyone is capable of handling firearms safely, that's why a background check and a comprehensive safety course should be required for all gun license applicants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It happens. Everywhere. Sometimes a nutter decides that if they can't have you nobody can.

And the police can't provide 24/7 protection.

Like the lady who shot into the wall instead of actually killing the guy. He was in a fit of rage because of jealousy. But then again, you didn't defend her.

Because she wasn't in danger.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I recall a camp out I went on 30+ years ago that spells out why we should not all be packing firearms. We were in the wilderness of Nevada. It was night time and three of us were camping. We each had new pistols...and a lot of beer. As the evening wore on, into night, we started telling each other horror stories...getting more than a bit tipsy. The stories started to move into the danger area when they became about people sneaking up on campers in the night. One of us got overly excited and started shooting into the underbrush around the campsite when he heard a noise. It made me think twice about camping in that area again. If there was another person like him nearby, I might just get my ass shot. We calmed him down and I went with a flashlight to make sure he hadn't done something terrible. People panic. When they panic with a gun, somebody can get hurt. He was shooting at a NOISE. There has to be some control of who gets these guns. Not everybody should have one. He had a 357 magnum.

That's right, not everyone is capable of driving a motor vehicle safely, that's why we have licensing laws for drivers. The same principle applies to firearms, not everyone is capable of handling firearms safely, that's why a background check and a comprehensive safety course should be required for all gun license applicants.

And this seems like the most reasonable course of action, the most rational, the least onerous and the most likely to actually save lives and promote safety while actually respecting the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms.

And of course we won't do it because Obama.

 

[NobleSavage]

As all my gun friends keep telling me: Gun crime is going down and gun sales are going up.

And yet, when we compare nations to each other, we find that gun availability correlates with crime rates.

The most likely explanation is that the drop in gun crime in a limited part of the world for a limited time is not related to gun ownership rates.

Yeah, I agree. But most people are under the impression that gun crime in the US is getting worse. And 2/3s of the deaths are suicides, which I think is a legitimate right.

 

[dystopian]

Yeah, I agree. But most people are under the impression that gun crime in the US is getting worse. And 2/3s of the deaths are suicides, which I think is a legitimate right.

Surely there are better ways to let people kill themselves then that. Plus, how many of those suicides are actually well thought-out suicides (or even suicides to begin with as opposed to accidents that get filed away as suicides)? I imagine a lot of them were people making a dumb impulsive decision, which they could because they had a quick and easy way out; take those means away and it results in it requiring a lot more effort and willpower to off yourself.

 

[bleubird]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-shot-killed-year-walmart/story?id=27907997
Walmart,Idaho,need we know more?

 

[Deepak]

I recall a camp out I went on 30+ years ago that spells out why we should not all be packing firearms. We were in the wilderness of Nevada. It was night time and three of us were camping. We each had new pistols...and a lot of beer. As the evening wore on, into night, we started telling each other horror stories...getting more than a bit tipsy. The stories started to move into the danger area when they became about people sneaking up on campers in the night. One of us got overly excited and started shooting into the underbrush around the campsite when he heard a noise. It made me think twice about camping in that area again. If there was another person like him nearby, I might just get my ass shot. We calmed him down and I went with a flashlight to make sure he hadn't done something terrible. People panic. When they panic with a gun, somebody can get hurt. He was shooting at a NOISE. There has to be some control of who gets these guns. Not everybody should have one. He had a 357 magnum.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-shot-killed-year-walmart/story?id=27907997
Walmart,Idaho,need we know more?

Both great arguments for why morons and guns should not be mixed.