Guns: are they necesary for home defense or a public menace?

[megatron]

I don't see how a pick-pocket would steal your gun? If it's in front of your hip, I doubt someone would bother trying too take it. Also it could be nice too scare people off instead of pulling a gun then having too use it, mabye. I don't see why they'd bother stealing a gun either or even stealing off a person with a gun.

Because you are not the police.

The police are just normal people doing a job. And usually the police aren't everywhere.

So what pick-up line am I supposed to use in this case: Hy baby, that shure is a nice gun! no thanks!

Yeah, because any time a person has something unusual you always choose that and use it as a dumb pick-up line eh? Hy baby, nice tits!

And firing more bullets in the middle of the playground because you have had a bad day at the office and one drink too many DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Uh...yeah. Ok. But wouldn't anybody walking around carrying a full-auto weapon be asked at least why he's doing it? Also a pump-action shotgun would do similair damage, all that buckshot stands more of a chance of hitting someone if you point in there direction than a few seperate bullets. Also if some parents had guns they could just stop him anyway. It's a bit of a dumb and far-fetched argument anyway?

Most of the time those dumb reasons have a reason for being there

To own a gun in England you need too kill vermin with it I think? It's too much trouble to go through just to get a .22 and then be pestered by the police anytime someone gets shot mabye.

remember the time a bobby would have just a club, but no one dared attack him?

No. Besides, English police don't carry guns anyway.

Getting a gun illegally makes you a lawbreaker, not a brilliant idea. Hmm... how to stem the tide of gun related crimes? I know, let's just hand out guns to everybody, that should do the trick!

Exactly.

 

[welsh]

True Gwydion- a lot of the weapons were pistols and shotguns and semi-automatics. I think the problem was that many of these weapons were easily convertable. As mentioned before I remember someone, a 19 year old who occassionally sold drugs, buying a mini M-14 with the intention of converting it full automatic for kicks.

The pistols and handguns were more like Tec-9s and Mac 10s. Yes semi-automatic pistols but if converted, submachine guns.

As is, the ban has lost a lot of it's bluster. Manufacturers were able to make new models or make cosmetic changes that were not covered under the ban and thus get around it.

But at the same time, one saw a decline in crime in cities- the reasons have gone from economic renewal, increased police protection, increased prison terms, and even abortion (an interesting theory that really put a spin on both conservative pro-life and liberal- anti-death penalty movements).

At the same time one sees an increase of crime outside the cities. A few years ago, where I live in Central Virginia, we had a spat of crimes involving armed robberies of country stores. These were places out in the country which were infrequently visited. A robber could go in, hold up or shoot the owner, steal a few hundred bucks and a couple cases of beer, before anyone knew it.

In a rural area I could see where a high powered semi-automatic weapon would make sense. Hell, I might even be more tolerant of even an automatic weapon. But these would probably be shotguns or rifles, not automatic pistols or submachine guns. You might be concerned with fire power, range and unconcerned with density of population. At the same time I think the store owner's revolver of 9 mm would probably provide some protection.

In an urban area, however, having someone use a powerful weapon, or one that is semi-automatic, is potentially dangerous. THis is why urban police prefer bullets with low penetration. Having a shoot out in a neighborhood with the bullets passing through walls and killing bystanders is not an option for cops and shouldn't be made easy for criminals.

The problem is that guns that are suitable for one environment could easily move from one region to another. Say for instance the guy buying a semi-automatic mini- M-1 or M-14 who wants it to kill game on his farm. This same person might convert a weapon to fully automatic and sell it to someone in a city where he could use it in gang related activity.

I think a lot of depends on environment. However, looking at the numbers (prompted on this by Gwydion- thanks) we see an increase in crimes involving minorities and taking place in urban areas. This means drug related crimes with innocent bystanders often getting shot.

 

[Gwydion]

I think the problem was that many of these weapons were easily convertable.

Pure speculation. Uses of fully-automatic weapons in crime, even converted weapons, however you do that, is very, very low. Considering that a) this was never really publicized as an important reason for the ban and b) the ban doesn't focus on the mechanics of the firearms at all, I think it's quite unlikely.

Manufacturers were able to make new models or make cosmetic changes that were not covered under the ban and thus get around it.

You mean like removing bayonet mounts, for example?

In an urban area, however, having someone use a powerful weapon, or one that is semi-automatic, is potentially dangerous. THis is why urban police prefer bullets with low penetration. Having a shoot out in a neighborhood with the bullets passing through walls and killing bystanders is not an option for cops and shouldn't be made easy for criminals.

While firing a .338 Lapua in the city is a bad idea, I'm not sure what effect being semi-automatic has. After all, cops walk around with semi-automatic pistols strapped to their hips and frequently have semi-automatic carbines in their patrol cars. Most urban swat teams even use fully automatic weapons. You seem to approve of revolvers for use, but there is hardly a practical difference in the rate of fire between revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. It's hard to see what you're getting at here, or why you think being semi-automatic is so much more dangerous.

The problem is that guns that are suitable for one environment could easily move from one region to another. Say for instance the guy buying a semi-automatic mini- M-1 or M-14 who wants it to kill game on his farm. This same person might convert a weapon to fully automatic and sell it to someone in a city where he could use it in gang related activity.

Since longarms are less commonly used in crime than cheap handguns, and automatic weapons are used less often than that, I don't think this is much of a concern at all.

You now, Welsh, you seem to be harping on what amount to nonissues a whole lot. It is one thing to be hysterical about the possible uses of firearms, but it's something entirely different to attempt to legislate based purely on speculation of what might happen.

 

[welsh]

Oh, and here I was thinking that this was going to be a pleasant and intelligent conversation with you Gwydion. Do you really want to call this hysterical? Or that these are non-issues? I see hardly anything hysterical in anything I have posted here.

Pure speculation. Uses of fully-automatic weapons in crime, even converted weapons, however you do that, is very, very low. Considering that a) this was never really publicized as an important reason for the ban and b) the ban doesn't focus on the mechanics of the firearms at all, I think it's quite unlikely.

Nonsense.

In fact there was substantial interest in making weapons fully automatic. Hell you could order conversion kits through the mail.

Again, the reason for the weapon ban was because studies showed an increasing percentage in the use of assault weapons in gun related crimes. The idea was preventative and aimed at the producers that were supplying weapons that could be used in such crimes- thereby denying weapons to criminals. That said, there was such a large number of grandfathered weapons that existing weapons were largly untouched by the ban.

I mean even conservatives were supporting gun bans. There are statements from George Bush, Barbara Bush even Ronald Reagan that supported a ban on weapons.

Manufacturers were able to make new models or make cosmetic changes that were not covered under the ban and thus get around it.

You mean like removing bayonet mounts, for example?

NO I mean like turning a MAC 10 into a MAC-11. Like coming out with new models of the same weapons that removed many of the sillier elements.

In an urban area, however, having someone use a powerful weapon, or one that is semi-automatic, is potentially dangerous. THis is why urban police prefer bullets with low penetration. Having a shoot out in a neighborhood with the bullets passing through walls and killing bystanders is not an option for cops and shouldn't be made easy for criminals.

While firing a .338 Lapua in the city is a bad idea, I'm not sure what effect being semi-automatic has. After all, cops walk around with semi-automatic pistols strapped to their hips and frequently have semi-automatic carbines in their patrol cars. Most urban swat teams even use fully automatic weapons. You seem to approve of revolvers for use, but there is hardly a practical difference in the rate of fire between revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. It's hard to see what you're getting at here, or why you think being semi-automatic is so much more dangerous.

In the film Juice there is a scene where a gang banger shoots a basketball player that has shown him up on a school court. The person removes a 9 mm and pumps him full of shells. In addition to killing the kid (who was unarmed) he also shoots a little girl. If you don't think that happens, than you need to spend more time in the city.

There is a differnece between police officers using semi-automatic weapons than other people. The police are at least trained to shoot and control their weapons. At the same time there is an interest by criminal to use semi-automatic weapons or any weapons with a high rate of fire. THe problem is that while police are strictly regulated regarding the use of weapons, non-police users are not.

The problem is that guns that are suitable for one environment could easily move from one region to another. Say for instance the guy buying a semi-automatic mini- M-1 or M-14 who wants it to kill game on his farm. This same person might convert a weapon to fully automatic and sell it to someone in a city where he could use it in gang related activity.

Since longarms are less commonly used in crime than cheap handguns, and automatic weapons are used less often than that, I don't think this is much of a concern at all.

If you are from a rural environment, like Kansas, than perhaps this is not as big a problem. However, the numbers indicate the populations that see an increase in crime are generally urban areas, often high in poor populations, oftenminority populations, often with poor police service and protection.

Since a person can fire a mini and fully automatic carbine from a car to spray somone in a drive by, including innocent bystanders, and because weapons are often a sign of prestige among inner city gangmembers (some gangs requiring that you kill a person to gain entry in the gang), than I would say that there is a difference in environment and that the difference matters.

To have one community create a series of regulations to disarm one group of criminals only to find that the criminals step aside those laws to buy weapons from a more lenient jurisdiction, is a problem.

You now, Welsh, you seem to be harping on what amount to nonissues a whole lot. It is one thing to be hysterical about the possible uses of firearms, but it's something entirely different to attempt to legislate based purely on speculation of what might happen.

Making a personal attack is not the way to make an argument. Or if it is, it reflects a failure to have reliable evidence or valid reasoning. This is called an Ad Hominem attack-

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Ok, now in response-

You know Gywdion, you don't use much reliable evidence. Or if you do introduce evidence, you use statistics that only favor your argument. Why don't you try to be a bit more balanced in your choice of statistics? Or is that merely because you are relying on statistics favored by one community against more balanced stats?

I know you are trying to make an argument. I know you favor looser gun controls but really, try a more balanced approached to your evidence. This is important for your own crediability.

We had the discussion about the movement of weapons from low-regulated jurisdictions to high regulated jurisdictions before. This has also featured again in the news recently were a number of venders, including a few local to where I live, have sold a large number of weapons that were subsequently sold to buyers from more regulated markets.

To be honest, I spend to much time checking my facts and numbers for this thread.

If this is going to become a personal issue for you, than I will shut it down. Are we clear?

There is still a "no gun thread" policy placed by the Admins. If Kharn were here, this thread would probably have been shut down and vatted. The reason why there is a "no guns threads" is because people take this to personally and it becomes a flame war.

If this smells like a flame war is brewing, I will shut it down. I am hoping that we can keep the conversation cordial and polite. If not, it ends.

 

[megatron]

In the film Juice there is a scene where a gang banger shoots a basketball player that has shown him up on a school court. The person removes a 9 mm and pumps him full of shells. In addition to killing the kid (who was unarmed) he also shoots a little girl. If you don't think that happens, than you need to spend more time in the city.

Whaaa...

I don't see how shooting a little girl should be different from shooting anybody. A person is always a person, just being young or female shouldn't make any difference besides making things seem more dramatic. Also it's the kids fault for letting it run around the ghetto without a nine, biyatch.

 

[welsh]

I love your sensitivity Meg.

Agreed, one life is worth any others. But the idea was that this was a girl who got clipped because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and because the shooter didn't care who got it.

While most people who are gun owners are considerate and law abiding, some are reckless shitheads and a few are damn dangerous. Trying to keep the guns out of criminal hands is the problem but so is the balance of values between gun ownership and personal safety.

Not everyone has a choice in where they are born or grow up. One solution might be to give all the parents 9 mm, but that might result in a lot of dead husbands and wives.

Some places are just more high risk than others. Thus insurance prices, property values and discrimination all intersect in American society.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Also if some parents had guns they could just stop him anyway. It's a bit of a dumb and far-fetched argument anyway?

- Daddy, can we go play in the park?
- Son, don't forget your kevlar vest and helmet!
- Of course daddy, you know I don't leave home without them!
- Alright, just let me grab the M1 and we go.

Does it really have to come to this before we do something about it?

I don't see how shooting a little girl should be different from shooting anybody. A person is always a person, just being young or female shouldn't make any difference besides making things seem more dramatic. Also it's the kids fault for letting it run around the ghetto without a nine, biyatch.

Mary had Mag, its barrel dark as tar, and where ever Mary went her Mag was shure to go.

 

[APTYP]

Parents have guns already. In fact virtually everyone can have a gun. It's a mystery to me why some people think they're protecting America from being washed up in a wave of shoot-outs.

 

[John Uskglass]

Sorry, wrong topic.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Oh, and here I was thinking that this was going to be a pleasant and intelligent conversation with you Gwydion. Do you really want to call this hysterical? Or that these are non-issues? I see hardly anything hysterical in anything I have posted here.

I'm reminded of the previous gun thread, which I highly recommend that the members reading this thread read so that you guys can know what I'm talking about.

So, once again...

BARF!!!

But, I don't want people accusing me of "soleing" such a wonderful topic with my frivolous cookies, so I'll just throw my two cents in anyways...

The fact of the matter is this, we have two sides that believe two totally different things.

On one side we have the pro-gunners who believe that guns save lives, and on the other side we have the people who believe that guns tend to kill people.

The pro side often uses emotions and fear to get their points across, and their opponents tend to use facts and observations.

The way most gun advocates portray the need for automatic weapons and handguns, you would expect that the second such weapons were banned, a crazed crackhead would come crashing through our doors and killing everyone for drug money, or stealing our possessions, or some other horrible consequence, which, coincidentaly enough, could have been prevented if we had possession of such guns. Either that, or, even more ridiculous, the government would take all our rights away in a fascist seizure of power and we would be powerless to stop it.

Finally, the pro side loves to employ such tactics as slippery slopes, appeals to cosequence, straw men, taking comments out of context, and if all else fails, the good ole ad hominum attacks, while the other side tends to use logic and statistics to make their points. Whats worse, you can actually point out said fallacies with a big fucking stick and they will still stand by them by saying that they're true nonetheless.

What I find most interesting about most gun advocates is that the highest percentage of gun owners tend to live in suburban areas where crime rates are low and guns aren't necessary for self-preservation (and please Gwydion, don't try to skew this around with a Post Hoc by saying that because people in suburbs have more guns, the crime rate is lower there). I live in an urban environment where crime is an everyday norm, and yet I, nor any of my family members ('cept for my uncle, but that's because he is a special agent for the newly created homeland security dept) have ever found it necessary to own a gun. In fact, most of our neighbors don't own guns either. Why??? Because we know that guns barely offer any protection, only retaliation. You want to feel safe??? Get yourself some good locks and maybe a decent alarm also.

As if though a shootout will offer you a better chance of survival...

But as can be seen by the near fanatical worship that most of these gun lovers have for their firearms, I don't think lethal handguns, automatic, or "modded-automatic" guns will ever go away.

Coincidentaly enough, I think the person that has come up with the best solution for gun violence is Chris Rock. In one of his bits (and a damn funny one too), he more or less said that if you wanted to lower the crime rates and innocent bystander deaths, the price for each bullet shoud be raised to $5000.

Now hear me out, if we could put a tax on bullets that would raise the price to a ludicrous high, it would prevent nearly all criminals from being able to own a gun, and the cost of actually shooting one would definitely negate the profits they would make from any crimes they commit. If the gun nuts truly believe that guns are the best form of protection, then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind paying a high price for bullets that would only be used in self defense. A black market would probably be created (most likely catering to the needs of the gun freaks than actual criminals), which is one drawback of the system, but I believe that the number of gun crimes would fall drastically nonetheless.

Anyways, that last suggestion was meant to be taken as something fun to discuss than a law that should be implemented so discuss...

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

That is a pretty good idea, it could work, provided you can stop any illegal shipments of ammo from outside and efficiently hunt down any "black" ammo factory, by that I mean any facility that would produce bullets and sell them cheap to the public. The idea of making the bullets insanely expensive would not hamper gun collectors from pursuing their hobby, I mean a gun who is just supposed to sit in a display case/rack doesn't need any bullets, right? this is one of the most logical solutions to the problem I have heard. Well done Ancient Oldie!

 

[megatron]

You could just make your own bullets.

Also what about other weapons like knives and junk? You can't control everything just because some morons don't think much.

If everybody had a gun and knew how too use it safely, there shouldn't be much of a problem. Mabye there'd be some growing pains, but other than a few hundred dead I don't see how this would be any different than normal. After the first few months everyone would have got properly used too it and be even.

It'd be fine imposing a bunch of bullshit laws, but they obviously don't work. Same with drugs. The amount of money wasted on both of these is pathetic. Perhaps they should educate people and give them a choice.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Bullets aren't that easy to make and they tend to be explosive if improperly made. It's not as if every neighborhood would have a bullet dealer. Still, you do bring up a good point on enforcement.

And as for knives and such, they are no where near as deadly as a gun.

And if everybody had a gun and knew how to use it safely...

I don't know if you're trying to be funny, or you seriously believe that shit, but I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to see that gun crimes would skyrocket through the roof if any sociopath/drug dealer/two-bit criminal had access to one.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

That is a pretty good idea, it could work, provided you can stop any illegal shipments of ammo from outside and efficiently hunt down any "black" ammo factory, by that I mean any facility that would produce bullets and sell them cheap to the public. The idea of making the bullets insanely expensive would not hamper gun collectors from pursuing their hobby, I mean a gun who is just supposed to sit in a display case/rack doesn't need any bullets, right? this is one of the most logical solutions to the problem I have heard. Well done Ancient Oldie!

Actually, thank Chris Rock.

And it was funny as hell the way he presented itl.

 

[megatron]

And as for knives and such, they are no where near as deadly as a gun.

I'd think they be just as deadly, just slower too use. They're also cheaper and easier too hide.

I don't know if you're trying to be funny, or you seriously believe that shit, but I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to see that gun crimes would skyrocket through the roof if any sociopath/drug dealer/two-bit criminal had access to one.

But if everybody had a gun they could just kill him/her? I think they have access to them anyway, I think most of them are smart enough not to go running around shooting everybody though?

You seem too think that guns explode for no reason and make people psychotic killers. I reckon cars, fast food and the bible has probably killed more people than guns ever will.

 

[Sander]

Woohoo! Flame fest headed this way.

Seriously, Ancient, that first bit of your large post is a bit offensive for gun advocates. YOu can't just blindly say that they ignore the facts, because they don't. The problem is that there ARE no facts. All investigations are either bad, inconclusive or contradictory. The entire problem with these debates is the lack of any conclusive, universally accepted piece of evidence. These discussions would be easily settled if there was just a simple decent inquiry. *sigh*

 

[welsh]

I have to agree with Sander- there is a danger of a flame fest growing here.

And to be true, the gun advocates do use stats and evidence. Kleck's work was important in that it was the first real systematic attempt to look at evidence. For that he got the the anti-gun crowd back on track by forcing them to pay attention to proof. That Kleck's study is subject to debate has much to do with research design. The newer the design, the more state-of-the-art the methods, and thus the more precise usually.

So you can't really say they aren't using stats and evidence. You can ask whether they are being right or if their methods were appropriate or even if they are asking the right questions.

However, it's the bad studies and the misuse of evidence that causes problems. Merely being able to cite a fact or figure has a lot of weight in an argument were little evidence has been given. Mere facts often lead to a presumption that the facts are right. Often they are not and are disputable.

 

[Jebus]

And as for knives and such, they are no where near as deadly as a gun.

I'd think they be just as deadly, just slower too use. They're also cheaper and easier too hide.

Yeh. You try robbing a money-transport with a knife. Be sure to post an after-pic too, with your body looking like a bloody sausage.

[

Because you are not the police.

The police are just normal people doing a job.

Yeh. So are soldiers. You want a RPG-7 now?

 

[Ancient Oldie]

It's not so much the stats they cite or the position they hold as their method in presenting them that pisses me off. Often times, their arguments are so full of fallacies and outright stupidity that it's gross.

I don't know if you're trying to be funny, or you seriously believe that shit, but I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to see that gun crimes would skyrocket through the roof if any sociopath/drug dealer/two-bit criminal had access to one.

But if everybody had a gun they could just kill him/her? I think they have access to them anyway, I think most of them are smart enough not to go running around shooting everybody though?

Yeah, there's nothing like good ole' fashion vigilante justice to get rid of all of society's undesirables.

Either way, isn't it better if they didn't have legal access to a gun in the first place?

You seem too think that guns explode for no reason and make people psychotic killers. I reckon cars, fast food and the bible has probably killed more people than guns ever will.

No, I believe that handguns make it easier for individuals to harm and kill others. Last I checked, the use of cars, fast food, and bibles to intentionally harm others was minimal when compared to handguns, which is meant to kill or critically wound other people.

 

[megatron]

Yeh. You try robbing a money-transport with a knife. Be sure to post an after-pic too, with your body looking like a bloody sausage.

I was thinking more along the lines of the discussion which seems to be robbing stores, killing spouses and being a mass-murderer. People would choose the right tool for the job. And again, if everyone was armed it wouldn't happen.

Yeh. So are soldiers. You want a RPG-7 now?

Not really, as I wouldn't know how too operate one. There's also a difference between soldiers and the police.

Either way, isn't it better if they didn't have legal access to a gun in the first place?

Isn't there already laws in place that don't let a person with a criminal record not to legally own a firearm? I don't see why a law-abiding citizen should be restricted from owning a gun while some scum can just pick up a handgun and not worry about anything.

I think the bible has probably caused more deaths intentionally over a few centuries than a couple of rednecks who own guns, but this part of my argument's a bit weak and I'm in a hurry mate.