Why People Fear Guns
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html

I could have done with a few more sources my self, but agree with his argument. There are WAY more documented cases of guns preventing murders, rapes, assauts, etc.. then there are gun crimes.

It only has to happen to you once to make you a true believer.

You have no reason to ever fear a gun - the only thing to fear is the person with the gun. Or, knife or tire tool or wrench or rock or......

"it's better to have a gun and not need one,
than to need a gun and not have one"

-<b>True Romance</b>

I've lived with guns all my life.
I hunt, shoot for the fun of it, and have trained my daughters to do the same.
I am not afraid of guns.
What I am afraid of is assholes with guns.
Morons who think shooting a gun in the air is a great way to celebrate New Years.
Ask the kid who had his face destroyed by a stray round how much fun that is.
Or the twit who shoots his wife because he thought she was a burgler.
Or the pastor who shoots two guys in the back because they were "sneaking around" his yard.
I have been to shooting ranges where people have used rifles to point at things.
So while I believe that guns are great tools, I think there are too damn many of them in the hands of jerk-offs who could kill me.

I am more affraid of the people that try to pass poor information inorder to prove that my gun is a danger, but the criminal is just misunderstopd.

I'm not afraid of firearms just some of the idiots that miss-use them. I own several and like to shoot them, but I'm glad I live in a society that has very few out on the streets. I don't buy the "an armed society is a safe society" thing. I wouldn't trade feeling safe in my city for the right of some paranoid guy wanting to carry a handgun.

Firing a gun into the air isn't necessarily dangerous. Terminal velocity for a bullet isn't really enough to do any damage to a human, so I'm guessing these guys fired at an angle which let the bullet retain some energy.

It's still not exactly safe and shouldn't be done though.

So you're saying that if someone brakes into your house, you'd rather see them dead than let them walk away with your precious 200$ DVD-player?

Is some pain meds really worth letting a 13 year old kid have murder on his conscience? And does the criminal deserve to die for illegaly entering someones home?

I would never kill a man unless I'm 100% sure that he's going to kill or rape me or my loved ones. But you can never be sure.

Edit: .. Suggestion: Get pepperspray instead :)

It's a good thing most burglars sit down and have a discussion about their intensions with each home owner before they act!! Do pigs fly and does money actually grow on trees in your world too?? If so, I want to join you!!

If someone breaks into my home, I am not going to interview them as per their intentions. The fact that they are criminal enough to break into a home is reason enough to assume that they don't have regard for normal human courtesy.
How do you know they just want your DVD player?

Crime is a risky game. If you are willing to play it, then dont cry about getting shot.

If you break into my home, I am going to shoot you, not wait and see how far you are willing to go.

Too many people get murdered/raped/beaten within an inch of their lives during a break-in to risk not protecting yourself. Burglars are often armed themselves in some shape or fashion, and a measurable proportion of the population is immune to the effects of pepperspray.

If someone breaks into and crosses the threshold into my home where my wife and children are sleeping, they will get one warning of "get the fuck out!"; if they have not made significant progress out of the house one second later, I will shoot them without hesitating.

I'm not sure whether or not this is completely accurate. Last year, a 7-year-old girl in the next town over from mine was killed by a bullet that was fired almost straight up.

I fear guns because I would not want to live in a society where people are fairly prone to having a gun pulled on them and getting shot is relatively common. You have to go to Afganistan, Colombia, Iraq and such places to find anyplace less safe than here.

I fear guns for pretty much the same reason. Guns kill people.

Guns dont kill people, bullets do. But sending that bullet out of said gun takes human action, so the fault of injury is upon the person firing the gun, not the gun nor the bullet.

People will kill each other reguardless of what weapons are available, if you take my gun and someone still breaks into my house, they will get something much more painful than a bullet. People have been killing each other since man figured out how to swing a stick. You wont change human nature by taking away one of the many tools available to kill someone with (by your reason of logic, martial arts, swords, fighting/throwing knives, maces, bows/arrows, and anything else that can/has been used in battle should be taken away).

I fear communists, they killed 125 million in less than a century.

i held my first gun only a few months ago, and i was physically scared of it, so i think there's something to be said for the psychological fear instilled in us about the gun itself

I'm not afraid of guns, just all of the idiots and poor people holding them.

People are afraid because of ignorance.

For example, I've taught people how to use fire extinguishers, and almost without fail, there is some trepidation even among the men because they are mysterious things that are associated with dangerous situations.

After some education and some practice, they lose their mystique.

I've found the same to be true with guns.

While someone may retain their dislike of them, with education and practice, the fear departs.

A whole lot of people have never seen a gun in person that wasn't strapped to the hip of a police officer. Fear of the unknown is one of the strongest fears there is.

Please keep it on topic.

As for crimes that are committed using guns there is a larger amount committed with knifes. Also more people are killed annually with knifes than guns. This tells me that it is people that kill people, and the item used is just a tool. Guns should be respected, not feared.

I'm scared of those who are so vehemently opposed to even basic discussion about whether guns do or do not provide more security to the population. No topic has ever revealed to me more blind visciousness than this one.


SLM3

P.S. A gun fired straight up will return to Earth with more than enough force to kill someone.

You mean in Great Britian?

Knives. KNIVES, for the love of GOD. That's basic god damn English you're incapable of there.
Further, from here(Stats are 2001 US): http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/o...ptions_10.html
11,000 DEATHS with guns. 2,000 with "cut/pierce." Hell, only 9,000 non-firearm homocides. So maybe there are more attacks with knives/axes/etc, but the gun attacks are, unsurprisingly, more fatal. That is all.

Only people I've met who are afraid to ask this question are the ones trying to pass the gun control laws.

edit: nevermind, delete this if you don't mind....

Such a poor attempt at a threadjack, bad endymon, bad.

Strangely enough, I agree with this statement.

What is frustrating however is that logical discussion is usually beyond those who wish to ban guns.

Take the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 for example.

This POS law is nothing but a feel good law that has no logic behind it, yet it is trumpeted by some as a panacea (sp?) for gun control, pandering to those who think that uzi's and AK47's are being used to kill school children and that this law prevents that.

If anything kills, it's ignorance.

Or the woman that ran and won for NY state congress on Assualt weapons ban as her man plateform. Her husband was murdered by that monster Colin Fergueson ( a man I took a class with!!!!). She played the sympathy card that her husband was killed due to poor laws and won. SHe enacted an assault rifle ban in NY.
The problem was, her husband was killed by a revolver pistol. Why did she ban Assualt Rifles? The answer? It was an emotional ban aid that made her and others feel good, but as anti gun proposals are, it was poorly researched and did nothing to solve the problem.

I respect guns. I fear idiots who don't. I don't particularly like them, though. While they are fine for hunting and warfare, my feeling is that, if I am mad enough to kill someone, I want to be close enough to get bloody. That's one of the things that keeps me from getting that angry, because that's all or nothing.

Guns? They have no consequences for the shooter. They are nothing but for the shot.

Still they are a ton of power, and like any powerful, dangerous tool (a chainsaw, f'rinstance) they deserve my respect.

Incidentally, I own one gun, a 22 target rifle, that I haven't fired in upwards of 15 years. I was a lousy shot (right handed, left eyed) then, and I am sure I remain a lousy shot now. I do know how to handle one though, and how to not kill myself or anyone else with one. That's plenty for me.

However, the 2nd ammendment is every bit as much the law as the rest of them, so as long as no one messes with the first or the 3rd and up, I have no problem with it.

Let's make a difference between MURDER and KILL. The 13 y/o did not MURDER the burglar, he killed him. You kill in war, not murder.

Both of these following definitions were the FIRST chosen by dictionary.com
Murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice
Kill - To put to death


For my quote, I will use kill instead of murder for the simple reason that it sounds better:
Guns don't kill people, stupid motherfuckers with guns kill people.

Porn doesn't kill people, people kill people........guns don't kill people, people kill people. I do not own guns and i really have never been in a situation where i would need one to defend my life. I do not like guns, so i avoid them. i don't hunt, but i don't think that hunters should not be able to have guns. But WHY WHY WHY in the world do we need hand guns, automatic weapons, available to the public and why in the world since we do have them, should they be concealed......

mr b

Like 'redravin40', said im also really concerned about the number of guns out there. I think that the average citizen doesnt need them. There are too many nuts out there who arnt the responsible gunowners that alot of people are. I also think that hunting is a pretty cruel sport. I guess i wouldnt mind it so much if the people doing it wernt using firearms. I think its important that the average person knows where their food comes from, i worked in a slaughterhouse for a little while- and can tell you that it is an eyeopener.

mrbuck brought up a couple points that I cannot let slide. First automatic weapons have been restricted since 1934. They are not readily availabe to the public. It takes the better part of a year for the paperwork and taxes to go through. When you say automatic weapons I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you misunderstand the term "assault weapon". (It really means absolutely fuck all, but it sounds scary doesn't it?) That term applies to semi-automatic rifle patterned after military rifle. It bans rifles based on cosmetic characteristics. The rifles in question are for the most part some of the least powerful and inefficient ever devised. When you hear the anti (I use the term because I can think of nothing lless crude and vulgar) crowd claiming firearms manufacturers use "loopholes" to produce military rifles, they are flat out lying. Because they are banned based on cosmetic features, all that is needed is to eliminate or reduce said features to make them within the law. Flat out there is no loophole. For the record, I own one of those "assualt weapons." They are the easiest to use, and least complicated rifles on the market.

Secondly, handguns have many uses. (I use the word uses because firearms are a tool) Self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting being probably among the best known. Self-defense I will leave for last, so let's begin with hunting.

People use handguns for hunting for a myriad of reasons. Be it the challenge, (most shots are restricted to less than 50 yards) or simply because someone prefers a lighter weight tool, handguns are a versatile and powerful weapon.

Sport shooting with pistols is not my thing. (yet...) However, many people enjoy many different versions of the sport. From bulls-eye to silhouette, or perhaps you want something more challenging, there is always IDPA or IPSC (sp?) defense/self-defense competitions. Like any other hobby/proffesion/club people want to have competitions and get togethers with like minded people. Most of all, sport shooting is thriving because the participants enjoy it.

Now for the last and perhaps most important use of handguns: self-defense. Handguns are popular for self-defense for one reason, they carry a lot of firepower in a small package. They are easy to maneuver in tight spaces where a long gun (rifle, shotgun) would be cumbersome. Handguns are easy to conceal as well.

Mrbuck, you were wondering why people wish to carry concealed weapons on their person. The reason is two-fold. First, no one, and I mean no-one likes having a potential badguy knowing they are armed. Surprise is the key. It also acts as a deterent. In an area where any one can be armed, badguys must try harder kto spot someone they think will be unarmed. More often than not, said badguy will find some other area where there is less/no doubt.

The second reason for concealed carry (and I really hate to say this, no offense intended) is you people. What is your first reaction going to be when you see someone walking down the street wearing a handgun on his/her hip? Chances are you will call the police. Here in South Dakota, it is legal to carry a pistol so long as it is plainly visible. Most firearm owners are responsible and sensible enough to take other people fellings into consideration and will not jeopardize our Second ammendment rights or the good will with most uninformed americans.

[/end rant]

I've gone on long enough. If anyone wishes clarification or further debate don't be shy (not that any one will any way). I have tried to be a clear and concise (not to mention civil) as possible. I apologize for the long read.

lol. Hey, you should fear the nihilists more dude. I mean say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism but at least its an ethos.

HUH?

Rude comment removed.

Never mind that Communism and National Socialism are completely different things.

:lol:

Guns are something to be feared because they make it easier to kill. They aren't bad in and of themselves, but they can be, and often are, used for bad just as frequently as they are used for good. They aren't necessary and there is no reason to make it easier for humans to kill for any reason.

Because it is far less "cruel" to kill an animal with a pointed stick than a firearm...


:rolleyes:

In that case, let's ban cars. Cars are a far more efficient, accessible, and widely used method of killing.

For the year 2000:

0-4 5-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Total

All Automobile 900 1,500 10,500 13,300 9,200 2,700 4,900 43,000

Firearms 20 60 150 190 110 30 40 600

These are accidental deaths, murder is another beast altogether.

link for those who wish to know further: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

And that beast is the valid argument. See my post re: homicide statistics. Falls from great heights are also a cause of death, but nobody proposes a ban on those. A gun is, quite simply, the most efficient (not to mention popular) way for one human being to kill another human being that we've stumbled across.

Two flaws:
First, your statistics are for accidental deaths only. Second, automobiles are not built to be a method of killing. It would be impossible to regulate things that accidently kill people (just check out the annual Darwin awards), but we can and should regulate things that are made to kill. I mean if you honestly can't see the different between something specifically crafted to take life and something that accidently does so then I think there is a problem.

On a side note though, I would say that cars should be more regualted on who drives them, how many can be owned, how much gas they consume, and how much they pollute. America is almost as ridiculous in its obsession with automobiles as it is with its obsession with firearms.

The reasoning is not flawed. Our views on the subject differ. You look at a firearm and see death. I look at a firearm and see a tool. There is no inherent value on a tool. Our emotions color inanimate objects based on one's feelings.

I left murder rates out because of a singular unknown. People. A firearm will not fire unless someone picks it up and pulls the trigger. If you were to take firearms away from them, all criminals would do is find another tool to kill with, be it a knife or a bat or a car. People would be just as dead, and there would be a new scapegoat. I chose automobiles as a comparison because there are roughly (give or take a few hundred thousand) an equal number of them in the United States. ( I am only dealing with the US in my discussion, because it is up to other countries to decide how they wish) For an equal number of tools, the accidental death rate is nearly exponential for automobiles.

As you say, there is a problem. However, it is not as you say differentiating between an inanimate object "specifically designed to kill" and something that accidentally does. The problem lies in people not being able to look at a firearm and get past their initial fear and hatred to see it as what it really is: a tool.

Myself, I have had a firearm ever since I was three. Ever since I was old enough to understand English I have had safety and respect drilled into my head.

MuadDib, I would enjoy continuing this debate. Perhaps you could explain your views, since your mentality (no offense intended) is so foreign to me. I promise I will continue to (try anyway) be civil, and I apologize for any slights, and stepping on any toes in advance.

Edit: On a side note, for future reference could we plaese refer to "guns" as firearms. There is a difference; Guns are artillery pieces and naval cannons. Firearms are man portable weapons. Just a pet peeve of mine ;)

Just a few notes:

Knives make it easier to kill, but do you 'fear' them? I personally have a healthy respect for guns and knives, but I don't 'fear' them.

Second, statistics don't support your argument that guns are used just as frequently for bad as for good. It's been posted several times that it is estimated that there are somewhere between half a million (pessimistic) and 2 million (optimistic) defensive gun uses annually. Compare this to the approximately 18,000 annual gun deaths (pessimistic, including justified uses), and the non-biased observer has to conclude that guns are used more often for good. But good uses aren't news worthy...

Third, our founding fathers found guns to be the sine qua non of the revolution and with that memory fresh, wrote the second ammendment. So guns are VERY necessary when the government begins to trample the rights of its citizens. Unfortunately, there are many examples of such cases just in the 20th century alone.

If someone's going to kill you I'd think I'd take quick and painless vs. long and painful. Being run through with a sword or getting stabbed in the face would be a thousand times worse then getting shot.

So should we roll back the speed limits to, say, 40 mph?

Yes, but it's also the most efficient way for one human being to protect themselves from an attack by another human being.

This thread is not about cars or communism....

What scares me is when people that have a gun say they have never fired the thing or have not touched it in years. It would be better to take it to a range and fire it often to make sure it is working properly and so you cna be comfortable using it and KNOW HOW to use it properly. If you have never used it before, how are you going to know how to take the safety on/off?

Hi debaser, yeah my logic for this argument is that its much harder to kill an animal with your bare hands. Just looking through a scope and pulling a trigger really transforms the animal into another 'target', and i dont think its healthy. If people insist on hunting for recreation, then they should do it caveman style- and learn about whats its like to take the life of another creature up close and personal.

almostaugust, you've obviously never been hunting. There is nothing easy or "target" like about hunting. Between the adrenaline and lack of breath, it is damn near impossible to stay steady. throw in less than ideal conditions and itmakes everything very difficult.

I will end my rant now, because it is getting off topic and I don't wish to jack this thread.

Hunting is not easy at all. You almost always have to take an entire day to get one or maybe two kills. Plus you have to cover your scent, and stay completely silent and unmoving that entire time? It's much harder then you're thinking.

Cavemen didn't kill animals with their barehands either really, all the tastey ones run too fast. They threw spears or used an atlatl mostly.

You also want these people taking kills on deer and such, they can overpopulate rather easily and wreak havoc, hunting seasons are a good way of keeping everything in line.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the cars/guns comparison and you certainly can not leave murder out of the equation. Sure guns (just like cars) are tools, however a gun is a tool designed to kill. Maybe not people specifically, but nonetheless it was crafted to end life. A car on the other hand is crafted to ease transportation and that can be deadly, but it is still not the point of a car. The knife example is better, but a knife does have purpose outside of death. For the sake of argument though lets just say that a knifes purpose is to kill. That just goes to show that guns are not necessary and only serve to make killing easier.

Also the statistics are their and the misgivings lie in the definitions of terms. A defensive use of a gun can mean any number of things from brandishing it to stating that you have it to discharging it, while an offensive use strictly mean threatening violence and discharging with intent to harm. Furthermore, these statistics, even if accurate, can not anticipate violence (or lack thereof) in a gunless society. In my opinion, firearm ownership falls along the same line of nuclearist concepts of mutually assured destruction. They proliferate because of the fact that they proliferate. Ending them would end the need to have them in defense.

Finally, the founding fathers did see gun ownership as important to defend against tyranny. Unfortunately, this was over 200 years ago in a time where a large citizenry armed with hunting rifles could hope to fend off an oppressors military. In the modern age of tanks and missiles and nukes this is not remotely feasible. If you want to allow gun ownership to check tyranny then you are going to need to legalize military grade weaponry and I don't assume you would endorse that. If you would however we can discuss that point later on.

I beg to differ. The insurgency in Iraq is proving how effective it can be. Imagine that rancor on the scale that you would find here in America. The second amendment is still a very viable check.

For me the main thing is how easy it is to kill someone with a firearm than with a knife. Sure you can kill someone with a knife, but the chances of doing it while stopped at a streetlight are quite slim. Firearms make it easy to kill someone.

As far as hunting goes, I'd like to see an anti-hunter get remotely close to a deer let alone jump on it and kill it with their bare hands. A bit of time in the bush would open up their eyes to this crazy idea.
Their argument is ridiculous.

I dont know I dont think I could bring myself to own a gun. Go to a firing range and shoot one off sure I thought about it. As far as having one in my posession I would have to do some serious thinking. To many people have been killed from stupidity and children due to just out and out carelessness of the parents. It is an interesting topic though. I was watching the news the other day and they came up with this new gun called the Smart Gun. The gun is calibrated for your own personal grip, a computer inside is hooked up to preasure devices and then stores it in memory, the gun will only go off if its in your hands. If someone else happens to pick up the gun and use it nothing will happen.

MaudDib, if you cannot come up with better arguements than knee-jerk emotional responses, there is no point in further discussion. I have yet to see hard facts or any supporting evidence for your claims. Until you can up with credible sources, I am through arguing logic angainst emotion. Hiding behind the justifications of HCI and the like will not help find an ecumenical solution. Only when both sides can find understanding and rationale can a true and fair solution be reached.

Yalaynia, this so called smart gun technology is a joke. It poses serious problems for the misuse/abuse of power. Anything electronic can be cracked, it can fail. What is to stop the government from requiring a failsafe built in so police can be sure of not getting shot? Who will be responsible if your defense firearm fails when you need it, when the police shut it down for their protection? The police? The city? Fat chance. Not to mention the possibility of confiscation.

As for me, there will be an old fashion mechanical firearm waiting when they come confiscating. I have no qualms about that, because they have clearly voided the Constitution.

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"
-Patrick Henry

Some people just don't get it: the government CAN'T protect me and my family from vicious criminals.

Thus, I will do so myself by whatever means necessary. I live in a violent city, and the "necessary means" include gun possession.

Do you use this logic when purchasing a car...or are you still driving around in a vehicle manufactured in the 1940s?

No, but that is not the issue. When I buy a firearm, I make sure it will fire when, and only when, I pull the trigger. Look at how computers are cracked in this day and age. If you put a computer in a firearm, it stands to reason someone (probably the criminals) will find a way to bypass any security built in. When it comes to firearms, I prefer to keep it simple.

How does that even relate???


The idea behind the electronic gun controls was to make one person able to fire the weapon, and other places able to disable them. As far as I know, cars have keys which can be used by more than just the owner.


Computers in cars increase the efficiency. The computers they were talking about putting in firearms would be for disablement.

So what do you suggest? Bending over and pulling your pants down for the government and hope that they will be merciful to you? I'd fight with rocks and bare fists if I had to.

One of the greatest things about a firearm is that it is a great equalizer. An 85 year old grandmother with a firearm is the equal of an 18 year old thug because the usage of a firearm does not require any significant physical strength or ability, unlike a knife or similiar object.

Lastly, I think it is absolutely absurd that some of you out there honestly believe that we can get rid of every firearm in the United States. Did you know that people in Afghanistan have been making fully-automatic AK-47's WITHOUT ELECTRICITY for years? And besides, the government has banned many drugs, but are they completely gone?

First, electronic keys can be generated. So if you want to carry the analogy that far you certainly could. Like cars, only people with keys could fire weapon.

But that wasn't the point. How it relates is the fact that we rely on electronics every second of our modern lives, at much greater danger to ourselves than implementing them in firearms.

Computers in cars don't just enable efficiency. They also control the braking system, the steering, the throttle, the combustion, and etc. At any point in time, millions of people hurtling down the freeway at 70+ mphs expose themselves to far greater danger than a single bullet not firing from a gun.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just think it's a weak argument to claim that electronics in firearms makes them prohibitively dangerous when we use electronics in virtually every life impacting decision each minute.

Smooth, in my old Chevy the brakes are hydraulic, the steering is Rack and Pinion (mechanical), the throttle is mechanical, and combustion is controlled by the distributer.

This however is not relevant. The point Jaseca is trying to make, is the computer itself is not inherently dangerous. Having a firearm that will not fire in a self-defense situation (fear for life) because of computer failure, or the police disabled it for their protect (and to hell with anyone else) or the criminal cracked it so you are stuck holding a very expensive club.

The point being, a firearm that has an increased likelyhood of not going off when you pull the trigger is a liability in self-defense situation.

To take Jaseca's analogy of the car one step further, would you buy a car that could be shut off anytime the police thought it was in their best interest. But it wouldn't be just your car, it would be every car in a certain radius. Except for those of the criminal element who defeat the computer and crack it.

I still cannot see any justified reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own a gun.

Hunting is cruel and immoral, and inefficient, and should be criminalised.

Strange, this comment does absolutely nothing. It is an emotional reaction based in your own fears. I have yet to see any of you whom argue that firearms are bad come up with credible evidence to prove your point. When your side can come up with evidence then we can return this thread to a debate. However as it stands there is no use continuing to argue logic against emotion, because emotion will always win. Not because it is the better way, but for no better reason than people viewing issues through emotion ignore facts and evidence.

You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to post it. However, if you are going to post such inflammatory statements at least have the wherewithall to back them up and logically support them.

[aside] I do apologize if anyone takes offense to my remarks. Quitting smoking leaves me with little humor and less patience. Mods please take my post off if you feel it is not proper/poorly executed.

First, there is no current existing smart gun that I am aware of, so all of this discussion is conjecture, but I will say, that I am not against the concept so long as the failure rate is comparable to purely mechanical firearms.

Comparing electronic guns to cars is foolish, because how often does a failure of a car's electronics result in catastrophy? The answer is very very infrequently.

If you want to make a comparison, try something like a pacemaker.

Would you be comfortable entrusting your life to a device with a failure rate of say, 10 percent? (I didn't think so).

And so it goes with guns, particularly hand guns.

Sure, if your gun fails on the range, not a huge deal.

But if someone is coming at you with a knife or pulling their gun, your gun MUST fire without fail.

So until such reliability is demonstrated, I am steadfastly against electronic guns.

SuperMidget, you keep having digs at posters about the flimsyness of thier arguments. Politics is about making decisions based on ethics, logic and statistics. And yes, there is a place for emotion within this sphere. What do you think about the statistic that a child in the home is 500 times more likely to be shot with a firearm owned by the household rather than that of an intruder? The US has a massive problem with firearms unlike any other developed nation on this planet. Close to 40,000 Americans die each year from gunfire. This is totally amazing and unique. People have every right to feel emotional about this.

You are right almostaugust, I guess I have been a little harsh on other people.

Quote:

What do you think about the statistic that a child in the home is 500 times more likely to be shot with a firearm owned by the household rather than that of an intruder?

The actual number put forth by the Kellerman study was 43, not 500. This is the nonsense ratio. All it really means in the great scheme of things is for every defensive use of a handgun there is 1.3 Accidental deaths, 4.6 homicides, and 37 suicides.

For a more in depth explanation see :
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

That stat about 500times more likely is total bunk. I mean there are over 100,000 million guns in America alone. That means that there must be nearly 500,000 million accidental gun deaths. Even if the number is 1% that means that there must be 1 million family gun deaths, not even close.
That "stat" is a lie pure and simple.

I'll buy and use a "smart gun" as soon as the police start using them. ( i.e. It ain't gonna happen.)

Just a little math for you guys, 500 times 0 is still 0. Now i'm not saying that there is 0 chance. But 500 times something close to zero is still close to zero. The point is even if that stat were correct it is pointless becuase it doesn't state a base probability to multiply off of.

One more thing about that stat how was it judged? Did they take just take the number of childern shot by household guns in a year and compair it to childern shot by intruders? If they did that is grossly missrepresenting the facts.

There are a lot more childern living in houses with guns than there are childern whose house gets invaded by a gun. I'd like to see a percentage comparison comparing the% of childern living in houses with guns that are shot by that gun and the % of childern whose house is invaded by someone with a gun that is shot. I'm betting that stat would be a lot more revieling. I'm guessing the % for the first one is very very very very small but the percent for the second one is probably up around 5-10% (maybe even higher).

:hmm:

Did you even read the statistic, "Mr Carafano"? And "100,000 million guns" ummm... that's one trillion. And wrong.

I meant to say 100 million guns in the us, sorry not 100,000 million. And the statsitic is still wrong.

Endymon 32 are you FoodEaterLad? Just curious.

I am Endymon32

ok

I'd like to point out that homocide is just as wrong as heterocide. Thank you.

Once more for those that ignored my earlier post.

In 1986 Kellerman did a study on the use of firearms kept in the home. He found that for every self-defense/justified shoot, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 murders, and 37 suicides.

Can we draw conclusions from this? Nope, because there is nothing to correlate against. All this ratio measures is a breakdown of self-defense/justified homicide against every other firearm related death. Like I said before, none of the categories actually correlate against one another, but it sounds better to say "You're 43 times more likely to kill a family member." Then HCI comes along and bumps the number to 500 and thank you Miss Brady.

(I spelled it right this time Kadath)

Source:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Just out of curiousity, what constitutes a "justified shoot"? I mean, if as kid trespasses onto my property to steal a couple apples from my tree and I shoot him, is that part of the justified shooting category?




SLM3

A justified shoot occurs when the victim was definitely in fear for their life or the life of a loved one. Some states consider a shoot to be justified if the shooter stops a felony from being committed. Petty theft almost never justifies a shooting.

It differs from state to state. General rule of thumb is if you are in fear of you life or serious bodily injury, you may shoot. However, deadly force is the last option. In most states you must retreat if available without exposing yourself to harm. On your own property is usually an exception; some states have a "castle doctrine" clause. You don't have to retreat; if somone is in your house and seems to be a threat, you are justified to end the threat.

This is not legal advice. All this information is from my own research.

www.packing.org

The message board is a good starting point for more information if you are interested.

Thanks for the revised statistics supermidget. Still, '43 times more likely to kill a family member' is super scary, and in my opinon is a telling statistic about the prevalence of guns in society. Do you think more guns will make a safer America?

As long as we're reposting ignored information:
Further, from here(Stats are 2001 US): http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/...options_10.html
11,000 DEATHS with guns...only 9,000 non-firearm homicides. So maybe there are more attacks with knives/axes/etc, but the gun attacks are, unsurprisingly, more fatal.

HA! I originally misspelled homicides in that post myself! Aren't I quite the arse?

Bad guys get guns illegally...

Kadath, you are comparing ALL (caps for emphasis only) firearm related deaths versus only homicides. If you were to take out AD's and Suicides, that numbers would be much more in line.

Not a criticism for you Kadath, but this tactic is quite common with groups such as HCI and MM. They like to compare two very dissimilar sets of statistics and make people believe they are the same.

These are not revised. They are taken from the exact same paper that the Anti's (for lack of a better term) get the 500x number. All I did was point out the real number and clarify the meaning. I see I got the number corrected, but I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) I cleared up the meaning.

All the 43 means is that for every justified homicide/self-defense shoot, there are 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 Suicides.

There is nothing in it that means you are 43x more likely to shoot a family member. All it is is a breakdown of the deaths compared to justified homicide.

Plainly, for every justified homicide/self-defense shoot, there are 43 OTHER firearm related deaths. No correlation.

Forgive me if this point was previously understood, but the way I read your post almostaugust, it seems you didn't get the intent behind my explanation. As always feel free to rebut/request clarification.

Edit: This study was done in 1986. About the time the first states were begining to go to Shall-issue CCW. It was meant to scare people.

HAH! Nope. There are 26,000 deaths(including legal intervention and suicides). 11,000 homicides! I am aware of the tactic. Thank you for allowing me to clarify my point.
However, I have realized you can't deep link into that page. Here is a link to the top.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm

Selecting Homicide ONLY (not "violence-related" which WOULD lump all that stuff in) and then firearm versus non-firearm, I got those numbers. :p

I work in the film/theatre/opera industry, sometimes as the props person. Part of my job is procuring, preparing and maintaining weapons for use in the shows. I have to train actors in the proper use of all kinds of weapons (mostly, to train them that a gun is ALWAYS dangerous and never to point it at their own friggin' head!).

Twenty years of experience in the safe use of handguns has taught me to not keep firearms in my house - first, because I do not want to ever point a gun at someone else, and second, I cannot imagine living with the knowledge that someone got posession of a weapon of mine and hurt themselves or another.

Do I think Canada's gun laws make sense? Of course not. Do I think the owners of firearms ought to be trained in their safe use/storage and that the police ought to be able to know if there might be a weapon in the house? Of course I do.

My father hunted - heck, my whole family does. Not one of us has a handgun in the house. My father, a policeman, kept his revolver in his locker at the police station. He knew curious children and weapons were a recipe for a lifetime of regret.

Burglars can be discouraged long before they get to your house. Good lighting, decent locks, an alarm system, and cutting back hedges from your basement windows will go a very long way to deter criminals from your home.

And if all else fails, hopefully they will only be after your property and not the lives or genitalia of your wife/daughter. Besides, it usually ONLY takes 15-30 minutes for the police to respond in most areas, assuming that you can even call them to begin with.:hmm:

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to find that many of our brothers and sisters in Europe (and probably Canada too) tend to have a "victimistic" attitude. It seems as though they would rather be beaten/raped/killed before they could ever consider defending themselves from violent criminals. Almost like a flock of sheep?

Ah, now I remember why my ancestors came to the United States!

Kadath, thanks for clarifying your point. This is kind of off topic, but I found an article you should read. It fits in really well with timalkin's post above. (damn near the same idea)

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Yes it's from one of my right-wing, redneck, gun-totin message boards. It, however, makes a lot of sense if you read it with an open mind.

Kind Timalkin:

A victimistic attitude? Flock of sheep? Hardly. Ad homenium attacks? Hardly good rhetoric.

To recapitilate my point: if you do not want burglars/rapists/straw men to attack your posessions or persons, keep them out of your house in the first place. That is only logic. If they skip your house, they are not in your house to attack you. Do you not agree that is the best possible outcome? The alternative is to long for a confrontation.

Once they are in your home, reducing the chance of harm to yourself (I would suggest) is the prudent course.

Police, security agencies, almost everybody except the gun industry says that without a doubt, not being found is the best course of action. Once found, not giving the bad folks a reason to shoot you becomes the safest course. Best way to get shot during a burglary? Produce a gun.

If the only way to prevent harm is to inflict harm, I will. To that end, I have taken self-defense training (at my parents - both police officers - suggestion) and I maintain my abilities through periodic re-training. There are objects scattered around my house that would make formidable weapons indeed.

If research demonstrated that I was safer with a firearm in my house than without, I would not hesitate to get one. This is not ideology, it is science. Nor is this the result of some "sheepish" "victimistic" attitude. I make a habit of trying to think for myself and not following a herd - whether pro- or anti- gun.

I applaud you for making your own decisions. My question for you is do you still respect the right of others to own/carry firearms. Or do you vote to strip others of the right. Think about this the next time you say you do not follow a crowd. Even for those who try to find their own choices can still be swayed by illogical and wrong arguements.

Next point (no offense to your parents) Of course police are going to say you are safe to hide and call 911. If people start defending themselves, the police will be out of a job. Not to mention they really don't care what happens to an individual. Police have no right to protect anyone. Courts have ruled this way time and again. Self-protection is up to the individual.

Please read the link I provided above. Read it with an open mind. Whether you agree with the statements put forth in it, it is a good social commentary for this day and age.

Edit: I agree about hiding. However, I feel that most interior doors are no block to a determined attacker. So if they do find me it will be them looking down the barrel of a 12 ga.

I believe you mean that police have no legal obligation to protect people, and that, unfortunately has been ruled true.

Also, police will tell you that they are not there to prevent crimes, but only to solve them.

Right, thank you Lebell, that is what I meant.

SuperMidget:

Oh, I think whatever anyone does (well, pretty much anything) inside the walls of their home is their own business. What I do want is for the presence of weapons to be declared for those who might be innocently put in harm's way of them. For example:

If a neighbour's child is invited to come over to play with the firearm owner's child, the parent of the visiting child has the right to know if there are guns in the house. That person should not have to ask; they should be told.

A meter reader/telephone repair person/whoever else might have a legitimate reason to be on the firearm owner's property.

Paramedics, firefighters and police all have the right to know about the presence of firearms.

If I am a guest at a party, and I do not know everybody, and there is drinking, you bet I look for evidence of firearms. If I see them, and they are not safely locked up, I leave. If I have reason to worry for the safety of others, I talk to the owner of the firearms. Strongly.

You want guns? Have guns. Get training. Tell those who might be innocently hurt by them that they are there. Take responsibility.

Please do not think I am suggesting anyone here is unsafe. I have no idea if my fellow posters are or are not. Nobody here can argue, however, that there are many, many accidents every day because some asshole left firearms and ammunition where it should not be.

Why should a milkman die because he was on some armed guy's stoop at five in the morning right after the homeowner's car was stolen? We know worse has happened.

Regarding police (even my old ma & pa) talking the doctrine of harm reduction: police, more than anyone else, have no fear of a lack of job security. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of the police. They lie, cheat and serve themselves just like the rest of humanity. But in this case, they have experience and cold, hard research on their side.

Do whatever you have to to not get hurt. First this means not being a target. Second, it means not being found. Third, it means co-operating. Fourth, and last, it means fighting back with everything you have, killing them if necessary.

The focus isn't harming or not harming the bad people. Nor is it stopping them. The focus is NOT GETTING HURT OR KILLED. You cannot enjoy your right to self-defense (or any other right) if you are dead.

Sorry for the strident capitals, but that is the only point I am trying to make here. If a gun would keep me from being hurt or killed, and not hurt or kill those I care for, I would keep one at home. Research suggests otherwise.

Ideology does not keep me alive. Prudent decision-making does.

I've written far too much already. Time for others. Love the chat, folks.

Bravo Candide, that was perhaps the most well thought out and eloquent reply I have heard yet for not wanting/owning firearms. Now, if everyone who was against firearms would think like this, a solution would be possible.

I have to disagree on a couple of points, but those are just opinion/bad experieces.

First, no one, unless I trust them with my life (there are about five people in that category) knows where my firearms are. I keep it that way for a reason. I know too many people who have had firearms stolen because people thought the same way you do, and some jackass takes advantage of that. Most people know I have firearms and they know I do not lock them up. If they are uncomfortable with that they can leave. If I absolutely do not trust someone that is around, I will field strip my firearms and keep a piece of it on me.

Right now, I don't have to worry about children, but if/when the time comes I'll have to do what's right by me and safe for them. I'll probably do the same thing my father did for me. I will not hide my firearms. I will introduce the child to them so there is no doubt. If children are exposed to them, they become tools, that are not to be messed with.

I have had a firearm since I was 3 years old. I was always taught respect for them and I have had safety drilled into my head (and sometimes from the other end if I screwed up) for years. Will I never have an accident, I don't know. If it is in my power to stop it, I will not.

In the end, I guess I just feel safer with a firearm. To each his own I guess. Until you start infringing on my rights.

Not a criticism for you SuperMidget, but this tactic is quite common with groups such as NRA. They like to swing the topic away from the weaker points of their argument and resort to calling people cowards and elitist when they find themselves stymied. Thanks for the article. Let me sum up:
We need guns to protect ourselves. Those who try to take them away from us are infringing on our basic rights as laid out in the Constitution.

Did I get it pretty close?