The Big Gun Debate

[missmadiemay]

 

Couldn't agree more with beruichi. Reading through those headlines, I see a bunch of preventable deaths. This is an assumption, but I don't think most people who commit property crimes bring guns to their crime scenes intending to kill their victims. I.e., if the victim complies, nobody gets hurt. It's unfortunate and nobody wants it to happen to them, but as mentioned, the people committing these crimes are often acting out of desperation - I don't think getting shot by another civilian is any form of justice.

 

What's more, I can conduct a quick Google search and probably match every headline with an equally regrettable one, including but not limited to:

 

• Police: Man mistakes wife for intruder, shoots her
• Man who shot wife in error can sympathise with Oscar
• 55-year-old father allegedly mistakes 16-year-old daughter's boyfriend for intruder, shoots and kills him
• Charles Williams Shot, Killed By Wife Mistaking Him For Intruder: New Orleans Police
• Man shoots wife in chest as she returns home after mistaking her for an intruder
• Wife, Mistaken For Burglar, Killed

 

We can throw examples around all day. I was pointing out that you don't hear about these on the news. About guns HELPING people. It's all politics. If the government wants to get rid of guns, all you're going to hear about on the news is how this person shot that person/group of people with a gun therefore all guns should be banned blah blah.

 

What happens when an intruder enters your home with an intent other than robbery? Like kidnapping? Or rape?

Good luck throwing a knife at him.

[Batgirl]

googling examples, i agree, is not really relevant.

 

and its crucial to understand that of course you hear more about it 'going wrong' - when a gun is effectively used to prevent a crime, there is often no crime report at all. or if there is, its a cursory form filled out asap to be done with. its certainly not newsworthy. 9/10 if you are in a decent area and prevent a crime with a gun, and call, the police wont even bother to talk to you bc the issue is no longer considered urgent with the perp gone. if you are wealthy enough or lucky enough to get a police response after the fact, chances are they will never mention the gun in the report - all they want is a description of events and perps they can use to catch him in the future. and in a bad neighbourhood, you dont want the police coming by unless you actively need them at that moment.

 

and whil i agree very strongly that there are other alarming intentions someone could, and often does, have for home invasion i would like some of you to stop and think about something here. when you discuss a home being robbed as a robbers sole goal, and not worthy of any risk to defend, you are (without realising it) showing how great a distance you are from the reality some people live in.

 

you are thinking - ok home robbed, really sucks but not the end of the earth. ill replace stuff, everyone will be ok. for people with very little to begin with, home robbery can end up meaning 'i cannot feed my child now'. 'i cannot have a working toilet'. 'i cannot buy my medication'. 'my home is open to the outside via large damage and is freezing, filled with bugs, letting rain in on a massive scale'. 'i cannot get a filling done and must continue to live in constant pain'. etc etc . AND you have to cope with the fact that they could have raped or killed you or a family member. AND it also means whoever robbed it now knows it is a safer target for the future, in a community you likely cannot leave by choice.

 

this isnt 'oh man, my doors busted, my tvs gone, bad day'. this is 'i or my child may suffer, possibly even die, as a result of this even though it didnt happen at the moment of the invasion'. now i dont think every person should respond with force and i know it can backfire (largely, imo, BC of the anti-gun sentiment sitgma that affects getting one and being open about seeking out the kind of training and practice we all say in theory would be good). but this isnt some event thats way down in scale from a physical violence the way it would be for most people. this is robbing people who have no financial buffer zone or insurance and who are dramatically affected by it.

 

i'm still new here and making sure i understand the boundaries but re missmadiemay - yeah, good luck throwing a knife. which isnt meant to mock anyone. but there are just physical realities to certain conflicts that can make any amount of hand to hand training irrelevant once someone reaches you.

[passiflora]

We can throw examples around all day. I was pointing out that you don't hear about these on the news. About guns HELPING people. It's all politics.

 

What happens when an intruder enters your home with an intent other than robbery? Like kidnapping? Or rape?

Good luck throwing a knife at him.

 

and its crucial to understand that of course you hear more about it 'going wrong' -

 

And so it's therefore okay to disregard countless preventable/accidental fatalities caused by guns, because sometimes guns help people?

 

 

when a gun is effectively used to prevent a crime, there is often no crime report at all. or if there is, its a cursory form filled out asap to be done with. its certainly not newsworthy. 9/10 if you are in a decent area and prevent a crime with a gun, and call, the police wont even bother to talk to you bc the issue is no longer considered urgent with the perp gone. if you are wealthy enough or lucky enough to get a police response after the fact, chances are they will never mention the gun in the report - all they want is a description of events and perps they can use to catch him in the future. and in a bad neighbourhood, you dont want the police coming by unless you actively need them at that moment.

 

Can you actually prove this?

 

 

and whil i agree very strongly that there are other alarming intentions someone could, and often does, have for home invasion i would like some of you to stop and think about something here. when you discuss a home being robbed as a robbers sole goal, and not worthy of any risk to defend, you are (without realising it) showing how great a distance you are from the reality some people live in.

 

you are thinking - ok home robbed, really sucks but not the end of the earth. ill replace stuff, everyone will be ok. for people with very little to begin with, home robbery can end up meaning 'i cannot feed my child now'. 'i cannot have a working toilet'. 'i cannot buy my medication'. 'my home is open to the outside via large damage and is freezing, filled with bugs, letting rain in on a massive scale'. 'i cannot get a filling done and must continue to live in constant pain'. etc etc . AND you have to cope with the fact that they could have raped or killed you or a family member. AND it also means whoever robbed it now knows it is a safer target for the future, in a community you likely cannot leave by choice.

 

I'm well aware of how devastating a robbery could be to some people, but I still don't think it warrants shooting someone else over. Besides, how many cases do you think this applies to when you look at the list of 'Armed Citizen' stories on the NRA-ILA website?

 

I work with people in a low-income, high crime area. The people you describe and many of those I work with also tend to be less educated and are more likely to suffer from mental illness. I don't mean to be stereotypical; it's just a vicious cycle where people are disproportionately affected by no fault of their own - they just don't enjoy the same advantages as others have, often right from birth. And in such cases, I really don't think arming people is the answer.

 

 

What happens when an intruder enters your home with an intent other than robbery? Like kidnapping? Or rape?

Good luck throwing a knife at him.

 

yeah, good luck throwing a knife. which isnt meant to mock anyone. but there are just physical realities to certain conflicts that can make any amount of hand to hand training irrelevant once someone reaches you.

 

We can also play "what if" all day, but in reality I'm probably more likely to injure myself or a family member than ever need a gun for that purpose (a, b).

 

 

I'm not saying guns can never be helpful, but does the potential benefit really outweigh the harm?

[beruichi]

and beruichi, with respect, you may not have looked at the very example you give carefully. if people in need are much more likely to have an armed intruder enter their home, that makes it even more crucial that they be able to be armed themselves.

I think what she was saying is that people in need are much more likely to be an armed intruder.

Hi, yes, as passiflora pointed out, you misread what I wrote. I said people who resort to those crimes were the ones in desperate need. I've been repeating my arguments, and it seems I can't get my point across. There are bigger problems here that need to be addressed, I've mentioned poverty and morality in my first post in this thread, and giving people access to guns? Not a solution to either of them.

 

Batgirl, you yourself mentioned that you're not a fan of solutions based on magic wands. Giving civilians access to guns, in my opinion, is one of your so-called "magic wand solutions." It doesn't solve any of the bigger problems that the governments should be focusing on. People will resort to crime if pushed to desperation, guns or no. People will rape other people if rape culture persists, guns or no. I feel like I'm simplifying it so much, but I'm arguing on theories here, so I can't help it. I'm not discounting any of the instances wherein guns saved lives in the process of defending themselves, but is it worth the price of losing someone else's life, criminal or not?

 

If you (this is a general "you," not addressed to you at all, Batgirl; I don't wanna put my words into anyone's mouth) say, well good riddance, s/he's trying to rob/rape/murder/insert other crime here anyway, then I feel sorry for you, because you fail to see the bigger picture. Robbers (using this example because it's easier, under the assumption that their motive is desperation) are victims, too, if you think about it. Victims of poverty, of a system that put them in that position, that refuse to help them out of it. I feel like I'm going off tangent (it's 8am, I just woke up) so I suppose I'll stop here.

 

TLDR; we've got bigger things to worry about, and giving people guns ain't gonna solve any of them.

[1_groovychick]

I'll have to admit that I am pro-guns. It drives me nuts when people say that less guns would mean less crime. I strongly disagree. The criminals who are using the guns illegally are also obtaining them illegally. Someone commented that you never hear news stories about guns saving people…But they do. I have read several news stories about law abiding citizens taking down would be robbers with their legally obtained firearms. The only problem is stories like that don't scare people into submission! Stories about people defending themselves can inspire other people to stand up for themselves and before you know it people are standing up to the government. But that's a whole other story.

There are thousands of assaults every year done by people wielding knives. Does that mean we need to restrict people from buying knives. There are thousands of deaths by people speeding or driving recklessly, yet no talk of restricting people from purchasing vehicles. There are thousands of deaths from Cigarette smoking, drinking alcahol and eating fast food, yet still all of these things can be purchased legally.

Just me two cents. Thanks for letting me rant.

[MagusJan]

australia is not the us. not socially. not geographically. not in any way.

 

it is MUCH easier to control what comes in and goes out there. gun control can sometimes work in places where you can reasonably prevent most citizens and most criminals from getting them, and where the law enforcers can generally be trusted. but it fails abyssmally in a situation where criminals can and citizens cant, or when law enforcement is deeply problematic.

 

And unfortunately, the U.S. has a problem that both apply. For example, there was a news story about cops in my area threatening to shoot someone's pets if they have to get a warrant to search his house.

 

It's to the point where I may need to own a gun just to keep myself safe from the police.

[beruichi]

I'll have to admit that I am pro-guns. It drives me nuts when people say that less guns would mean less crime. I strongly disagree. The criminals who are using the guns illegally are also obtaining them illegally. Someone commented that you never hear news stories about guns saving people…But they do. I have read several news stories about law abiding citizens taking down would be robbers with their legally obtained firearms. The only problem is stories like that don't scare people into submission! Stories about people defending themselves can inspire other people to stand up for themselves and before you know it people are standing up to the government. But that's a whole other story.

There are thousands of assaults every year done by people wielding knives. Does that mean we need to restrict people from buying knives. There are thousands of deaths by people speeding or driving recklessly, yet no talk of restricting people from purchasing vehicles. There are thousands of deaths from Cigarette smoking, drinking alcahol and eating fast food, yet still all of these things can be purchased legally.

Just me two cents. Thanks for letting me rant.

I'd like to address a few of your comparisons re: other things you think need to be regulated:

>> knives - I do agree there are a lot of violent crimes with knives as used as the weapon, but you're missing a huge difference between guns and knives: knives have another purpose, as a kitchen utensil. Guns don't; they're merely weapons. Obviously, there has to be a difference between purchasing things that are primarily weapons (guns), and things that may be used as weapons, but have other primary uses (knives). So I think this might not be the best analogy.

 

>> speeding/driving recklessly - AFAIK, there is no restriction on people purchasing vehicles, but there is a restriction (in our laws, that's where I'm a bit knowledgeable about, so I can't speak for other countries) on people operating them: licenses. Truthfully, the driver's licensing system is pathetic in our country, and recent, numerous vehicular accidents involving public utility vehicles have stirred talks among lawmakers and relevant government officials about imposing stricter policies when it comes to giving out licenses. So there are regulations in place, just like with guns, albeit the implementations could use a lot of improvement.

 

>> cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol - let me begin by saying I dislike cigarettes with a passion and I wish they never existed, but I respect the fact that people do use them, as long as they smoke in non-restricted areas, or when I'm not in the vicinity. (: On that note, I'm not up to date with recent studies on smoking and it's impact to health (so feel free to correct me on this), but what I know is people claim that it doesn't cause death, per se; it is, however, linked to a host of deadly diseases, lung cancer being one of the popular ones, which will ultimately lead to a person's death.

 

I don't imbibe alcohol, but as far as deaths related to it are concerned, the only things that come to mind (without googling 'cause I'm too lazy) are alcohol poisoning, or crimes committed while drunk (I'm thinking of drunk driving and sexual harassment/rape).

 

Cigarettes and alcohol are indeed goods that may be legally purchased, but they also have restrictions as to who may buy them (where I'm from, one has to be 18 in order to buy either). We also have a sin tax law (horribly implemented, might I add) that's supposed to be a deterrent to purchasing the goods in question by placing a high tax percentage on them. Neither are harmful when used in moderation; it's when they're abused or when the smoker/drinker is irresponsible that bad things happen.

 

Again, I think this is not an appropriate analogy to guns because I currently can't think of any relationship between guns and the two aforementioned vices.

 

>> eating fast food - I've never heard of death by fast food. Sure, they are quite unhealthy, but they're cheap and frankly delicious (I'm a burger and pizza kind of guy). (: So I'm not sure what you're trying to say, or what made you think that fast food should be regulated(?) like guns? (Unless I'm misinterpreting you, and if so, I apologize.) I'm pretty sure that's what the Food and Drug Authority (in my country, I'm sure yours has a counterpart) is for, to regulate the food products sold for public consumption?

[missmadiemay]

I'd like to address a few of your comparisons re: other things you think need to be regulated:

>> knives - I do agree there are a lot of violent crimes with knives as used as the weapon, but you're missing a huge difference between guns and knives: knives have another purpose, as a kitchen utensil. Guns don't; they're merely weapons. Obviously, there has to be a difference between purchasing things that are primarily weapons (guns), and things that may be used as weapons, but have other primary uses (knives). So I think this might not be the best analogy.

To be used as a weapon is not a gun's only purpose - hunting. Sure it is a sport for many, but for some it is a way of providing for their families. Not everyone has funds to buy meat at the grocery store.

 

>> eating fast food - I've never heard of death by fast food. Sure, they are quite unhealthy, but they're cheap and frankly delicious (I'm a burger and pizza kind of guy). (: So I'm not sure what you're trying to say, or what made you think that fast food should be regulated(?) like guns? (Unless I'm misinterpreting you, and if so, I apologize.) I'm pretty sure that's what the Food and Drug Authority (in my country, I'm sure yours has a counterpart) is for, to regulate the food products sold for public consumption?

Oh ohhhhh I have a great documentary for you! Please please watch Supersize Me. I'm not sure how the fast food is where you are from, but I know the same fast food restaurant in the US would not serve the same things as a fast food restaurant in your country. It's really scary how bad it is for you. The Supersize Me guy of course goes to the extreme and eats McDonald's 3x a day, but the reality is that many people do that. Our country is so overweight. The documentary is a little old, but it's really good (gross?). I hope your FDA is better than ours, because ours is a joke. JOKE I tell you.

 

Cigarettes and alcohol are indeed goods that may be legally purchased, but they also have restrictions as to who may buy them (where I'm from, one has to be 18 in order to buy either). We also have a sin tax law (horribly implemented, might I add) that's supposed to be a deterrent to purchasing the goods in question by placing a high tax percentage on them. Neither are harmful when used in moderation; it's when they're abused or when the smoker/drinker is irresponsible that bad things happen.

We can use this same statement to back citizen owning guns.

 

On average (2013), 28 people die in America from an alcohol related accident. While guns are much higher at 85 per day (this is 2010 I couldn't find 2013), it includes an average of 49 per day from suicide. If we take those out, the numbers are much more comparable.

 

[Navy]

The thing that scares me is people who have military grade weapons in their home.

There's no reason I can possibly think of besides a zombie apocolypse that is even remotely acceptable to have a assault rifle or SMG. You don't need to hunt with it, and you definitely don't need them to protect yourselves and you definitely don't need 15 of them.

 

Gun collectors scare me, and the obsession with something so powerful to where you have to fill your house with them is a good way to keep me and my family as far away from you as possible.

 

What's even worse is the people who want it being legal to carry them around town with them.

[missmadiemay]

The thing that scares me is people who have military grade weapons in their home.

There's no reason I can possibly think of besides a zombie apocolypse that is even remotely acceptable to have a assault rifle or SMG. You don't need to hunt with it, and you definitely don't need them to protect yourselves and you definitely don't need 15 of them.

 

 

I def agree with that. I don't see any need for a civilian to own an assault rifle. Haha zombie apocalypse - yes!

[MagusJan]

The idea behind allowing civilians to own firearms has to do with issues of invasion. Basically, to make the populace so heavily armed and such of a threat to enemy forces that bothering to even try is not worth the effort.

 

Then again, the last time the U.S. was successfully invaded, it was fighting the British Empire.

[beruichi]

...To be used as a weapon is not a gun's only purpose - hunting. Sure it is a sport for many, but for some it is a way of providing for their families. Not everyone has funds to buy meat at the grocery store.

 

...Oh ohhhhh I have a great documentary for you! Please please watch Supersize Me. I'm not sure how the fast food is where you are from, but I know the same fast food restaurant in the US would not serve the same things as a fast food restaurant in your country. It's really scary how bad it is for you. The Supersize Me guy of course goes to the extreme and eats McDonald's 3x a day, but the reality is that many people do that. Our country is so overweight. The documentary is a little old, but it's really good (gross?). I hope your FDA is better than ours, because ours is a joke. JOKE I tell you.

 

...it's when they're abused or when the smoker/drinker is irresponsible that bad things happen.

We can use this same statement to back citizen owning guns.

 

On average (2013), 28 people die in America from an alcohol related accident. While guns are much higher at 85 per day (this is 2010 I couldn't find 2013), it includes an average of 49 per day from suicide. If we take those out, the numbers are much more comparable.

Re: hunting: I actually thought about that some time after writing that post, but then again I dislike hunting "as a sport." I get that some people do hunt game for food, but those who kill for fun? Not cool. :/ Though I stand by my statement that guns are primarily weapons. They're made to kill, but then again, there are knives meant to be used for killing as well, and I'm not aware of any restrictions on that hmm...

 

I think I've seen Supersize Me back in high school (I remember them doing a close up shot on a creepy McDonald's clown figure at the end of the film, and that's about it (: ). Yeah, it's a bit extreme, and I can't imagine someone eating just McDonald's for their three meals per day in our country, 'cause it's not as cheap here as it is in the US. Have you seen Food Inc, though? The documentary I mentioned a few posts back? It discussed something about McDonald's as well, how it's being subsidized(???) by the US government to keep their prices low. I think haven't eaten in a McDonald's for a few years now out of sheer spite (it being a multinational corporation, hah), and that was before I've heard about that Hot Coffee lawsuit fiasco. :evil_notsmiling: Thank goodness for alternative local fast food chains. (P.S. I don't think our FDA is any better than yours, though I can't think of any recent issue that made it pop-up in the news...)

 

Re: abuse of cigarettes/alcohol vs. abuse of guns: Touché.

 

Re: alcohol related accident - what exactly are those? Like drunk driving? 'Cause I really don't want to "blame" alcohol for sexual crimes; people get drunk without forcing themselves on other people; if they commit sexual crimes while inebriated, that's on them, not the alcohol.

[missmadiemay]

Re: hunting: I actually thought about that some time after writing that post, but then again I dislike hunting "as a sport." I get that some people do hunt game for food, but those who kill for fun? Not cool. :/ Though I stand by my statement that guns are primarily weapons. They're made to kill, but then again, there are knives meant to be used for killing as well, and I'm not aware of any restrictions on that hmm...

 

I think I've seen Supersize Me back in high school (I remember them doing a close up shot on a creepy McDonald's clown figure at the end of the film, and that's about it (: ). Yeah, it's a bit extreme, and I can't imagine someone eating just McDonald's for their three meals per day in our country, 'cause it's not as cheap here as it is in the US. Have you seen Food Inc, though? The documentary I mentioned a few posts back? It discussed something about McDonald's as well, how it's being subsidized(???) by the US government to keep their prices low. I think haven't eaten in a McDonald's for a few years now out of sheer spite (it being a multinational corporation, hah), and that was before I've heard about that Hot Coffee lawsuit fiasco. :evil_notsmiling: Thank goodness for alternative local fast food chains. (P.S. I don't think our FDA is any better than yours, though I can't think of any recent issue that made it pop-up in the news...)

 

Re: abuse of cigarettes/alcohol vs. abuse of guns: Touché.

 

Re: alcohol related accident - what exactly are those? Like drunk driving? 'Cause I really don't want to "blame" alcohol for sexual crimes; people get drunk without forcing themselves on other people; if they commit sexual crimes while inebriated, that's on them, not the alcohol.

Yes ma'am drunk driving, sorry should have clarified!

 

Is that documentary not DISGUSTING?! We're starting to get a bit off topic I think lol, but I will def check out the Food Inc!

 

Oh also, I forgot to add - my boyfriend loves to hunt for fun, but he never wastes anything. He always gives the meat to someone who will eat it if we won't. It definitely never gets thrown away! Sometimes hunting actually needs to be done, especially with the deer as they get over populated and start hurting farmers' crops (at least where I live). Then that definitely will start messing with someone's income. The cycle goes on haha.

Edited July 3, 2014 by missmadiemay

[_Danielle_]

Its a shame there aren't many responsible gun owners than there should be( If only there was a way to control who could get guns), unfortunately even if they were to make laws more strict on gun control it wouldn't stop criminals from buying off the Black Market or other places ( Like buying unregistered guns, or building it themselves) therefore crimes and shooting will always exist no matter what laws change. If someone is going to commit a crime they are going to go out of there way to do so or find what they need no matter what the law. I am a gun owner of many different types. I not only enjoy guns but archery too. Being a responsible gun owner I provide food for my family, shoot at a controlled gun range and for home protection. I do agree however a lot of people who do have guns should not have them at all. :sad01_anim: People like that ruin guns for people like me (who are responsible gun owners).

[eloralestrange]

Oh, this is such a hard topic for me. On one hand, I've been threatened with my life by a drunk who had a rifle right next to him (although I don't know if he was aware of it). On the other hand, I'd like some form of defense myself. I suppose a knife would do, because honestly I'd never point a gun at someone (regardless of whether or not my life is in danger). I'm far too afraid of prison and the legal system.