2012-07-25, 14:14 | Link #43 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
Yeah, but how often do people just get shot in their sleep by someone creeping around the house late at night? Not too many, usually in home invasions they want to steal stuff, not kill anyone. You'd probably have time to call 911 if you started hearing someone trying to bust in.
Not to mention a security system would also help prevent that sort of thing.
__________________
|
2012-07-25, 14:26 | Link #44 | ||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
It is however my experience that even in countries where there is a total ban on civilian gun ownership there is still no end of violent crimes, or for that matter, gun crimes. Naturally, while there is less of the latter, do you really care if you get your head blown off by a gun or have it chopped off by a machete? Quote:
|
||
2012-07-25, 14:38 | Link #45 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
------------------------------ The most recent thing I learned from this incident is that one can purchase ammo over the Internet? I thought I knew all the pertinent gun laws and I thought that was illegal. In all the states I've lived in, when I purchase ammunition I have to provide identification and my name/address is logged by the store. When I ship a gun (like, say, to a relative) I cannot ship it myself. I have to take it to a licensed gun dealer who ships it to another licensed gun dealer near my relative who has to come pick it up. In fact, in this example my gun dealer wouldn't ship ammo for me (it was a .38spcl and I had no further use for the ammo since the gun was going hither). He said it was because of rules of shipping explosive materials. Soooooo, someone know off the top of their head what the hell here? So I guess I learned something new... :P ---------------------------------- Anecdotally, I've used a gun exactly four times in my life to stop/prevent a crime. Three times on my home property and once while out and about. I've only had to *fire* one once (my shotgun) and that was to shoot in the ground to make a statement to the attacker. In every case, the mere presence of the gun short-circuited the situation (they ran like hell, etc). Another example is a female friend of mine who had a home intruder scamper when she chambered a shell in her shotgun in her bedroom. That rather distinctive noise has stopped more than a few potential bad ends for many.
__________________
|
|
2012-07-25, 14:50 | Link #46 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Anything on top of that would be local laws and regulations (ie. no ammo can be shipped to APO/FPO, NYC and D.C. etc). |
|
2012-07-25, 15:24 | Link #47 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I recall just after the end of the Cold War getting a case (or maybe it was two cases) of Russian .22 cal ammunition. It was cheap so it sounded like a deal.
Those rounds were mostly lead with no coating aside from some gummy sealer that we assume was made for Siberian climates. Nice hot California weather? Things gummed up about every gun we used them in. They also were very dirty even handling. The only gun that could use them without too much trouble was an old Remington Nylon 66 which as a 14 bullet tube type magazine in the stock. I run through those thing as fast as possible....just to get rid of them.
__________________
|
2012-07-26, 00:12 | Link #48 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
The national media in this country isn't interested in gun stories that save lives, they're not sensational enough nor do they fit the narrative that has been woven over the last forty years. Quote:
The NRA doesn't force anything. It was the American people who lobbied congress not to pass any new gun bans to prevent further erosion of their rights.In fact, the NRA's membership rosters have declined as more and more gun owners join GOA. I left the NRA when they supported the 1998 expansion of the Brady Law, and I then joined GOA. JAMA did a fine job in their study BTW, but their findings were inconclusive, in short they found that gun laws do not increase nor prevent crime. As for the CDC, they actually began shifting focus from guns to gangs in the 1990s because guns were a peripheral factor and not a primary cause of homicides in the USA. The use of guns by gangs is not the reason they're killing each other, it's the gang itself that is the problem. Quote:
They were formed from the Bureau of Prohibition after it separated from the IRS in the 1920s and have engaged in questionable behavior from the "Good Ol Boy" roundup of the 1990s, to entrapment of gun dealers, and now the Gunwalker/Fast & Furious fiasco. They need to go. Quote:
Yes, the benefits of gun ownership do in fact outweigh the costs when you consider how few guns (compared to the total number that are in private hands) are actually used in crime. I've yet to see any credible evidence that shows research being blocked and quite honestly it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Quote:
It is estimated that 30,000 guns are used in crime every year. That represents 1/10,000th the total number of guns in the US (300,000,000 guns, low end of the scale estimate, some studies show it as high as 500mil). Quote:
Doctor Eugene Volokh ripped that nonsense into confetti. As he put it: And all this is in addition to the possible confounding factors discussed in item 1 above. If there were no such confounders, then perhaps even a low odds ratio might be telling, or perhaps even a statistically insignificant odds ratio above 1 might in some measure undermine the “guns as protective” theory. But these two problems put together — the possibility that the result stems from the existence of a high-risk group whose members are especially likely both to carry guns and be the targets of attack, and the possibility of even slight misreporting dramatically affecting the results — make the study highly uninformative. I'm not as charitable as Dr. Volokh is and I'll call Dr. Branas' "study" what it is--bullshit intended to mislead. Here's why. From Dr. Branas' own study: As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot. Six percent of 677 cases is only 41 cases from 2003-2006, that is such an infinitesimal amount compared to the number of news media stories found online that show successful defense with a firearm, that Dr. Branas' "study" is laughable in comparison. If the same study was done in Texas, I'll bet the result would be quite different. You yourself stated that you can find hundreds of cases of guns saving lives listed on the NRA website, well that's not quite accurate, a different website covers that. Here it is, and there are hundreds of stories (526 to be exact from the 2011-2012 period). http://gunssavelives.net/ So once again a pseudo-scientist tries and fails to push the propaganda of "your gun is deadlier to you than your assailant" which is complete rubbish and should be treated as such. As Larry Pratt likes to say "Gun control is not about guns, or crime. It's about control."
__________________
|
||||||
2012-07-26, 22:20 | Link #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 47
|
Has anyone bothered to look at the various states, cities and countries that do enforce some sort of gun control? No? Ok then explain this to me: Chicago Il. has has in effect a very draconian gun control policy of no handguns in the city, and a waiting period (although now it a no-no too) on long guns. And yet this summer alone has been one of the windy cities worst?
California; Extremly anti-gun, so much so that you cannot purchase a civilian legal (semi-automatic) clone of and AK-47 or AR-15. And yet gang violence has been on an upsurge! New York city: Get caught with an unregistered gun and it's a year in prison! Still the crime flows! United Kingdom: Once our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic enjoyed firearms. Nit any more! They were banned outright and rumor has it you have to have a permit to use a hammer? And crime has ballooned over there! Austrailia: Same thing! So please explain too me how gun control is really working for those places! I too was raised in the south and guns were present every day if my life. I'm currently licensed through the state of Virginia to carry concealed and do so! Does gun control work? It does for the criminals who care not one wit about the law! As to the shotgun for home defense: wouldnt want a weapon whose very sound instilled fear in a bad guy? They know how devastating it can be, and do not relish the idea of facing this fearsome weapon. That's called a deterent! And besides, I enjoy Hickok .45s videos on YouTube. |
2012-07-26, 22:47 | Link #50 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
The usual argument is that the guns come in from "outside" and if we could just expand the control all over "outside" it would get all better. Apparently it requires rocket science to understand what a load of bullshit that is
When it comes down to it, the drug cartels could easily become their own creators of arms and design an entire black market to arm both defenseless citizens ($$$) and their own troops. Nothing like a home invasion when the bad guys *know* no one inside has any deterrent.... :P
__________________
|
2012-07-27, 06:15 | Link #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
That said, for countries without a gun culture it can be very worthwhile to keep guns out. The UK have been effective in controlling guns and gun violence. Crime rates surging has a lot to do with increased reporting of small offenses rather than a decrease of gun-ownership, which has always been low. Gun bans in the US simply won't work without resorting to draconian measures as there are millions of fire-arms in circulation. True, but there is a difference between not owning a gun, and not having a deterrent. Don't forget man's best friend protecting our homes for the last 15,000 years. Last edited by Bri; 2012-07-27 at 06:35. |
|
2012-07-27, 11:36 | Link #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure
__________________
|
2012-07-27, 11:44 | Link #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Sorry if this has been said before, but I personally think the gun control is looking at the wrong things.
Control the flow of guns to the criminals (as in gangs and such) before you go after law bidding ones. Once guns become rare(er) then citizen will feel safer and be more willing listen to gun control for the general public. There will most likely be a role for gun clubs and such, since USA has such a long romance with guns, but I think that is a good thing since they can teach gunsmenship and responsible usage of guns... |
2012-07-27, 15:28 | Link #54 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
To put it in perspective, do you really think the media would report on incidents in which an armed victim wasn't able to defend them self? At best, such an incident would get a blurb in which no mention of the victim having a firearm would be mentioned (I know this from anecdotal personal experience (not my own, but a friend's)). There are plenty of people that are armed, know how to use their firearms, yet they still fall victim to criminals (for various reasons). Overemphasizing citizens fighting back (which you are doing) is great for publicity and constructing a narrative, but it does nothing for an actual discussion of what is going on in the country. (Note, I am not trying to discredit or in anyway slight such positive stories. Striving and defending against adversity is a powerful and respectable story, but only focusing on these positive stories does nothing for an actual discussion of the issues at hand.) Quote:
Agreed. This is the core solution that should be focused on. Outright gun control will not necessarily do anything to prevent many criminals from still getting firearms (this will prevent some crime, just not the significant offenses (e.g. organized crime, etc)), but will potentially harm more citizens. Sadly, there is no easy solution to this dilemma. Last edited by james0246; 2012-07-27 at 15:54. |
||
2012-07-27, 15:55 | Link #55 | |||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That however, should not be a reason to ban them. Saying people shouldn't have guns for self-defense because it doesn't work all the time is like saying I shouldn't have wore body armors in Iraq because it wouldn't protect me from all threats. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by kyp275; 2012-07-27 at 16:09. |
|||||
2012-07-27, 16:11 | Link #56 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-07-27, 21:14 | Link #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 47
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-07-28, 08:46 | Link #59 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Something that I think needs to be born in mind is the effect more guns in wide circulation has on criminal organizations. It makes them much stronger. And, eventually, it gives them power that can be used to defy state law enforcement.
Now you can argue that's why we need to give people the ability to defend themselves, by allowing them gun ownership. But the truth, as I see it, is that it won't really help them much, not at the really decisive moment. Yes, it will help in the hypothetical "home invasion" scenario, but that's not actually what I'd be most afraid of. It's organised crime that's the far bigger threat. The average person cannot stand up to an organised crime group. No matter how you look at it, 1 gun does not beat 6 guns, in an organised formation (no matter how many action movies you watch). This creates the situation where criminals can "tax" civilians at will. Civilians will have to either fork out substantial amounts of cash for "protection" or pay to maintain a private militia, or pay more tax dollars for a larger police force. Ultimately the same outcome -> less safety for everyone, and everyone has to pay an economic cost, paying protection money to criminals is ultimately the same as paying to maintain a militia (or larger police force). And many militias end out morphing into organised crime anyway. Consider, what are those militiamen going to do once civilians feel the criminals are gone and are no longer needed? Will they peacefully put down their arms, or will they use their power to maintain their position? I like to think the former will occur, but greed is a powerful motivator. And this is not an imaginary hypothetical situation. It's already occuring in Mexico. The people either have to pay the Cartels for protection, or pay to maintain a force of men to protect themselves, all the while the death toll continues to mount. Now Mexico has tried gun control, but it's always been compromised by the thousands of officials in the pockets of the cartels, who willfully choose not to enforce the law. I don't think these massacres are the main reason to enforce gun control. The main reason is the continued safety and stability of society at large. |
2012-07-28, 13:59 | Link #60 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I think you're the one that need to stop watching movies. Not every city is a Gotham in the making, organized crimes don't actually want to be out in the open running things, their only interest is continuing to make money. It's only when you have a failed state or semi-failed state that you get into the situation in Mexico. Organized crime thrives on dealing in illegal goods, it's how they make their money. It just boggles my mind that people actually believe banning firearms would hurt organized crimes. Tell me, has the banning of drugs hurt organized crimes? or human trafficking/slavery/prostitution? or firearms in countries that has banned them? Nope, they simply become another source of revenue for them. Merely banning stuff isn't gonna do jack to hurt organized crime. Thank you for shooting your own argument down, much appreciated. |
|||
|
|