Ban the guns

[Calanen]

Just to follow up - and to clarify - if someone is forcibly entering your home, you need to take each indivual situation into account. If a 300lb guy in a ski mask holding a machete is kicking your door in, then lethal force is probably your first option.

If the neighbour's kid throws a rock threw your window in a neighbourhood dispute - then clearly shooting the child is ridiculous. It would not even be classed as an attempt to enter.

It is hard to say definitively what you just do in all cases. However, you do not need to fire warning shots or talk with the attacker who has broken into your house. Nor do you need to run away. The level of force necessary will depend on all the circumstances, but can include lethal force if the circumstances warrant it.

I heard that in Louisiana you can use lethal force to prevent a carjacking. I cannot say for certain whether this is right or wrong, another attorney who went to Tulane in New Orleans told me. Perhaps someoone from Louisiana would like to say whether this is right or not.

 

[GiaOmerta]

ALSO its against the law to shoot someone without telling them to stop and warning them that you will shoot if they dont. UNLESS they are already physicaly attacking you.

Officer I warned him. *blows smoking gun barrell*

 

[ALEXDJ]

Same way criminals get their heroin? From legal heroin growers?

all the criminals do heroin, right?

plus, the crime rate has been dropping, but gun sales going up

?

 

[short recoil]

all the criminals do heroin, right?

Ummmm, did you get the point?
Or are you just going on and on despite the fact you are wrong?

 

[ALEXDJ]

Ummmm, did you get the point?
Or are you just going on and on despite the fact you are wrong?

did you get the point that, heroin sales and gun sales are complitly unrealated?

 

[ironclad]

Handguns are not needed to kill animals. There i said it. The thrill should be the hunt, not the armory. In my opinion, all handguns should be banned. The 'target shooting' retort is weak at best. Handguns are not needed in today's society, as they are not needed in the UK or Japan. The fact is, the revolotionary war is over, and such arcane laws should be updated.

 

[ALEXDJ]

Handguns are not needed to kill animals. There i said it. The thrill should be the hunt, not the armory. In my opinion, all handguns should be banned. The 'target shooting' retort is weak at best. Handguns are not needed in today's society, as they are not needed in the UK or Japan. The fact is, the revolotionary war is over, and such arcane laws should be updated.

:cheers:

 

[Calanen]

Handguns are not needed to kill animals. There i said it. The thrill should be the hunt, not the armory.

Its normally not animals that break into your house in home invasions, abduct your children, rape your wife, or kill you in a simple robbery. People hunt with guns, but we are talking about guns in self-defence.

 

[ironclad]

guns in self-defence. that is an oxymoron. The odds that you will be able to defend against an actual robbery is incredibly low, as the gun should be kept seperate from the bullets (or else junior is going to find it). Also, the odds of family injury from handguns goes astronomically up. big time.
here is a site:
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,563597,00.html

 

[Kebean PFC]

Guns in slef defence is entirley credible.

Keep the guns separate from the ammo

Ill agree that you should not keep a loaded gun in you house/apt/whatever, but i will always keep a loaded clip next to my weapon. If you dont know the crap you have to go through to load a clip in the dark, when you have just woken up, then you have no experience to base your comment on.

The odds that you will be able to defend against an actual robbery is incredibly low,

Not where i live, my old house was broken into twice in one month.

also, the odds of family injury from handguns goes astronomically up. big time.

Again, i would disagree. A .30 carbine was left under my bed from the time i was 8. I didn't know it was there either. I never shot myself. If kids would use common sense (don't point it at people/ yourself) then these problems wouldn't happen. BTW most weapons come with a trigger pull of over 3lbs. It would take a 6-8Y.O. to pull the trigger. The problem is with match weapons, that may have a trigger pull measured in ounces.

Also, i believe firearm safty should be taught in elementary school, just like basic hygene and reproduction (It was called Health, or something like it). For these classes, parents had to sign a disclaimer stating they knew what was being show to thier kids, and even had the option of coming in one night to preview the class.

Basic marksmanship should also be taught in High School, or at least as an elective class. This would help kids become familiar with weapons, and know that in a life threatening situation, they could save their lives and possibly others lives as well. This would also help to lower accidents with guns because children would know what to do.

My $0.02

 

[ironclad]

Not where i live, my old house was broken into twice in one month.

so you have actually shot a criminal? So you are saying that keeping handguns lowers crime? what is you point? poverty causes crime.

Basic marksmanship should also be taught in High School, or at least as an elective class.

teaching our kids how to shoot a firearm is the absolute wrong direction to go in. Why teach to kill one another? And kids just need 'common sense'. One of the reasons why household injures happen is also because the option to hurt oneself is more readily avaliable. suicide is that much easier. As if it was that easy that kids should just have common sense. Kids are being shot right now from accidentally handling a gun. you didn't know about the gun under your bed, but from your maybe facsination with guns, what would you, a 6-8 year old, done if you did know?

by the way, there is an over whelming amount of studies that completley contradict your logic, but i believe in logic and reason can solve this one.

 

[Kebean PFC]

I would have pulled up my matress and had a peek of course!

No i have not shot a criminal, i was not at my home when it happened. But, knowing i have the option to do so certainly lets me sleep easier. Have you ever looked down the barrell of a .45? It will inspire fear into you. Possibly enough fear to end the conferentation without my having to kill you.

teaching our kids how to shoot a firearm is the absolute wrong direction to go in. Why teach to kill one another?

I wasn't advocating teaching to kill, but i am advocating marksmanship. It is a life skill, and any child of mine will have the opportunity to learn. What if something like Columbine happened at your son/daughters High School? Would you rather have them know how to shoot effectivly, or keep them blissfully ignorant?

poverty causes crime.

That doesn't change anything. That doesn't help your point either.

the option to hurt oneself is more readily avaliable

Knives too then... ban them while your at it so all we can eat with are sporks .

suicide is that much easier.

Your point? If i want to end my life i will always use the quickest and most painless way. But if i really wanted to, i would find a way... there are many ways to kill yourself.

 

[ironclad]

Okay, i am not going to quote you as that breaks up the thread. I am just going to go right through the list.

The point still remains that the handgun most probably can not be used to deter a crime when it is being commited. Also, it escalates the situation, because now lives are being threatened. Who is to say the robber doesn't have a gun either? So no, having a gun is going to end a confrontation without death. It is only going to harm someone.
As for the marksmanship, what do you mean that it does not teach people to kill? You learn marksmanship for HUNTING, and last I check that wasn't on the syllabus. Learning to shoot a handgun is not a life skill, it is a killing skill. One our children most of all do not need. I hope you see the irony in saying that you want your kids to know how to shoot possible school shooters. The parents didn't know their kids would shoot up the school.
The poverty causes crime arguement is saying that if you want to stop getting your house robbed, how about providing opprotuninty in society, and trying to combat poverty instead of handing out guns.
And the suicide argument is common sense. Every kid knows that one bullet to the head is instant death (counter strike for crying out loud). Having the option of instant death is more preferable to a kid on the edge, and might push him over. It is another argument to ban handguns. It is another method being offered. It is a method that should be and can be stopped.


and here is a website for facts on the bloodshed:http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=kids

notable:
In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That's more than 10 young people a day.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S. as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S

 

[Kebean PFC]

You wont change my mind i i can't change yours, so time to agree to disagree.

 

[ironclad]

That would be fine unless the subject is something that is incredibly serious. Liking orange over blue (idiotic in my opinion) is one thing. Banning handguns to deter death is another. This debate should be and can be resolved with logic and reason, as stated. It is too important to agree to disagree. It is a matter of life, not opinion. If one arguement can not be refuted, what else is there?

(its okay to change your mind )

P.s. by the way i think our opposing viewpoints are a quintessential representation of this arguement. Good to debate you:
from this post on: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=76765&page=22&pp=15

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

Lol, banning guns would cause more crimes then prevent them. Banning guns would only prevent the law abiding/normal citizens from protecting themselves, it doesn't stop criminals from getting a gun, if they wanted to they could get one. It just removes one more deterrent to robberies.

Having a gun around makes it easier to commit suicide? Of course, but it's already so easy it doesn't even matter.

 

[ironclad]

it would prevent all citizens from getting one. Banning handguns means destroying ones that are found.
Chadamundo wrote " There will be a black market, but the supply is down, price is up, and the number of handguns and possible murders is down. and most likely the kind of criminals that break into houses wont be able to afford illicit guns. the only situation where i think guns would be useful for a population is if there is a rebellion or civil war in which case you could protect you and your family from roving death squads, which is not quite the situation with us."

 

[Calanen]

What if something like Columbine happened at your son/daughters High School? Would you rather have them know how to shoot effectivly, or keep them blissfully ignorant?

I don't normally disagree with Kebean - but I don't think that marksmenship will help you if you are under attack in a highschool. Presumably you are not armed, and the only way you could become armed is to 1) disarm the attacker in which case the problem is solved unless there is more than one or 2) obtain a firearm from dead security or police which is such a long shot that it is not really a viable option.

While learning to shoot is a good skill - I don't think that its related to the Columbine style massacre, other than both involve guns. Perhaps you were seeking to make a different point here and I have misunderstood.

 

[Calanen]

In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That's more than 10 young people a day.

And yet has been mentioned several times by me in this thread, 700,000 - 1 million people a year in the USA lawfully defend themselves with firearms.

 

[Sainku]

I think we should ban crime. That would stop them.

 

[firemachine69]

I think we should ban crime. That would stop them.

 

[ironclad]

And yet has been mentioned several times by me in this thread, 700,000 - 1 million people a year in the USA lawfully defend themselves with firearms.

Well, they do not defend themeselves unless they use the firearm unless they use it.

The quoted example only states the number of children, under 19 murdered by accidental gunfire. That is 1 percent of 300,000 numbers, and by far a significant factor. All other industries are held to rigourous standards to protect our lives:

(from the Brady site) "Our government recalls or bans hundreds of products when even a few children are killed or injured by a flawed design. Recently, some schools have created "peanut-free zones" in their cafeterias because of the tiny number of children who are highly allergic to peanut products. In 1999, major car manufacturers began installing inside-trunk latches on new cars because 11 children had died the previous year by suffocating in locked car trunks. For years, the gun industry has made their products more and more lethal, instead of devoting any of its profits to the development of a childproof gun, and the industry is absolutely immune to government intervention for its actions."

Are you saying that having 10 children die from a useless tool justifies using that product?

As to the suicide arguement, it is significant:
"Furthermore, he found that people were 16 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun if one is present in the home." from http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,563597,00.html

The fact of the matter is, handguns do not defend people, they kill them. That is the matter at hand. Hand guns, preferably all guns but hunters would fuss, should be banned for a fact. Proven to be useless in defense, the simple reprocussions of hand guns out weigh any imagined benefeits.

By the way i think it is great this thread is active again

 

[pentagon]

(from the Brady site) "Our government recalls or bans hundreds of products when even a few children are killed or injured by a flawed design. Recently, some schools have created "peanut-free zones" in their cafeterias because of the tiny number of children who are highly allergic to peanut products. In 1999, major car manufacturers began installing inside-trunk latches on new cars because 11 children had died the previous year by suffocating in locked car trunks. For years, the gun industry has made their products more and more lethal, instead of devoting any of its profits to the development of a childproof gun, and the industry is absolutely immune to government intervention for its actions."

Are you saying that having 10 children die from a useless tool justifies using that product?

Children die from a number of things; drowning in pools, car wrecks, and yes accidental shootings. The reason none of these are banned is because the positives far outweight the negatives. Sure, if we banned all pools there would be alot more children alive today then there is. We could set the speed limits to 5 mph and that would probably save thousands of lives a year. Why wouldn't we do this? It's not practical, and the "criminals" would not obey it.

The fact of the matter is, handguns do not defend people, they kill them. That is the matter at hand. Hand guns, preferably all guns but hunters would fuss, should be banned for a fact. Proven to be useless in defense, the simple reprocussions of hand guns out weigh any imagined benefeits.

There are many people that have defended themselves with firearms, check http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2004_02_01_archive.html

 

[CptStern]

there are 2 types of gun owners in the world:

the gun nut:

and the "born to be gun nut":

disclaimer: not meant as a serious commentary of nutty gun owners and their nutty guns, so no irate pro-gun responses please and thank yo

 

[firemachine69]

Children die from a number of things; drowning in pools, car wrecks, and yes accidental shootings. The reason none of these are banned is because the positives far outweight the negatives. Sure, if we banned all pools there would be alot more children alive today then there is. We could set the speed limits to 5 mph and that would probably save thousands of lives a year. Why wouldn't we do this? It's not practical, and the "criminals" would not obey it.


There are many people that have defended themselves with firearms, check http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2004_02_01_archive.html

Exactly.

Smoking kills how many americans a day? At least guns have a defensive use, or even just a purpose, if just for sporting.


If you're wondering:

1200 people. Every single DAY, in America ALONE.

http://www.thetruth.com/index.cfm?seek=facts

 

[CptStern]

why do you care? you're canadian remember? we have much stricter laws

 

[pentagon]

there are 2 types of gun owners in the world:

the gun nut:


and the "born to be gun nut"

yes I hate gun nuts, i know plenty of gun owners that are actually down to earth though..there will always be those that take it to the extreme

 

[ironclad]

I was hoping people would understand that the positives do not out weigh the negatives. i know people die everyday. it is one of those things. However, it has been proven before that post that guns are not an effective means of defense, because they can not be used in time for any situation. The example i gave was from a website that, yes was i think a little too radical. However the point remains that guns negatives out weigh gun positives. None of the other items you discussed have a basic intent to kill. The point of a gun is to kill, just clearing that up. What you are weighing is the tens of thousands of death from accidental fire, (in all age groups) and the one or two cases where a handgun has actually detered a crime, not caused it. (by citizens of course)

 

[pentagon]

and the one or two cases where a handgun has actually detered a crime, not caused it. (by citizens of course)

one or two? i think not

 

[pentagon]

However, it has been proven before that post that guns are not an effective means of defense, because they can not be used in time for any situation.

They aren't effective? did you read that link i posted at all? seems they've been effective a number of times. If you have a better form of defense i'd like to know about it.

 

[ironclad]

Comparatively yes. Handguns do more damage than defense:
I have found some good statistics for the issue, short and to the point:


http://www.vpc.org/press/0101myth.htm
For Every Time a Women Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders, New VPC Report Finds (01/31/2001)

Edit: These are figures gathered from FBI and Homicide Report Data

http://www.vpc.org/press/0111unin.htm
Pro-Gun Experts Prove Handguns Are Ineffective Self-Defense Tools

So there you go. For all the successful attempts, hundreds more die. This is a big country, and 10 - 100 cases of self defense are not significant when compared to the tens of thousands that die and the 300 million that live in the USA

 

[pentagon]

Comparatively yes. Handguns do more damage than defense:
I have found some good statistics for the issue, short and to the point:


http://www.vpc.org/press/0101myth.htm
For Every Time a Women Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders, New VPC Report Finds (01/31/2001)

Edit: These are figures gathered from FBI and Homicide Report Data

I'm not sure of the comparison here, were the 101 women that were killed armed with handguns at the time? I'd have to say the majority of women (to my knowledge) do not own any type of firearm. So when one of these female gun owners defend themselves 101 unarmed women are killed? Maybe the unarmed women should consider buying a handgun.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0111unin.htm
Pro-Gun Experts Prove Handguns Are Ineffective Self-Defense Tools

So there you go. For all the successful attempts, hundreds more die. This is a big country, and 10 - 100 cases of self defense are not significant.

taken it out of context, handguns are ineffective self defense tools for IGNORANT people. I know how to operate a firearm safely, not my fault idiots buy guns and have no training with them.

ok you go from 1-2 cases now 10-100 cases...you have no idea what you're talking about. read below

taken from http://outdoors.net/site/features/feature.aspx+Forum+Firearms+ArticleCode+121

Now let's return to defensive gun use (DGU). Most critics cite statistics on deaths and gun types used, or the cost to society for injuries or deaths, but ignore the benefits. HCI, ( and others ) claim defensive guns are more likely to harm the owner than deter a criminal act. They often cite statistics from the US Department Of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey, (NCVS). This study has numerous faults, but chief among them is many crimes are not reported in the NCVS and the survey does not specifically ask about DGUs. Kleck and Gertz conducted an extensive study on defensive usage of guns. The Kleck and Gertz Study On Frequency Of Defensive Gun Uses

In their study Kleck and Gertz carefully corrected mistakes in previous surveys by ensuring their sample only contained "civilian" DGUs against people and not animals. A fault common to all previous studies is respondents' reluctance to divulge data that could lead to prosecution, particularly in light of surveyors representing themselves as working for government. K & G studies eliminated cases with respondents seeking to "obscure" the data by not revealing all the details such as the type of crime being committed, if the respondent had actually confronted the criminal, fired a weapon, etc. They also eliminated police, military and professional security respondents .

Even after corrective factors eliminated almost 60% of the reported cases, Kleck and Gertz concluded there were in excess of 2.16 million DGUs per year . The K & G study found that only 1.125 percent of adults had used guns defensively an average of 1.472 times each during the five year period surveyed. In a population of almost 300 million, guns saved over 3 million individuals by the most conservative estimation. But the Kleck and Gertz study offers even more data we can use.

BASED UPON 2 MILLION DGUs PER YEAR:

1. Only 24% (480,000) reported firing their guns. This means 76% (1.52 million ) times the gun deterred crime merely by its presence.

2. Wounds occurred in less than 8% of the cases., or less than (300,000)

3. Most DGUs occurred in the home, 37% ( 740,000) vs 27% (540,000) away.

4. Property was lost in only 11% (220,000) cases. Guns successfully prevented theft in 89% of the cases or 1.74 million times.

5. In 84% (1.68 million), cases the perp displayed a weapon or attacked before the DGU. Eleven respondents reported using gun only after being injured by the attacker.

6. Only 18% (360,000) reported criminals armed with guns, but 53% (1.06 million) reported facing multiple assailants in DGU incidents.

7. Assailants had weapons other than guns 48% of the time, ( 960,000) in DGU cases. In 18% ( 360,000) of the cases the assailants were armed with guns.

From the statistics garnered by Kleck and Gertz we can conclude guns succeed in preventing crime. Defensive gun users only used guns as a last resort, often only after they were injured by their assailants. Contrary to allegations by anti-gun activists of CC gun owners turning "vigilante" and acting like "Rambo", statistics show the opposite. They shoot less, kill fewer, and cause less incidental damage than police. Guns are extremely successful in preventing theft. They succeed almost 90% of the time, most often without being fired, or the thief injured.

Guns are effective against multiple assailants. Individuals reporting DGUs faced armed assailants over half of the time, often multiple assailants. Few of us can honestly say we could take on multiple unarmed assailants, let alone armed ones, and emerge whole. Women, the elderly and the handicapped face even greater risks of physical harm.

Finally, we can conclude guns save society money - over 2 million times a year. These statistics are based upon rigidly screened, reported DGUs. Crime data indicates unreported DGUs may well exceed 50% of reported incidents every year.

I hope these numbers help you "debunk " the fallacies and falsehoods from the next self-declared "expert" you encounter. We can win the "War Against Guns" by countering misinformation with fact. We can gain support by increasing the appeal of guns and shooting sports for recreation. We can gain adherents by proving gun safety and utility in terms all segments of society is familiar with and can relate to.

 

[Kebean PFC]

1) disarm the attacker in which case the problem is solved unless there is more than one or 2) obtain a firearm from dead security or police which is such a long shot that it is not really a viable option.

The first is highly unlikely, but if you taught marksmanship at school, you would have to have some form of a weapon there. Also, my campus has a police contingent on it, but they are very relaxed older gents, and only one is armed. If there was a shooting, i have no doubt that they would be the first to go. I was tired at the time, so my post probably doesn't make sense... sorry.

CPT Stern, for once i actually appreciate your post! The problem with gun murders (IE Columbine) is that these people were mentally unbalanced FROM THE START. Regardless that their parents say "He was a really nice boy, i don't understand why he did that..." they had problems in their mental state. No problem at school justifies the cold blooded murder of anyone.

Originally Posted by ironclad
However, it has been proven before that post that guns are not an effective means of defense, because they can not be used in time for any situation.

Guns are very effective. If i shot you, you would die. Saying that they cannot be used in time only means that in the "evidence," these people kept ALL thier weapons locked up, and probably kept the ammo in a separate location. I personally do not have a firearm near me (I got a match pellet rifle), but if i was old enough, and i felt the need was there, i would keep a pistol somewhere in my immediate vicinity and a loaded clip nearby.

That said, no, everyone does not need a firearm for self defence. But where i live, it would take the police at least 15-30mins for them to come. By that time, everyone could be dead. Most criminals do not kill for fear of the harsh penalties, but there are those who will, and i want my family and I to be able to save our lives and property if need be.

As i mentioned earlier, all the anti-gun stuff stems from a fear of guns. It may be you are afriad of getting shot, or you are afriad of a break in, where the criminl had a gun. You have to understand, that would not change with anti-gun legislation. To qoute myself:

I personally keep a pellet rifle by my bed and the ammo tin is right next to it. I know that i would be the first to respond in the case of a break in. To be honest, it worries me, becuase i have one shot. However, i know my weapon, i practiced every week for an hour, and i feel confident. That is not to say everyone needs that type of force available to them, but as long as a criminal can have access to a weapon i want mine.

A ban on guns would just mean that people would hunker down, lock them in a closet and not use them until the need arose. Also, it may turn out that if a pistol is just as illegal as an assault rifle, why not get one of those?

 

[Kebean PFC]

This site is really over the top, but click on "Liability" and look at the questions in the survey... It speaks some truths...

http://www.a-human-right.com/

This guy/girl is also a little nuts, so posting this may be a double edged sword... he/she is really pro-women gun ownership too.

 

[pentagon]

This site is really over the top, but click on "Liability" and look at the questions in the survey... It speaks some truths...

http://www.a-human-right.com/

This guy/girl is also a little nuts, so posting this may be a double edged sword... he/she is really pro-women gun ownership too.

hilarious lol

 

[Kebean PFC]

Another set of funny pics...

And a good quote: "Guns are no different from other mechanical and power tools: if used as intended, they are safe to the users and to bystanders. No one sane would attribute magical powers to a shovel or a drill. Guns aren't any different."

 

[Kebean PFC]

And another good quote:

Good Guns are Pretty Guns

So, I have a simple proposal that would have as much effect on gun crime as a lot of the restrictions that have been passed in the last 13 years:
Make All Guns Pink.

That's right: Pink.

We know that psycho schoolkid killers think they are tough. They'd never use a pink gun. Have you ever heard of a psycho crazy using a pink weapon before? Absurd. Therefore, if all the guns are pink, we'll be safe. Safety orange and lime green will be OK, too, I suspect. No self-respecting psycho crazy'd be seen dead with a lime green .44 magnum.

Oh, and make it illegal to repaint them.

Do you feel safe, now?

read the whole article here: http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/looks.html

That is all until 3:00 PM tomarrow.

 

[Calanen]

Are you saying that having 10 children die from a useless tool justifies using that product?

How is the tool useless if it saves 700,000 to 1 million people a year from being killed or injured?

 

[ALEXDJ]

How is the tool useless if it saves 700,000 to 1 million people a year from being killed or injured?

but i means that other 700,000 to 1 million got killed or injured

 

[Kebean PFC]

No it doesn't. How do you even come up wth this crap?