Jump to content

Why the necessity of guns?


rigney
 Share

Recommended Posts

So the ban on assault rifles doesn't actually affect my point.

The heart of the issue is that if you don't give people guns then, if they turn out to be nutters, at least they are not nutters with guns.

Since it's impossible to tell in advance who is going to flip (unless you have Rigney's magic gift for spotting a "wrong un") the only way to stop loonies getting guns is to stop anyone getting them.

 

But... not giving people guns isn't an option. There's no way to go back in time and stop the invention of any or all weapons. The fact is that they exist, and people own them. I understand your logic, and it appears valid, but it's not actually offering a solution to any problem. It's entirely philosophical. You can ban guns, search every house and attempt confiscation, but guns will still exist. Not to mention that confiscation in the US will probably result in enough deaths to fulfill our mass shooting quota for the next century.

 

I'm not going to attempt to argue that a knife is as dangerous as a gun. That's obviously dumb. Guns are necessary to assist us in killing people.

Edited by Lance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not giving people guns isn't an option, but buy back schemes or licensing the sale of ammunition might be.

 

The problem is that the likes of the NRA are saying that the solution is more guns.

 

" Guns are necessary to assist us in killing people."

How often do you need to do that?

Is the gun you keep for that purpose more likely to achieve that goal or is it more likely to kill someone in an accident or a petty quarrel?

 

Once people realise that having a gun in the house makes them and their kids less safe perhaps the problem will start to solve itself as people get rid of dangerous weapon that they seldom, if ever, actually need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57528616/jerry-sandusky-receives-30-to-60-year-sentence/You might want to check again. For example it was spoon-fed to Rigney.

 

Anyway, as I pointed out, I was using hyperbole.

It really doesn't matter what sort of guns you use.

The point would have been valid if I had said

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her an anti tank gun." or

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a revolver." or even

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a pistol." or

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a shotgun."

 

So the ban on assault rifles doesn't actually affect my point.

The heart of the issue is that if you don't give people guns then, if they turn out to be nutters, at least they are not nutters with guns.

Since it's impossible to tell in advance who is going to flip (unless you have Rigney's magic gift for spotting a "wrong un") the only way to stop loonies getting guns is to stop anyone getting them.

Perhaps discussing pedofelia as a subject may be more to your liking? I'm looking at what seems to be a distinguished gentleman who is given 30 to 60 years in prison for "punking 10 and 12 year old boy" because in doing so it gave him a happy face and best of all, he didn't even need a gun. Sadly, he brought these young boys to their knees with gentle persuasion and in many ways ruined the balance of their lives. Yet, after all of the testimony given by these once innocent juveniles, defense attorneys swear there has been a miscarriage of justice. Well, kiss my ignorant ass. Only when we have finally determined how to corral those with such a mental illness, can you have our guns. After the final verdict on this sicko had been reached, the "son of a bitch" should have been given time to shave, take a good bath and then the rope. Without a better understanding of how justice should be meted out, we are wasting our time on gun bans and gun control.

 

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that when you come up with half-ass gun control schemes things don't get less dangerous. You're taking guns away from the people that aren't crazy. And most people aren't going to sell their AR-15 worth $2000 for $100 at a gun buyback. Also, who's paying for this anyway?

 

I've personally never had to do that. But I carry a weapon professionally which acts as a deterrent. Are you asking about me personally? My guns are are more likley to acheive that goal. By definition a quarrel that results in the use of deadly force isn't petty...

 

Yes, yes, guns in the house make kids less safe. So do cleaning products, which are statistically probably more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 I've personally never had to do that.

2 But I carry a weapon professionally which acts as a deterrent. Are you asking about me personally?

3My guns are are more likley to acheive that goal. By definition a quarrel that results in the use of deadly force isn't petty...

 

4Yes, yes, guns in the house make kids less safe. So do cleaning products, which are statistically probably more dangerous.

1 Practically nobody ever does.

2 So, if someone wants to attack you they know that they need to shoot to kill, but if the wan to attack me they know they only have to knock me out.

3 Lots of people are actually shot in petty fights.The fact that you discount that suggests that you don't understand how likely it is that your guns will kill someone that you would rather not kill.

Even if you are God's gift to responsibility, most people are not.

 

4 from

http://www.alegentcreighton.com/body.cfm?id=1478

 

The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that in 1994 over one million children under the age of 5 were potentially exposed to poisonous substances. In that same year there were 26 children under the age of 5 who died because they accidentally swallowed medications and household substances.

 

and

from

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/poisoning/poisoning-factsheet.htm

 

"In 2009, 28,754 (91 percent) of all unintentional poisoning deaths were caused by drugs."

 

 

So it's reasonable to guess that about 2 or 3 kids are killed by cleaning products.

 

 

compared to

"Every day eight kids under 20-years-old die from gun violence in America. That's 56 kids a week, 340 kids a month and over 3,000 kids every year."

 

Sorry, I couldn't find data for identical age groups but unless you are saying that after the age of 5 kids somehow start drinking bleach by the gallon, you are wrong by a factor of something like 10 or 100

 

In reality, cleaning products are not that dangerous.

But that's not the point.

Cleaning products do actually serve to protect people because there really are lots of food poisoning bacteria etc that are out to get us.

But guns can only protect us from "bad people" and those are so rare that the overall effect of guns is to increase the risk of death.

 

 

 

But unfortunately this seems to the the heart of the issue. Misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea that either everyone should be armed or no one should be has to have some sort of median that is between the two extremes. I would suggest that most killings are done by illegal guns not by legal gun owners. If you take away guns from honest civilians then only criminals will have guns is not the point either.

 

Mass shootings still occur in countries with the most stringent gun laws. We as a society have to decide whether or not we will allow for the possibility of illegal gun violence. If the answer is no, then what do we do to stop it?

 

Arm everyone who wants to be armed or violate every ones rights as free men and do a house to house search of our entire society, such a search would result in a great many deaths but it would weed out the nutters.

 

A huge number of guns are completely unregistered so only a house to house search of everyone could take away all guns. a ban on assault weapons is like banning high powered cars to stop auto accidents.

 

Half measures will not result in half responses and far more children die of starvation than gun violence, several orders of magnitude btw.

 

We have to decide what we are willing to do, it's a sure bet that taking guns away from the population will not result in no gun deaths unless we get them all... I don't see a way for this to happen, I really don't.

 

But what then? if some asswipe kills several people with a knife do we suddenly start banning knives? How about hammers? Teeth?

 

No one can guarantee the safety of everyone in all situations, we have to decide what risks we are willing to take and then stick to it, in the US so far we have decided to let people own guns, the barn door is open and the horse has already run away.... the egg has broken, putting it back together is easy to talk about very difficult to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Practically nobody ever does.

2 So, if someone wants to attack you they know that they need to shoot to kill, but if the wan to attack me they know they only have to knock me out.

3 Lots of people are actually shot in petty fights.The fact that you discount that suggests that you don't understand how likely it is that your guns will kill someone that you would rather not kill.

Even if you are God's gift to responsibility, most people are not.

 

 

1. Never having to use your gun to defend yourself is far better than having to defend yourself without one.

2. Huh? Knock you out? Do you know how hard it is to actually knock somebody out? It's not like the movies. All of the practical ways to knock somebody out also have an unfortunate side affect called death. OC and tazers have a 0% chance to knock somebody out. I'm not even allowed to hit somebody in the head with an asp unless I'm justified in using deadly force. Because it's just as likely to kill you as it is to "knock you out".

3.Thank you for that. I was worried I would have to present far more evidence before you admitted I'm god's gift to responsibility.

 

de·ter·rent

Noun

A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from some act.

Surely it's not necessary for me to explain this further?
But making this personal is mostly irrelevant. I carry a duty weapon. No amount of legislation will have any affect on it.

 

"Every day eight kids under 20-years-old die from gun violence in America. That's 56 kids a week, 340 kids a month and over 3,000 kids every year."

 

That's entirely unfair. You're comparing apples and oranges. Your first claim was that a weapon just being in the home makes it more dangerous. Which seemed to imply you were talking about deaths from negligent discharges.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf

Note that this includes all ages:

 

Accidental deaths from Firearms in 2010: 606

Accidental poisoning: 33,041

 

Falls: 26,009

Motor vehicle accidents: 35,332

Accidental drowning: 3,782

Accidental exposure to smoke or fire: 2,782

 

My point stands.

Edited by Lance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 False dichotomy.

2 "All of the practical ways to knock somebody out also have an unfortunate side affect called death."

No, that's the ways to kill someone, rather than the ways to knock them out.

the point is that the attacker only has to incapacitate ( just punched + knocked down would do) rather than kill so you are more likely to get killed than me.

 

3 Look up the word "if"

 

"But making this personal is mostly irrelevant. I carry a duty weapon. No amount of legislation will have any affect on it."

OK, I always said that the police and army would need guns so that's not really part of the argument.

 

Nope, it's perfectly fair. Guns kill people all over the place: bleach doesn't.

You are the one who chose the comparison.

 

There's also the statistical exposure.

Essentially all children are at risk from cleaning products in the home, yet few are killed by them.

Relatively few children are exposed to guns, yet more are killed by them.

 

You keep trying to ignore people who are deliberately killed in a "heat of the moment" fight where, if guns weren't present, there would be a fist fight and people would probably live but, because guns are available it becomes a shooting and people die.

Excluding them makes your argument look better but, unfortunately, it doesn't stop a lot of people dying.

So the thing to count isn't just "negligent discharge" deaths but probably a lot of domestic killings.

"Man beats wife" is bad but "Man shoots wife" is a lot worse.

 

The deaths from car accidents, fires or whatever are, of course, a red herring.

They constitute "misinformation" even if they are accurate.

 

Then, as we already know, about 90% of the "accidental poisonings" are due to drugs (legal or otherwise) and most of the deaths are adults so you have inflated the deaths of young children from cleaning products from the real counted data of (certainly no more, and probably much less) than 26 up to 33,000

And you have ignored the deaths that happen because they were deliberate.

Something like 10,000 Americans are deliberately shot dead each year.

It is difficult to estimate how many of them died in domestic fights where a gun was used in the heat of the moment but it's absurd to ignore them.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not saying your argument is entirely without merit. It always comes back to misinformation. If we are going to start banning guns which destroy my competitive shooting hobby I'd like it to be based on logic, and not a knee jerk reaction to a few crazies with scary looking weapons.

 

 

 

 

Nope, it's perfectly fair. Guns kill people all over the place: bleach doesn't.

You are the one who chose the comparison.

 

 

 

No I didn't! You were talking about guns making my home more dangerous. I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of other objects in my home that make it more dangerous. Most drain cleaners are concentrated sodium hydroxide or other extremely caustic solutions. So are oven cleaners.

 

 

 

 

There's also the statistical exposure.

Essentially all children are at risk from cleaning products in the home, yet few are killed by them.

Relatively few children are exposed to guns, yet more are killed by them.

 

 

 

To an extent, you're correct. But I think you're downplaying the number of US homes with guns in them. Most statistics I'm seeing are around 45%. But not all homes keep dangerous cleaning products either. I don't keep them in the house. If I need drain cleaner I use it then dispose of it immediately after. I wouldn't even know where to begin on finding a statistic for that for comparison though.

 

 

 

 

You keep trying to ignore people who are deliberately killed in a "heat of the moment" fight where, if guns weren't present, there would be a fist fight and people would probably live but, because guns are available it becomes a shooting and people die.

Excluding them makes your argument look better but, unfortunately, it doesn't stop a lot of people dying.

So the thing to count isn't just "negligent discharge" deaths but probably a lot of domestic killings.

"Man beats wife" is bad but "Man shoots wife" is a lot worse.

 

 

 

Yes you're right. The gun rights argument isn't perfect, neither is the gun control argument. I'm not going to sit here and say there's no rational reason to restrict gun ownership. But your argument is mostly speculation. People still kill each other with fists in the heat of the moment. Yes, guns make it easier. You also said yourself that criminals mostly kill each other so there's no need for one for self defense. Which is it? Either only criminals kill each other and they aren't useful for self defense, or the world really is a dangerous place and they are useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look suddenly a word has slipped in you now say " But not all homes keep dangerous cleaning products either."

but previously you were talking about " So do cleaning products, which are statistically probably more dangerous."

 

Were you hoping I'd not notice that change?

Suddenly you have tried to change what it was that you said.

 

 

Since you have moved the goalposts to talk about "dangerous" things, does that mean that you accept that the vast majority are not dangerous?

 

Do you accept that such a view would mean that you are admitting that your original point

" So do cleaning products, which are statistically probably more dangerous."

was not actually true?

Whatever, let's look at what else you have said.

"Most drain cleaners are concentrated sodium hydroxide or other extremely caustic solutions. So are oven cleaners." (fair enough)

" I don't keep them in the house. If I need drain cleaner I use it then dispose of it immediately after."

A very sensible precaution.

 

Now, all we need to do is get people to apply exactly the same logic to guns.

People practically never need one and they are very dangerous, so perhaps you shouldn't keep them in the house.

 

"But your argument is mostly speculation. People still kill each other with fists in the heat of the moment."

I'm "speculating" the the death rate in fist fights is lower than that in gun fights.

If you don't believe that, what would you carry a gun for- shouldn't you just use your fists?

You see, it's not really speculative, it's common sense.

 

 

"You also said yourself that criminals mostly kill each other so there's no need for one for self defense. Which is it? Either only criminals kill each other and they aren't useful for self defense, or the world really is a dangerous place and they are useful"

I'm not a criminal so I'm largely immune to most of the gun fights in the UK. The criminals don't like it when innocents get caught in the crossfire because then the police put a hell of a lot more effort into tracking the killers. They also don't want to waste bullets which are relatively difficult to get.

So, it's a false dichotomy.

From my point of view, crooks kill eachother (but not me) and so the world is not that dangerous a place so guns are of little use to me (though they would pose a clear threat to my family).

OK, you don't live here but, even in the states I gather that a lot of petty thieves etc. don't carry guns because, if they do, and they get caught the penalties are much higher.

So, unless you are a criminal (or, I guess have other reasons to go where they are holding their gang fights) the world isn't that dangerous a place.

OK, that's a problem for the people who are stuck with living in those areas. One thing we agree one is that the problem isn't easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look suddenly a word has slipped in you now say " But not all homes keep dangerous cleaning products either."

but previously you were talking about " So do cleaning products, which are statistically probably more dangerous."

 

Were you hoping I'd not notice that change?

Suddenly you have tried to change what it was that you said.

 

 

It's not that I was hoping you wouldn't notice, it's that I feel it doesn't make much of a difference to your overall argument. What's your point? That not all cleaning products are dangerous but all guns are? Sure I'll give you that one. Still doesn't change the fact that the average home contains items that can be just as dangerous to children. (cleaning products, knives, mains electricity, ect)

 

You claim that guns don't have a legitimate use other than killing innocent people and cleaning products do, but that's incorrect.

 

 

 

A very sensible precaution.

 

Now, all we need to do is get people to apply exactly the same logic to guns.

People practically never need one and they are very dangerous, so perhaps you shouldn't keep them in the house.

 

I'll accept that. As long as you use education rather than forcefully taking somebody's liberty. But claiming that people only buy guns for self defense suggests that you don't fully understand the situation.

 

 

 

"But your argument is mostly speculation. People still kill each other with fists in the heat of the moment."

I'm "speculating" the the death rate in fist fights is lower than that in gun fights.

If you don't believe that, what would you carry a gun for- shouldn't you just use your fists?

You see, it's not really speculative, it's common sense.

 

 

The flaw in your speculation is that people get into fist fights and gun fights for different reason. There is absolutely an overlap but just because somebody got into a first fight and lived doesn't mean that if they had been armed it would have turned into a gun fight and people would be dead. I also feel like an armed population is less likely to get into fights at all. It's pretty dumb to go about punching people when they could be armed. Deterrence. Ironically I would never use fists for anything because the public sees it as excessive use of force.

 

It seems like what this argument really comes down to is a difference in opinion on what an acceptable risk is. I'm willing to accept the risks that come with gun ownership, and you're not. So don't buy a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It seems like what this argument really comes down to is a difference in opinion on what an acceptable risk is. I'm willing to accept the risks that come with gun ownership, and you're not. So don't buy a gun. "

 

Your summing up there is childish since it ignores the real problem.

I'm not prepared to accept the risk from you owning a gun- why should I?

I don't accept the risk from you getting drunk and driving (and nor does society, though they used to).,

Why should I accept the risk from you having a gun, particularly since you have already shown that you don't understand the risk- you think it's less than the risk from cleaning products.

 

 

"Still doesn't change the fact that the average home contains items that can be just as dangerous to children. (cleaning products, knives, mains electricity, ect)

Nobody said it did.

What you seem to persist in ignoring is that the likelihood is that cleaning products and knives are going to be used for good things, but a gun is more likely to kill a family member.

 

And my point was quite simple I was pointing out that what you said was utterly wrong, and, as such, counts as the misinformation that you said was the root cause of the problem.

 

"The flaw in your speculation is that people get into fist fights and gun fights for different reason."

Possibly, or perhaps they git into a fight and it escalates. If neither has a weapon, then it can't escalate into a gunfight can it?

Are you seeking to pretend that nobody ever picks up a gun in the heat of the moment?

 

Perhaps you can show the evidence about what sort of fight people get into (and, I remind you that I was talking about " people who are deliberately killed in a "heat of the moment" fight where, if guns weren't present, there would be a fist fight")

 

 

"because somebody got into a first fight and lived doesn't mean that if they had been armed it would have turned into a gun fight and people would be dead."

Nobody said that it would.

The point is that you are looking from the wrong end. When people are shot in a fight it's safe to say that, if there had been no guns they wouldn't have been shot. They might have been killed in a fist fight, but that's a lot more hard work and so it's much less probable (or we are back to the question of why carry a gun if fists are just as lethal- which, by the way, you didn't answer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It seems like what this argument really comes down to is a difference in opinion on what an acceptable risk is. I'm willing to accept the risks that come with gun ownership, and you're not. So don't buy a gun. "

 

Your summing up there is childish since it ignores the real problem.

I'm not prepared to accept the risk from you owning a gun- why should I?

I don't accept the risk from you getting drunk and driving (and nor does society, though they used to).,

Why should I accept the risk from you having a gun, particularly since you have already shown that you don't understand the risk- you think it's less than the risk from cleaning products.

 

 

"Still doesn't change the fact that the average home contains items that can be just as dangerous to children. (cleaning products, knives, mains electricity, ect)

Nobody said it did.

What you seem to persist in ignoring is that the likelihood is that cleaning products and knives are going to be used for good things, but a gun is more likely to kill a family member.

 

And my point was quite simple I was pointing out that what you said was utterly wrong, and, as such, counts as the misinformation that you said was the root cause of the problem.

 

"The flaw in your speculation is that people get into fist fights and gun fights for different reason."

Possibly, or perhaps they git into a fight and it escalates. If neither has a weapon, then it can't escalate into a gunfight can it?

Are you seeking to pretend that nobody ever picks up a gun in the heat of the moment?

 

Perhaps you can show the evidence about what sort of fight people get into (and, I remind you that I was talking about " people who are deliberately killed in a "heat of the moment" fight where, if guns weren't present, there would be a fist fight")

 

 

"because somebody got into a first fight and lived doesn't mean that if they had been armed it would have turned into a gun fight and people would be dead."

Nobody said that it would.

The point is that you are looking from the wrong end. When people are shot in a fight it's safe to say that, if there had been no guns they wouldn't have been shot. They might have been killed in a fist fight, but that's a lot more hard work and so it's much less probable (or we are back to the question of why carry a gun if fists are just as lethal- which, by the way, you didn't answer)

 

 

John it is so easy to stand off at a distance and make these assertions but how do you take away all the guns? Your own country has not done so and gun violence still happens. Your assertion that you personally are in less danger of being shot is not valid. You simply cannot defend your self from someone with gun or a ball bat, you are at the mercy of any intruder that comes into your home. It might not happen where you live but if it did you would have to rely on the good intentions of someone who is a criminal and has nothing but his own well being on his mind. Not leaving witnesses could be on his agenda and you would be eliminated out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your summing up there is childish since it ignores the real problem.

I'm not prepared to accept the risk from you owning a gun- why should I?

I don't accept the risk from you getting drunk and driving (and nor does society, though they used to).,

Why should I accept the risk from you having a gun, particularly since you have already shown that you don't understand the risk- you think it's less than the risk from cleaning products.

 

 

Because it's impractical to ban everything that scares you. Especially when banning said things won't actually have much of an affect on your probability of injury. You already claimed that criminals mostly only kill themselves. So it's unlikely that you'll be shot that way. People's neighbors rarely get shot from negligent discharges so it's unlikely you'll be injured that way. How Exactly does me owning a gun represent a threat to you personally?

 

 

 

What you seem to persist in ignoring is that the likelihood is that cleaning products and knives are going to be used for good things, but a gun is more likely to kill a family member.

 

 

In the last year I've shot hundreds of rounds for qualifications, hundreds in competitions, and thousands in practice. More likely to kill a family member? If that was true I would have thousands of dead family members. I'm ignoring it because it's blatantly wrong. My competition pistol has been used hundreds of times for it's intended purpose, sport shooting, but never hurt a single person. My duty pistol is used 5 days a week for it's intended purpose, deterrence, but never hurt a single person. Although I don't hunt, plenty of hunters have gone a lifetime of hunting, intended purpose, and never hurt anybody. Where are you getting this nonsense that they are more likely to kill a family member than “good things”?

 

You can't create an A:B ratio then completely ignore that A even exists. You're ignoring that guns can and are used for things other than negligence and murder.

 

I am absolutely not downplaying the risk to gun ownership. I would never even consider training somebody on their use without a substantial amount of safety training before we come anywhere near live ammo. Nearly every block of instruction I've ever received has included multiple videos of people shooting themselves. Stop insinuating that I've somehow deluded myself to believe that guns are 100% safe. But if we banned everything that could result in accidental or intentional death where would we be?

 

 

 

Perhaps you can show the evidence about what sort of fight people get into (and, I remind you that I was talking about " people who are deliberately killed in a "heat of the moment" fight where, if guns weren't present, there would be a fist fight")

 

 

No, I can't. Conveniently, neither can you. Because it's speculation. We know that people kill people. People have always killed people. No amount of legislation is going to prevent people from killing people.

 

 

 

he point is that you are looking from the wrong end. When people are shot in a fight it's safe to say that, if there had been no guns they wouldn't have been shot. They might have been killed in a fist fight, but that's a lot more hard work and so it's much less probable (or we are back to the question of why carry a gun if fists are just as lethal- which, by the way, you didn't answer)

 

 

I did answer it. I don't use fists because I would go to jail. Fists cause maiming and death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"John it is so easy to stand off at a distance and make these assertions but how do you take away all the guns?"

Well, first, we stop lying about them.

I have a few friends who have pet rats.

The law in this country lets you keep rats if you want to, but most people don't want them.

People pay to get rid of them.

That's because rats are generally seen as disease spreading smelly vermin.

Once you explain to people that the guns they have been keeping as pets are liars which claim to make you safer, but are more likely to kill your family than an intruder then perhaps the tide will change.

 

It won't change while people are saying things like they are less harmful than cleaning products or comparing them to cars.

 

It won't happen while people still think it's reasonable to ask " How Exactly does me owning a gun represent a threat to you personally?" without realising that the answers are obvious;someone can steal it and shoot me or you might go dolally and shoot me or whatever.

it won't happen while someone who carries a gun professionally says ". I don't use fists because I would go to jail. Fists cause maiming and death." without noticing that the same is true of guns.

 

It certainly won't happen while the facts are ignored by people saying "Where are you getting this nonsense that they are more likely to kill a family member than “good things”?

 

What is needed is a program of education and, at the moment, the NRA and those like them are winning the propaganda battle.

 

As for "you are at the mercy of any intruder that comes into your home."

No

Here's what would happen.

The intruder breaks in and trips the "silent" alarm in my room which wakes me up. There are passive IR sensors on every room on the ground floor and contact switches on teh windows.

I pick up the remote control and leave the bedroom via the back door (there are two doors to my room)

If he's planning to attack me then he has to come up stairs.

When he gets to the top the lights go on in the room to his left.

He pulls his gun and turns towards that room.

He gets hit on the back of the head with a rock- I left that room, picked up a rock (I'm a rock collector) walked round behind him and turned the light on with the remote as he got to the top of the stairs. I'm barefoot, walking on carpet and my eyes are used to the dark.

He never knows what hit him.

Because he has a gun there's no question of my having acted in legitimate self defence even if he dies

 

He thought the gun made him invincible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As for "you are at the mercy of any intruder that comes into your home."

No

Here's what would happen.

The intruder breaks in and trips the "silent" alarm in my room which wakes me up. There are passive IR sensors on every room on the ground floor and contact switches on teh windows.

I pick up the remote control and leave the bedroom via the back door (there are two doors to my room)

If he's planning to attack me then he has to come up stairs.

When he gets to the top the lights go on in the room to his left.

He pulls his gun and turns towards that room.

He gets hit on the back of the head with a rock- I left that room, picked up a rock (I'm a rock collector) walked round behind him and turned the light on with the remote as he got to the top of the stairs. I'm barefoot, walking on carpet and my eyes are used to the dark.

He never knows what hit him.

Because he has a gun there's no question of my having acted in legitimate self defence even if he dies

 

He thought the gun made him invincible.

 

 

John, do you realize how elitist this is? Few people I know can have to high tech protection you enjoy, most home invasions are sudden and catastrophic, I keep dogs to lessen this effect but even a guy who sneaks into your home is most likely done it before, he knows what to do and since few people have the alarms you talk of your first hint of an intruder could very be the blow of a ball bat. Recently in my town there was a rash of home invasions, for the most part they didn't even steal anything the goal was to rape the woman and humiliate the man by making him watch. Home invasion has many motives many of which are inscrutable to men like us and that makes them even more dangerous. I wish I lived in a world where intruders had to navigate a series of high tech barriers before they got to me, i wish i lived in a world where the police arrived in time to do much more than gather evidence of the crime. I don't live in that world, I live in a world where meth heads walk past my house 24/7, where any source of money is a temptation and harming someone to get money is a reasonable course of action for some people.

 

The fact remains that if it were possible to remove all guns from my society I would gladly give mine up, having a gun is a huge responsibility, anyone who feels other wise is not playing with a full deck and shouldn't have a gun to start with... Of course that is yet another conversation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My security system cost less than some guns do.

 

Possibly you are correct, my current gun cost less than $400 US, but it has the advantage of not being negated by other technology or power failures and when i move it comes with me. I don't consider myself to be a gun nut, i don't think I'll ever have to fight the government nor do I think I could. Home protection is the sole purpose of my gun, it's designed with that option in mind and nothing else...

 

A dog would, for most people, be a much more sensible option.

 

Dogs are my first line of defense, an early warning that something is wrong but they cannot defend me.

 

Do you agree that the only (realistic) way to get rid of the guns is to convince people that they shouldn't want a gun in their house?

 

No, the only realistic way is to convince people they have no need for a gun, want doesn't figure into it for me, a gun is a huge responsibility, a gun is death waiting to be unleashed, no sane person wants to kill someone. I consider my gun to be a deterrent, a last resort, not something to be used to attack but to prevent such an attack. At least I can hold a criminal until the police arrive to take over... A criminal would have to be doubly insane to go up against a 12 gauge shotgun designed to be used in close quarters almost as easily as a pistol.

 

You seem to have an unrealistic fear of guns... possibly i have unrealistic expectations of guns... but I do not fear them, I have lived my entire life with guns, I consider them a useful tool nothing more.

 

BTW, i don't know how houses are designed where you live but I would have to make it past any intruder to get away, this has been true for every house I have ever lived in...

 

Insurance, that is the word I was looking for to describe my gun...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I forgot to point out that if "your first hint of an intruder could very be the blow of a ball bat."

then a gun is just something else valuable for them to steal.

 

The top floor of my house is toroidal. and getting past someone isn't a major problem if you have just staved the back of his head in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I forgot to point out that if "your first hint of an intruder could very be the blow of a ball bat."

then a gun is just something else valuable for them to steal.

 

The top floor of my house is toroidal. and getting past someone isn't a major problem if you have just staved the back of his head in.

 

 

Your views on this are fascinating from the stand point of differing cultural views, you are obviously quite a bit better off than me and have more choices in how you live bit most importantly is your culture. I love to watch English television shows, Prime Evil is one of my favorites, even if it had been set in the US and none of the actors had an english accent it would be obvious it wasn't an American show.

 

My point about the blow to the head predisposed no alarm system after you asserted you had an alarm and could escape out a side door if necessary I have never been in a house that the bedroom had a separate exit from the rest of the house. You state it like it is a common state of affairs.

 

if you lived in my house and armed intruders came in, even with the alarms you would be toast while I could hold them at gun point until the police arrived or if they tried to harm me anyway i could blow them into the next room... My cultural values say this is an acceptable outcome while yours evidently do not... interesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no second exit from the room, just a door through into the rest of the house. It means I can circle round.

I have no objection to you killing intruders.

I just wish you would realise that your gun is not as likely to do that as it is to harm your family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Australian, I can only add that after the buy back of guns, after the Port Arthur massacre, and the banning of the guns that are multiple automatic shot, (handguns/sawn off shotguns, easily concealed already banned), I believe there has been no other mass shooting in Oz. The only 2 or 3 shot at one time, being between bikie gangs/drug dealers, purely between rivals, and involving illegal guns. I think it's been about 15 years, since a 'nutter' killing spree. Before that, we had had the occasional nutter.

 

They just don't have access to guns from family/friends, anymore. There are very few in private hands. Everything is in safes. Dubious personalities won't pass the checks. Also, I think accidental child shooting has been only 1 or 2 in a decade. Almost always a child of a farmer, with a shotgun to kill injured stock. If your gun is registered, you can get big fines, if your gun isn't safely locked away in a gun safe.

 

Only this month, it has been announced that after a decade or so, gun buying has increased, so that numbers of guns are now back to the numbers held at the time of the massacre, about 15 years ago? with a much larger population - but the gun type is slower to fire, doesn't have the capability of loading those runs of ammo. Even 15 years ago, Ozzies just didn't feel the need to protect themselves. Even now, it is mainly farmers, stock owners, hunters, security firms, competitors, etc. You can't have a gun of any kind without a sound reason. Your mental health IS checked. I have never hurt anyone, threatened anyone, etc., but because I suffer from simple depression, I can never own a gun. Your police record or lack of, is checked, and I believe you have to have references from professionals of standing who have known you so many years.

 

In America, there is ALWAYS the fear that the people around you, whether negligent, aggressive, taking drugs/drunk, with delusional expectations not enough to earn a ban, COULD be carrying a gun. Any unreasonable loud mouth wanting a bellowing argument, and any movement to inside pocket, etc, and you must acknowledge you think of a possible gun, perhaps multiple automatic firing. You will then be more reactive, less likely to see what might be about to happen, before pushing your own lethal gun power. You all claim you are so much safer, with everyone 'carrying heat,' but I have never known a more quaking and terrified sample of population.that argue this same thing, over and over again.

 

None of you seem to register that you'd be far safer if your health system was guaranteed for all, that your quiet but worrying children could get support and treatment, without sending their poor/middle class parents bankrupt. That your imbalance of incomes, education, social justice, is guaranteed to produce envy, anger and social unrest. As is the vacuous, judgemental bullying of those who aren't interested in mainstream celebrity values, that will often push these worrying kids into reaction. Yes, many are off the rails, but how many are pushed there, because they can't fit in, and are despised and bullied into a desire to hurt back?

 

There are some who do seem dangerous. A history of lighting fires, of animal cruelty, but some kids are just unattractive, uninterested in the popular interests, of being around the vacuously popular.and they are treated appallingly. In making them isolated, you are confusing them with the psychologically spooky, and making it harder to watch the dodgy. To judge purely on appearance, most of the internet billionaires would be bullied/pushed beyond coping, many science/mathematical geeks, the autistic, already doing it tough. Judged just on appearance, not on actions like cruelty/ firelighting/stalking.

 

For the vast bulk of the world, living in cities, there is no necessity for guns, once army and trained special police are armed. If YOUR cities need citizens to arm themselves, I suggest you look really hard at the society you view as normal and acceptable and seriously question if you don't have a very skewed and unpleasant society. Most of the rest of the world would be saying this society has to change. It appears America sees that horror of a reality IS how they see their citizens and the only thing you are ready to fight for, is the ability to own weaponry used in Iraq/Afghanistan, to kill in the tens plus, JUST IN CASE. Again, I ask, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS THOUGHT?

 

If you do carry a gun for work, surely YOU would feel safer if you knew the average unbalaced person you may deal with would not have contacts in the illegal gun world, and is unlikely to carry anything worse than a kitchen knife? We aren't allowed to carry or buy tasers, etc, either. In fact, if you have a knife that you do use, you'll be expected to have a reason for carrying it, not as a weapon. Surely you would feel safer knowing that no one you confront will have a high powered, automatic. (or indeed, a gun of any kind). There is NO reason for anyone in private life to own such a weapon. Anyone who wants to own one MUST qualify as too mentally dubious to ever be allowed one. Surely? Either they envisage being attacked by a company of soldiers, terrorists, or a dance party of meth addled rapists, which really is pushing reality, or perhaps they are seeing themselves as hunter. You don't need such firearms for protection against wildlife. It is purely for mass killing. If you own a gun in Oz, you are red flagged by the police, as potentially dangerous, if they are ever called out to your home. You aren't seen as normal.

 

In Australia, you could have your competition pistol. You may be allowed to have it at home, if you have a gun safe, BUT if you are invaded, they'd have to give you 5 mins to get it out of the safe. Otherwise, you'd keep it at the gun club and have permits to travel to comps.

 

You would be FAR better to have 3 or more large black dogs that live inside, when you are home. Black dogs are psychologically far more frightening, as a colour, and 3 large dogs are very daunting, as unable to be kept track of, moving independently, and they not only defend in the house, but are excellent at informing you of unusual behaviour/strangers. Also, both police and former criminals now giving security talks advise that the majority of punks wanting easy theft/trouble tend to avoid houses with dogs of any size, but if they are big and black, you are seen as too much trouble. If you have dogs locked outside, they are next to useless. If the baddies scout around, hear dogs going off inside, get glimpses of numerous large black dogs, they'll prefer your neighbour, or houses less likely to be watched over by your dogs.

 

I have no security, no weapons, am an elderly female and have 3 dogs and want another one or 2. I have a dog that I call my enforcer. If a stranger is at the door, she sounds as tho she will tear them apart. If I used a certain tone, she would. The others would join in. If I say "Enough", she is a lamb.

 

The weird reality of this attitude of needing guns and beyond comprehension to those demanding gun rights, is the reality that living in a world where you are terrified and totally unable to trust your fellow citizens to live peaceful, kindly lives is apparently NOT your concern. You just want the right to blow their heads off, and keep increasing the lethality of the weapons you keep in your homes.

 

I can't remember the user name of the gun defender who competes, and carries a gun as his job, but using himself as the example of average gun ownership in the USA, is, I would suggest, a complete fantasy. I could claim the morons hunting endangered species, posing women in bikinis, with high heels digging into the coat of a machine gunned black bear or a shot, tracking collared, newly released, breeding, at risk, alpha female wolf, as just as typical and no more misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Australian, I can only add that after the buy back of guns, after the Port Arthur massacre, and the banning of the guns that are multiple automatic shot, (handguns/sawn off shotguns, easily concealed already banned), I believe there has been no other mass shooting in Oz. The only 2 or 3 shot at one time, being between bikie gangs/drug dealers, purely between rivals, and involving illegal guns. I think it's been about 15 years, since a 'nutter' killing spree. Before that, we had had the occasional nutter.

 

They just don't have access to guns from family/friends, anymore. There are very few in private hands. Everything is in safes. Dubious personalities won't pass the checks. Also, I think accidental child shooting has been only 1 or 2 in a decade. Almost always a child of a farmer, with a shotgun to kill injured stock. If your gun is registered, you can get big fines, if your gun isn't safely locked away in a gun safe.

 

Only this month, it has been announced that after a decade or so, gun buying has increased, so that numbers of guns are now back to the numbers held at the time of the massacre, about 15 years ago? with a much larger population - but the gun type is slower to fire, doesn't have the capability of loading those runs of ammo. Even 15 years ago, Ozzies just didn't feel the need to protect themselves. Even now, it is mainly farmers, stock owners, hunters, security firms, competitors, etc. You can't have a gun of any kind without a sound reason. Your mental health IS checked. I have never hurt anyone, threatened anyone, etc., but because I suffer from simple depression, I can never own a gun. Your police record or lack of, is checked, and I believe you have to have references from professionals of standing who have known you so many years.

 

In America, there is ALWAYS the fear that the people around you, whether negligent, aggressive, taking drugs/drunk, with delusional expectations not enough to earn a ban, COULD be carrying a gun. Any unreasonable loud mouth wanting a bellowing argument, and any movement to inside pocket, etc, and you must acknowledge you think of a possible gun, perhaps multiple automatic firing. You will then be more reactive, less likely to see what might be about to happen, before pushing your own lethal gun power. You all claim you are so much safer, with everyone 'carrying heat,' but I have never known a more quaking and terrified sample of population.that argue this same thing, over and over again.

 

None of you seem to register that you'd be far safer if your health system was guaranteed for all, that your quiet but worrying children could get support and treatment, without sending their poor/middle class parents bankrupt. That your imbalance of incomes, education, social justice, is guaranteed to produce envy, anger and social unrest. As is the vacuous, judgemental bullying of those who aren't interested in mainstream celebrity values, that will often push these worrying kids into reaction. Yes, many are off the rails, but how many are pushed there, because they can't fit in, and are despised and bullied into a desire to hurt back?

 

There are some who do seem dangerous. A history of lighting fires, of animal cruelty, but some kids are just unattractive, uninterested in the popular interests, of being around the vacuously popular.and they are treated appallingly. In making them isolated, you are confusing them with the psychologically spooky, and making it harder to watch the dodgy. To judge purely on appearance, most of the internet billionaires would be bullied/pushed beyond coping, many science/mathematical geeks, the autistic, already doing it tough. Judged just on appearance, not on actions like cruelty/ firelighting/stalking.

 

For the vast bulk of the world, living in cities, there is no necessity for guns, once army and trained special police are armed. If YOUR cities need citizens to arm themselves, I suggest you look really hard at the society you view as normal and acceptable and seriously question if you don't have a very skewed and unpleasant society. Most of the rest of the world would be saying this society has to change. It appears America sees that horror of a reality IS how they see their citizens and the only thing you are ready to fight for, is the ability to own weaponry used in Iraq/Afghanistan, to kill in the tens plus, JUST IN CASE. Again, I ask, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS THOUGHT?

 

If you do carry a gun for work, surely YOU would feel safer if you knew the average unbalaced person you may deal with would not have contacts in the illegal gun world, and is unlikely to carry anything worse than a kitchen knife? We aren't allowed to carry or buy tasers, etc, either. In fact, if you have a knife that you do use, you'll be expected to have a reason for carrying it, not as a weapon. Surely you would feel safer knowing that no one you confront will have a high powered, automatic. (or indeed, a gun of any kind). There is NO reason for anyone in private life to own such a weapon. Anyone who wants to own one MUST qualify as too mentally dubious to ever be allowed one. Surely? Either they envisage being attacked by a company of soldiers, terrorists, or a dance party of meth addled rapists, which really is pushing reality, or perhaps they are seeing themselves as hunter. You don't need such firearms for protection against wildlife. It is purely for mass killing. If you own a gun in Oz, you are red flagged by the police, as potentially dangerous, if they are ever called out to your home. You aren't seen as normal.

 

In Australia, you could have your competition pistol. You may be allowed to have it at home, if you have a gun safe, BUT if you are invaded, they'd have to give you 5 mins to get it out of the safe. Otherwise, you'd keep it at the gun club and have permits to travel to comps.

 

You would be FAR better to have 3 or more large black dogs that live inside, when you are home. Black dogs are psychologically far more frightening, as a colour, and 3 large dogs are very daunting, as unable to be kept track of, moving independently, and they not only defend in the house, but are excellent at informing you of unusual behaviour/strangers. Also, both police and former criminals now giving security talks advise that the majority of punks wanting easy theft/trouble tend to avoid houses with dogs of any size, but if they are big and black, you are seen as too much trouble. If you have dogs locked outside, they are next to useless. If the baddies scout around, hear dogs going off inside, get glimpses of numerous large black dogs, they'll prefer your neighbour, or houses less likely to be watched over by your dogs.

 

I have no security, no weapons, am an elderly female and have 3 dogs and want another one or 2. I have a dog that I call my enforcer. If a stranger is at the door, she sounds as tho she will tear them apart. If I used a certain tone, she would. The others would join in. If I say "Enough", she is a lamb.

 

The weird reality of this attitude of needing guns and beyond comprehension to those demanding gun rights, is the reality that living in a world where you are terrified and totally unable to trust your fellow citizens to live peaceful, kindly lives is apparently NOT your concern. You just want the right to blow their heads off, and keep increasing the lethality of the weapons you keep in your homes.

 

I can't remember the user name of the gun defender who competes, and carries a gun as his job, but using himself as the example of average gun ownership in the USA, is, I would suggest, a complete fantasy. I could claim the morons hunting endangered species, posing women in bikinis, with high heels digging into the coat of a machine gunned black bear or a shot, tracking collared, newly released, breeding, at risk, alpha female wolf, as just as typical and no more misleading.

 

 

You are operating on misinformation.... no one hunts endangered species, it's illegal, I do not live in fear, and guns are an ingrained part of our culture. The lethality of guns held by private owners has not increased in lethality in a hundred years and taking guns away from everyone would mean a house to house search which is a violation of our rights as citizens. I to keep dogs but not dogs that would harm anyone. in fact I would never keep a dog who would hurt some one, it would be like having a gun with it's own mind that i cannot control. I do not fear anyone carrying a gun, you are operating on propaganda nothing more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Australian, I can only add that after the buy back of guns, after the Port Arthur massacre, and the banning of the guns that are multiple automatic shot, (handguns/sawn off shotguns, easily concealed already banned), I believe there has been no other mass shooting in Oz. The only 2 or 3 shot at one time, being between bikie gangs/drug dealers, purely between rivals, and involving illegal guns. I think it's been about 15 years, since a 'nutter' killing spree. Before that, we had had the occasional nutter.

 

 

Incorrect There's been at least one, the Monash University shooting, with 7 casualties. Also interesting to note a murder/arson that resulted in 15 deaths, Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire. Mass shootings are statistically irrelevant however. They are a very small proportion of violent crime.

 

 

 

None of you seem to register that you'd be far safer if your health system was guaranteed for all, that your quiet but worrying children could get support and treatment, without sending their poor/middle class parents bankrupt. That your imbalance of incomes, education, social justice, is guaranteed to produce envy, anger and social unrest. As is the vacuous, judgemental bullying of those who aren't interested in mainstream celebrity values, that will often push these worrying kids into reaction. Yes, many are off the rails, but how many are pushed there, because they can't fit in, and are despised and bullied into a desire to hurt back?

 

There are some who do seem dangerous. A history of lighting fires, of animal cruelty, but some kids are just unattractive, uninterested in the popular interests, of being around the vacuously popular.and they are treated appallingly. In making them isolated, you are confusing them with the psychologically spooky, and making it harder to watch the dodgy. To judge purely on appearance, most of the internet billionaires would be bullied/pushed beyond coping, many science/mathematical geeks, the autistic, already doing it tough. Judged just on appearance, not on actions like cruelty/ firelighting/stalking.

 

Yes, yes, socially Australians are so much better off socially than us Americans. Irrelevant.

 

 

If you do carry a gun for work, surely YOU would feel safer if you knew the average unbalaced person you may deal with would not have contacts in the illegal gun world, and is unlikely to carry anything worse than a kitchen knife? We aren't allowed to carry or buy tasers, etc, either. In fact, if you have a knife that you do use, you'll be expected to have a reason for carrying it, not as a weapon. Surely you would feel safer knowing that no one you confront will have a high powered, automatic. (or indeed, a gun of any kind). There is NO reason for anyone in private life to own such a weapon. Anyone who wants to own one MUST qualify as too mentally dubious to ever be allowed one. Surely? Either they envisage being attacked by a company of soldiers, terrorists, or a dance party of meth addled rapists, which really is pushing reality, or perhaps they are seeing themselves as hunter. You don't need such firearms for protection against wildlife. It is purely for mass killing. If you own a gun in Oz, you are red flagged by the police, as potentially dangerous, if they are ever called out to your home. You aren't seen as normal.

 

To be honest I've never really considered this. Gun ownership is cultural in the US. Our revolution wouldn't have been possible without a very high rate of personal firearm ownership and I suppose that idea has been ingrained in our culture ever since. Not to mention I started my career in military law enforcement where 99% of the people I encountered and apprehended were armed. It's never been much of an issue, it just requires different training.

 

 

You would be FAR better to have 3 or more large black dogs that live inside, when you are home. Black dogs are psychologically far more frightening, as a colour, and 3 large dogs are very daunting, as unable to be kept track of, moving independently, and they not only defend in the house, but are excellent at informing you of unusual behaviour/strangers. Also, both police and former criminals now giving security talks advise that the majority of punks wanting easy theft/trouble tend to avoid houses with dogs of any size, but if they are big and black, you are seen as too much trouble. If you have dogs locked outside, they are next to useless. If the baddies scout around, hear dogs going off inside, get glimpses of numerous large black dogs, they'll prefer your neighbour, or houses less likely to be watched over by your dogs.

 

My 3 year old daughter has been injured by dogs twice, neither of which I owned. She's never even been in the proximity of a negligent discharge. In the US 4,500,000 people per year are bitten by dogs. You're not going to convince me a pack of angry dogs are safer than a secured firearm.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18836045

 

 

The weird reality of this attitude of needing guns and beyond comprehension to those demanding gun rights, is the reality that living in a world where you are terrified and totally unable to trust your fellow citizens to live peaceful, kindly lives is apparently NOT your concern. You just want the right to blow their heads off, and keep increasing the lethality of the weapons you keep in your homes.

 

You have it backwards. I support my fellow citizens gun rights specifically because I trust them and feel that they deserve to live peaceful kindly lives without intervention. Also, that's needlessly insulting.

 

 

I can't remember the user name of the gun defender who competes, and carries a gun as his job, but using himself as the example of average gun ownership in the USA, is, I would suggest, a complete fantasy. I could claim the morons hunting endangered species, posing women in bikinis, with high heels digging into the coat of a machine gunned black bear or a shot, tracking collared, newly released, breeding, at risk, alpha female wolf, as just as typical and no more misleading.

 

That's exactly why I made this personal. All you see in the media are crazies. Your only source of data is propaganda. You're completely unaware of what the actual population looks like. The person you're describing doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.