Gun Ownership

[ThatRobGuy]

I got in an argument at work today with a guy who's anti-gun, anti-meat, etc... over the topics of gun ownership and hunting.

He tried to insist that "you are all misreading the constitution", and "what about the rights of the animals?", and "gun ownership is what contributes to high crime & murder rates"

Now, being a gun owner myself (I don't hunt, but I do enjoy sport pistol shooting) I took exception to some of the comments he was making.

I don't think owning gun is wrong in anyway. I've had over 120 hours of in class training on gun safety and gun laws, and countless hours of practice on the range. I've never had an accidental discharge of any kind.

Do you think there's anything wrong with gun ownership?

 

[Girder of Loins]

No, it keeps us safe. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If gun-activists were right, the next logical step to reduce crime is to get rid of all weapons. Knives, spoons, cars, animals, even your limbs can be weapons. I hate it when people say "guns add to crime rates!" No they don't! Its like saying "clothing contributes to crime rates because every criminal(hopefully, awkward if they didn't) wears clothing." Just because a large majority of criminals use guns does not mean guns contributes to crime.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, it keeps us safe. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If gun-activists were right, the next logical step to reduce crime is to get rid of all weapons. Knives, spoons, cars, animals, even your limbs can be weapons. I hate it when people say "guns add to crime rates!" No they don't! Its like saying "clothing contributes to crime rates because every criminal(hopefully, awkward if they didn't) wears clothing." Just because a large majority of criminals use guns does not mean guns contributes to crime.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[SithDoughnut]

No, it keeps us safe. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If gun-activists were right, the next logical step to reduce crime is to get rid of all weapons. Knives, spoons, cars, animals, even your limbs can be weapons. I hate it when people say "guns add to crime rates!" No they don't! Its like saying "clothing contributes to crime rates because every criminal(hopefully, awkward if they didn't) wears clothing." Just because a large majority of criminals use guns does not mean guns contributes to crime.

<devil's advocate>

However, guns change the type of crime. For example, here in the UK our main problem is knife crime. Sounds just as bad, and similar problems exist when it comes to both knife and gun crime (for example, if you have a knife and someone else has one too, if you try to defend yourself then they're more likely to actually stab you), but the difference is that you can run away from a knife far more easily than a bullet.

Weapons are indeed weapons, but some are more fatal than others. Guns have no other purpose than to kill, and that is a very easy point to draw the line between what should be an illegal weapon, and what is still legal. The slope is not actually that slippery.

</devil's advocate>

On a side (and non-devil's advocate) note, I didn't answer the poll because I don't actually know the answer. I'm assuming we're talking morally wrong, right?

 

[Girder of Loins]

<devil's advocate>

However, guns change the type of crime. For example, here in the UK our main problem is knife crime. Sounds just as bad, and similar problems exist when it comes to both knife and gun crime (for example, if you have a knife and someone else has one too, if you try to defend yourself then they're more likely to actually stab you), but the difference is that you can run away from a knife far more easily than a bullet.

Weapons are indeed weapons, but some are more fatal than others. Guns have no other purpose than to kill, and that is a very easy point to draw the line between what should be an illegal weapon, and what is still legal. The slope is not actually that slippery.

</devil's advocate>

On a side (and non-devil's advocate) note, I didn't answer the poll because I don't actually know the answer.

True, it does change the type of offense, but also the defense. You can get any illegal thing nowadays. Bombs are snuck on trains and airplanes. People have fully automatic weapons. If guns are made illegal, what is the defense? As you said, you can't run away from a bullet. The only defense is someone else or you having a gun. Guns reduce crime, not increase it. It is like saying to America, get rid of all your nuclear weapons, but saying nothing to North Korea. North Korea doesn't use their nukes because we have bigger and better ones. Fear is what keeps them in line. If no one can defend themselves equally, then fear no longer resides in criminals mind's. And its the criminals who have the desire to use guns that you really want to have an equal defense.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Guns reduce crime, not increase it.

<devil's advocate>

Then how do you explain how the US does not fare any better in terms of crime rates than countries with gun control laws, and in fact does a lot worse according to some sources?

Most crimes are either impulsive or with little planning ahead, murder and manslaughter especially so. Sure, you can't get rid of guns, but getting rid of them or even simply limiting where one can have a gun (for example, all guns stay in designated rifle ranges and so on), you remove immediate availability and therefore their use in a significant number, if not most, of the crimes that would have otherwise ended in murder or manslaughter.

Put simply, if someone is planning a murder ahead enough to procure a gun illegally, then they're planning well enough to get you long before you could ever get them. Unless of course, you can draw, aim and fire a gun faster than a bullet. Don't assume that someone else would shoot either - people tend to stay out of these things.

</devil's advocate>

I should probably point out that I'm putting the <devil's advocate> in because I'm not entirely convinced that total gun control would work in a country with a gun culture like the US. However, I also think that it would be a terrible idea to re-introduce guns to a country that has gun control laws already. I'm just arguing this point because it's interesting.

 

[Darkhorse]

Restricting where people can have guns is an excellent idea - unfortunately, the criminals don't follow the rules (that's why we call them "criminals"). "Gun-free zones" are simply "sitting-duck zones" when a criminal decides to start shooting...

That's why I almost always carry a gun when I'm out and about, and why I always have some within reach at home. Getting a permit to carry is relatively easy in my state (and 40 others); it's harder to get a drivers license, but it should be. Operating a car safely is far more complex than operating a gun safely, and cars kill more people every year than guns do.

Do you think it's ethical to own a car?

 

[Girder of Loins]

<devil's advocate>

Then how do you explain how the US does not fare any better in terms of crime rates than countries with gun control laws, and in fact does a lot worse according to some sources?

I would say it has to do with many things. Our criminal justice system is crap, our borders get crossed with people running from Mexican police, so they come over here and do crime instead, and many other things. It isn't just because we are all gun-toting Texans.

Most crimes are either impulsive or with little planning ahead, murder and manslaughter especially so. Sure, you can't get rid of guns, but getting rid of them or even simply limiting where one can have a gun (for example, all guns stay in designated rifle ranges and so on), you remove immediate availability and therefore their use in a significant number, if not most, of the crimes that would have otherwise ended in murder or manslaughter.

True, most crimes are impulsive. But you can buy cocaine anywhere in the US. Know the right people and you can get fully automatic weapons. Those are all illegal. Getting a gun would be easy. This is in addition to the fact that limiting gun use to "zones" is a horrible idea. Criminals would waltz the street knowing the law-abiding citizen wouldn't think of carrying his gun out here. Its like sticking a baby in the middle of a wolf pack. Not good odds for the kid. However, give the kid a gun, and training(suppose the baby can be taught), and the wolves won't go near the kid, or at least will learn.

Put simply, if someone is planning a murder ahead enough to procure a gun illegally, then they're planning well enough to get you long before you could ever get them. Unless of course, you can draw, aim and fire a gun faster than a bullet. Don't assume that someone else would shoot either - people tend to stay out of these things.

</devil's advocate>

Well, I'm hoping someone else, or perhaps me, will discover his intentions before he pulls the trigger. And I think you belittle human empathy. I'm pretty sure if a guy is carrying a gun to protect himself, he would be willing to protect another as well.

I should probably point out that I'm putting the <devil's advocate> in because I'm not entirely convinced that total gun control would work in a country with a gun culture like the US. However, I also think that it would be a terrible idea to re-introduce guns to a country that has gun control laws already. I'm just arguing this point because it's interesting.

Yeah, I got it. I'm just hoping I may persuade you a bit.

 

[Cromulent]

I'm with Sith on this one. In the US, where all the criminals already seem to have guns, it would be a bit of a disaster banning them. In the UK, things are getting along alright without widespread gun ownership. The general public aren't armed, so most criminals don't feel the need to arm themselves, even if it is possible. That said, even if I had a gun and knew how to use it, I would probably hand over my wallet to a mugger, rather than shoot him. Once I draw a gun on a mugger, somebody is getting shot, perhaps killed. I think I'd rather lose the wallet than have somebody's death hanging over my head the rest of my life.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm with Sith on this one. In the US, where all the criminals already seem to have guns, it would be a bit of a disaster banning them. In the UK, things are getting along alright without widespread gun ownership. The general public aren't armed, so most criminals don't feel the need to arm themselves, even if it is possible. That said, even if I had a gun and knew how to use it, I would probably hand over my wallet to a mugger, rather than shoot him. Once I draw a gun on a mugger, somebody is getting shot, perhaps killed. I think I'd rather lose the wallet than have somebody's death hanging over my head the rest of my life.

For me, defense isn't my primary reason for ownership (it's a factor, but not the main reason). I truly enjoy target shooting. It's a fun activity for me that has some degree of risk. The same could be said of racecar driving, it's a recreational activity that has potential risk. Under the anti-gun logic, car racing should be illegal too.

 

[SithDoughnut]

For me, defense isn't my primary reason for ownership (it's a factor, but not the main reason). I truly enjoy target shooting. It's a fun activity for me that has some degree of risk. The same could be said of racecar driving, it's a recreational activity that has potential risk. Under the anti-gun logic, car racing should be illegal too.

Not really, because that's not the anti-gun logic. We have target shooting here in the UK, after all.

 

[Cromulent]

For me, defense isn't my primary reason for ownership (it's a factor, but not the main reason). I truly enjoy target shooting. It's a fun activity for me that has some degree of risk. The same could be said of racecar driving, it's a recreational activity that has potential risk. Under the anti-gun logic, car racing should be illegal too.

A good point, but you don't have to carry a gun around with you at all times if you enjoy shooting at a range. And if your gun is in a range, it can't be used to harm anyone (Unless someone is stupid enough to try stirring up some trouble at a shooting range!)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not really, because that's not the anti-gun logic. We have target shooting here in the UK, after all.

Any of the anti-gun logic I've heard is usually along the lines of "guns cause murder"

 

[SithDoughnut]

Any of the anti-gun logic I've heard is usually along the lines of "guns cause murder"

Really? Or this that just what you've heard?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A good point, but you don't have to carry a gun around with you at all times if you enjoy shooting at a range. And if your gun is in a range, it can't be used to harm anyone (Unless someone is stupid enough to try stirring up some trouble at a shooting range!)

Correct, but I don't have a problem with Concealed Carry or the Castle Doctrine. I feel that if we live in a free society, people should have the freedom to do what is necessary to defend themselves and their families. I'd be interested to see if I could find some numbers comparing the gun ownership percentages to the crime rates. No luck on finding those counts as of yet, but I'll keep digging...

 

[twnsrkr]

Gun ownership is really the only thing that keeps the government from absolutely taking over (not that they couldn't if they wanted). Criminals are going to get guns whether they are illegal or not. Taking away guns is like lowering the speed limit to control speeders.

 

[Cromulent]

Gun ownership is really the only thing that keeps the government from absolutely taking over (not that they couldn't if they wanted). Criminals are going to get guns whether they are illegal or not. Taking away guns is like lowering the speed limit to control speeders.

Not necessarily. Look at countries like the Netherlands, or Austria. Tight gun control, but plenty of individual freedom.

And the point about criminals, the drug-runners, the human traffickers, the serious bad fellas, they'll get their hands on guns, but in a society where guns are more tightly controlled, not every single mugger feels the need to carry a gun. As has been said before, you can run away from a lad with a knife a lot easier than one with a gun.

 

[pgp_protector]

Depends on the Country you're living in.
In some Areas of this World it's Illegal and would be wrong.
In Other Areas of this World it's Legal, and not wrong.

 

[Darkhorse]

Gun ownership is really the only thing that keeps the government from absolutely taking over (not that they couldn't if they wanted). Criminals are going to get guns whether they are illegal or not. Taking away guns is like lowering the speed limit to control speeders.

Not necessarily. Look at countries like the Netherlands, or Austria. Tight gun control, but plenty of individual freedom.

They may have that combination so far, but the long-term track record isn't good for keeping both gun control and individual freedom (Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia, Uganda, U. S. S. R., etc.)

 

[BeOfGoodCheer]

Jesus disciples carried swords. If He was here today, it might have been guns. It all comes down to the heart and wisdom. A loaded gun could sit on a coffee table for 500 years until it decayed without ever causing harm. I would certainly hand a mugger my wallet. If he wanted more than the wallet, it's nice to know I'd have a chance to stay alive. It sounds like the discussion was based on some bias, maybe some fear, and definitely some legalism in the need to be adopting so many negative opinions. Meat isn't any more of an evil killer than a 357.