Do you love your guns?

[Zackmeister]

I don't know. Does defending yourself by killing someone else make sense? Saving lives through killing? I don't know about you, but that seems a little too much like going to war in the name of peace, or raping for virginity. It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. If someone is trying to murder you or your family, then you may be required to kill them to stop the attack. What is difficult to understand?

 

[Norseman]

Of course it does. If someone is trying to murder you or your family, then you may be required to kill them to stop the attack. What is difficult to understand?

What's wrong with tazering them? Why use lethal force if nonlethal force is available?

 

[rugerfann]

I find it "strange" that while America has introduced Homeland security and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of 9/11, it sees no need to licence the approximately 250 million firearms within its own borders. Deaths from firearms far surpass the 3000 killed as a result of 9/11. Historically, American governments choose to ignore any connection between access to firearms and deaths caused by firearms. The NRA makes it in their best interests to look the other way.

America shares a 4000 mile border with Canada, a nation without the second Ammendment and a prevailing gun culture, and a much lower crime rate. The 2004 Republican Party Platform not only reasserts the "right-to-bear-arms" but characterizes any attempts to hold firearms manufacturers accountable for the sale/usage of their product as "frivolous." Presumably, firearms manufacturers are doing their "patriotic" duty by providing a never ending flow of guns so that citizens can exercise their constitutional rights under the 2nd Ammendment.

The government may not have the foresight to ensure American citizens enough flu shots as a priority, but it will never compromise in its resolve to permit universal access to unregistered guns.

Guns cuase crime like fly's cuase poop!If you want to kill you will find away to do it,it's in you'r heart,it will come out one way or another.

 

[Redneck]

ETrust me, when I practice at the range, I am lucky if I can get near anything lethal... I usually end up shooting the silhouette in the ear or arm or some random part.

Twelve gauge buckshot could solve that problem.

 

[Zackmeister]

Eh, so you shoot the guy in the foot... or in the arm.
No big deal.
Trust me, when I practice at the range, I am lucky if I can get near anything lethal... I usually end up shooting the silhouette in the ear or arm or some random part.

And hey, an intruder/rapist/robber is the enemy here, after all, why do you feel the need to go easy on a criminal that's out to get you?

Just curious, what caliber do you shoot? You might be flinching or jerking your shots. I consistently shoot left and it bugs me. My father can take the same gun and put them all in the black.

 

[pegatha]

Does defending yourself by killing someone else make sense? Saving lives through killing?

It makes no sense for someone to attack another person without provocation, to kill, beat, and/or rape an innocent victim. But it does make sense for the victim to defend himself/herself, with lethal force if necessary. The two killlings are not morally equivalent: the attack is unprovoked and unjustified, the defense is a desperate response to the gravest possible threat. Are you suggesting that the victim, taken by surprise and fighting for her (or his) life, somehow owes her attacker the benefit of the doubt? That it's better to be martyred than to protect yourself so you can go home to your loved ones? Maybe that's not what you mean, but it seems to be the inevitable conclusion to which your questions lead.

What's wrong with tazering them? Why use lethal force if nonlethal force is available?

As I understand it, tasers only give you one shot. If first shot misses, you don't get a second chance. And stun guns have no range; you have to be in close contact with the attacker, close enough that he could grab the stun gun away if he's a lot stronger than you. (Which is an especially important consideration for women. If I ever have to defend myself, I don't want to have to do it by wrestling with a bigger, stronger, more aggressive opponent. Which is one reason I see a handgun ban as having a disproportionately negative affect on women.)

A gun, on the other hand, allows you to protect yourself while your attacker is still several feet away, and gives you more than one shot if the first one misses or fails to stop the attacker. If I were a criminal, I'd rather face a victim who's holding a stun gun than one with a firearm. And the best victim of all would be one who's unarmed.

 

[anon5354]

Regardless of having gun ban or not, people will always try to find way to commit crime and kill another person. But a gun ban would minimize the "firepower" one is allow to have and may therefore reduce fatality in any sort of crime.

Instead of using a readily avaliable pistol to rob a store, criminals will probably use knifes instead and it is harder to kill a person with a knife than a pistol.

There is a problem with the "using gun as self-protection" argument because it will in the end causes an "arms race". When the criminals are using pistol, people upgrade to a shotgun. Then the criminals upgrade to submachine guns and people upgrade to rifles and so on.. This may be a big problem as gun gets more powerful.

Can anyone imagine a day when robbers use XM-109 and M29 OICW to rob banks or rapist pointing micro submachine guns at their victim with the supposedly protection of a pistol?

One might say that there is a limit to the kind of guns avaliable to civilians with gun laws, but then how does that differ from a gun ban in the end by setting a rule? The criminals will always try to break the rule in the end and obtain in more powerful.

 

[Redneck]

But a gun ban would minimize the "firepower" one is allow to have and may therefore reduce fatality in any sort of crime.

May being the operative word here. Then again, I've never actually known a criminal that has respect for the law. Maybe, that's why people are criminals.

Instead of using a readily avaliable pistol to rob a store, criminals will probably use knifes instead and it is harder to kill a person with a knife than a pistol.

Maybe...with a butter knife.

There is a problem with the "using gun as self-protection" argument because it will in the end causes an "arms race". When the criminals are using pistol, people upgrade to a shotgun. Then the criminals upgrade to submachine guns and people upgrade to rifles and so on.. This may be a big problem as gun gets more powerful.

Are criminals really brave enough to want to face an armed person?

Can anyone imagine a day when robbers use XM-109 and M29 OICW to rob banks or rapist pointing micro submachine guns at their victim with the supposedly protection of a pistol?

I thought that our current gun control laws would prevent that.

 

[anon5354]

Maybe...with a butter knife.

Not butter knifes, but no more than Machete. In places with tight gun control, that's what most lesser criminal uses. Pistol at most if they manage to obtain one or two.

Are criminals really brave enough to want to face an armed person?

Yes, if he is holding a M16 and wearing armor and that person has only a USP 45. In fact the criminal might just shoot that person on the spot just beucase he is holding a gun.

I thought that our current gun control laws would prevent that.

If they would smuggle pistols into places with gun ban so that they could have an edge. What would stop them from smuggling heavy weapons in places where everyone has guns. You don't see banks being robbed with M4s or AKs in places like Japan often, yet you see that often in LA.
Also, I might be wrong since I am not familiar with gun laws in the states and that the law also differ from states to states. I thought many micro-subs and PDW are not illegal? Texas may-be?

 

[pegatha]

Regardless of having gun ban or not, people will always try to find way to commit crime and kill another person. But a gun ban would minimize the "firepower" one is allow to have and may therefore reduce fatality in any sort of crime.

That would probably be true if you could assume that both parties, the victim and the assailant, would usually be roughly equal in strength and fighting ability. But what about victims who can't match an assailant on equal physical terms, such as women, the elderly, or the handicapped? Even if you could take away all the guns from all the criminals, victims would be just as dead if they were stabbed, beaten with a baseball bat, or strangled instead. An armed victim at least has a fighting chance.

There is a problem with the "using gun as self-protection" argument because it will in the end causes an "arms race".

As I indicated earlier, I'd rather take my chances with the arms race than have to fight off an attacker with my bare hands.

 

[anon5354]

An armed victim at least has a fighting chance.

As I indicated earlier, I'd rather take my chances with the arms race than have to fight off an attacker with my bare hands.

That's assuming the attacker is using a firearm of equal power and that you have a chance to react to an attack in the first place. This would probably be unlikely if criminals expect that everyone has a gun, just as how criminals (without aid of guns) ambush their victims so that they dont' have a chance to fight back.

You are also assuming that all criminals out there are trying to kill you, which they are not in most cases. Considering that a robber attack you out of no where just to get your money, in what senario will you more likely be alive? A stab in the chest, or a shot in the chest?

My point is that there will always be a status quo between the attacker and the defender. The difference is with guns one is more likely to get kill, either the attacker or the victim. Without guns, there is less of a chance of that unless the attacker is intentionally trying to kill their victims.

I think things like pepper spray, teasers and proper self-defense technique or martial art techniques should be able to deter criminals whose goal is not to kill their victim.

 

[gop_ryan]

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way. Instead of shooting them, they will do something else like blow their house up or poison them.

 

[Whyzdom]

What's wrong with tazering them? Why use lethal force if nonlethal force is available?

Tazers don't always work on a subject even if they do hit.

 

[Redneck]

38 revolver

No, it's not the gun's fault, it's mine. I am a bit of an anxious person to begin with so it's my own fault, I'm sure.

How long is the barrel? That might be part of the problem. If you're shooting a .38 Special with a little two inch barrel, it's not gonna be very accurate.

 

[gop_ryan]

Tazers don't always work on a subject even if they do hit.

Tazers might also set of explosives on the subject.

 

[pegatha]

That's assuming...that you have a chance to react to an attack in the first place. This would probably be unlikely if criminals expect that everyone has a gun, just as how criminals (without aid of guns) ambush their victims so that they dont' have a chance to fight back.

Yes, some criminals ambush the victim, but others (especially in sexual assaults and kidnappings) "test" the victim first to see how easily she's intimidated. In these cases, the attacker isn't going to ambush (in the sense of "killing") the victim anyway; these attackers want their victims alive, at least for a while.

And statistics don't support the idea of ambushes either. In states that issue concealed carry permits, violent crime tends to go down, not up.

You are also assuming that all criminals out there are trying to kill you, which they are not in most cases. Considering that a robber attack you out of no where just to get your money, in what senario will you more likely be alive? A stab in the chest, or a shot in the chest?

But that's what this whole discussion is about: protecting yourself from grave bodily harm. (Which to me, includes rape and assault as well as murder.) If all they want is my money, they can have it. I'm not risking a shootout OR a stabbing over my wallet or my credit cards. I hope you won't either. Your loved ones don't need your wallet, they need you to come home from the incident safe and sound. But if the criminal doesn't turn and run with the money as soon as I hand it over, I assume he wants more than my money. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night when he's aware that the house is occupied, I assume he wants more than my money.

I think things like pepper spray, teasers and proper self-defense technique or martial art techniques should be able to deter criminals whose goal is not to kill their victim.

Martial arts are great, but they take time to master, and some styles are too competition and exercise oriented to be useful for self defense. And as far as I know there's nothing to keep a criminal from learning martial arts, so once again you're at a standoff, at best. (Imagine you're 69 years old and need a cane to walk. It's late at night and two strong young guys in their 20's are trying to break down your door. Still want to rely on martial arts?) I'll agree that pepper spray can be a useful weapon, but on the other hand, it may not stop an assailant who's so full of meth that he's feeling no pain. And I was also under the impression that tasers only give you one shot; if you miss, you don't get a second chance. There's no one weopon (including guns) that's ideal for every self-defense situation. But that's not a reason to rule out any weapon, either.

And just curious--I do hope you'll respond to this--how can you know for sure when an attacker doesn't intend to kill you? Just because he tells you he won't?

My point is that there will always be a status quo between the attacker and the defender.

Well, not if you disarm the law-abiding folks. (Realistically, you'll never be able to disarm the criminals.) Disarming those who obey the law only tips the balance of power in favor of those who won't obey. And that's not even taking into account the issue I brought up in my last two posts, that of criminals who deliberately target victims they can physically overpower. Why deprive those potential victims of a tool that would put them on a more equal footing with their attackers? Why deprive any law-abiding citizen?

 

[Redneck]

No it's not that short... but actually I don't know the specific dimensions (I just like shooting the thing).

No Saturday Night Special for you?

How's the recoil on it? I've shot .38 before and don't recall the recoil being all that bad.

 

[Redneck]

LOL

Not bad, really, but there is still some recoil (which is to be expected)

.38 is not as bad as .357 magnum.

 

[Zackmeister]

38 revolver

No, it's not the gun's fault, it's mine. I am a bit of an anxious person to begin with so it's my own fault, I'm sure.

That's great that you shoot in the first place. It seems like shooting and hunting have been labeled "man's sports" when there isn't any reason to. My great aunt is in her sixties and still manages to get a deer every year.

 

[Redneck]

That's great that you shoot in the first place. It seems like shooting and hunting have been labeled "man's sports" when there isn't any reason to. My great aunt is in her sixties and still manages to get a deer every year.

What kind of rifle does she use?