[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I am looking for something to use for personal (home) safety

Owning a gun will reduce your safety not increase it.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I don't understand why cars shouldn't be banned before guns. Cars kill far more people each year in North America and Europe then guns do.

Hospitals too, when someone dies, generally a hospital is involved.
Ban them all.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

Owning a gun will reduce your safety not increase it.

Right, that’s why police officers don’t own firearms.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

Right, that’s why police officers don’t own firearms.

Sigh.

Police officers are trained to use fire arms in emergency situations. The vast majority of gun owners are not. Threatening situations, when they happen, are rarely clear-cut. Training on a range doesn't prepare you for real life attacks.

I have no problem with private gun ownership, but to own a gun for the purpose of self defense is, for most people, counter productive.

And for everybody who is comparing guns to pens and knives as far as lethal capability is concerned, you are wrong. Guns kill from a distance, it's why we developed the damn things. Distance is the one and only thing that makes a gun work more efficiently than hand to hand combat.

Come at me with a gun and I'm in serious trouble. Come at me with a pen or a knife and I've got a chance. If you can't, or choose not to, see the difference you're insane.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

Owning a gun will reduce your safety not increase it.

Source, please? That specific factoid (formal usage of the term "factoid") came out of a particularly biased and poorly written study backed by (surprise) the Brady organization. By manipulating a variety of parts of a study, you can produce amazing "results" that need not have ANY basis in fact. This is a case in point. Choose a really bad population, select from that population a "random sample" of already known quantities, and basically write the study backwards, starting with your conclusion.

The FBI's crime statistics show that in places (in the US) where the public CAN be armed, career criminals are FAR less likely to strike, and "casual" criminals are also less likely to strike. Crime statistics from both Florida and Texas show that ALL crimes against individuals fell drastically after each state's concealed carry laws went into effect. In different countries YMMV-probably will in Hong Kong and other Chinese cities-but in the US, where this discussion began and is centered, criminals don't like to have the populace armed; it's bad for business.

The flip side is irresponsible firearm ownership, which has led to many states making it a serious crime to make it possible for a minor to come into contact with a firearm without serious supervision-this leads to ignorant and traumatized parents going to jail for enabling their children to accidentally kill themselves or others. What is needed is information, not punishment. Until firearms are no longer mysterious and "forbidden" items, kids will always be curious and at risk for doing something bad through their ignorance.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Several different people have recommended shotguns for home defense. However, home defense can easily turn into a close quarters affair. There is no guarantee you will always see the pedophile who broke in before he's in the room. If they are close and grab the end of the long gun, you will not be able to bring it back on target.

Uhm... but your gun is locked safely in the cabinet so the kids don't get it, right? I don't know if you have kids or not, but everyone says keep your guns safely stored, so what is the situation where it's better to have a pistol? If you have time to unlock and load your gun, then you have time to aim your rifle. I don't see a situation where a pistol would work and a rifle wouldn't?

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Source, please? That specific factoid (formal usage of the term "factoid") came out of a particularly biased and poorly written study backed by (surprise) the Brady organization. By manipulating a variety of parts of a study, you can produce amazing "results" that need not have ANY basis in fact. This is a case in point. Choose a really bad population, select from that population a "random sample" of already known quantities, and basically write the study backwards, starting with your conclusion.

The FBI's crime statistics show that in places (in the US) where the public CAN be armed, career criminals are FAR less likely to strike, and "casual" criminals are also less likely to strike. Crime statistics from both Florida and Texas show that ALL crimes against individuals fell drastically after each state's concealed carry laws went into effect. In different countries YMMV-probably will in Hong Kong and other Chinese cities-but in the US, where this discussion began and is centered, criminals don't like to have the populace armed; it's bad for business.

The flip side is irresponsible firearm ownership, which has led to many states making it a serious crime to make it possible for a minor to come into contact with a firearm without serious supervision-this leads to ignorant and traumatized parents going to jail for enabling their children to accidentally kill themselves or others. What is needed is information, not punishment. Until firearms are no longer mysterious and "forbidden" items, kids will always be curious and at risk for doing something bad through their ignorance.

It seems like common sense that having a gun in close proximity to yourself and your family increases the chance they will be shot.

I have no issue with people who need to own a gun. If I ever found myself in a situation where I lived in a neighbourhood where the threat of home invasion was so high I needed to keep a specialised devise for killing people in my bedroom, I would move.

I think a lot of people just want to own guns and are looking for an excuse to get one, I can understand this, it appeals to the little boy in me too, but if home defence is really the reason, getting yourself and your family to a safer area would be a better (and safer) tactic to employ.

[phantomdragonz]

there are many handgun safes on the market that can be opened in moments that have a lock, they are pressed with individual fingers in a particular sequence.


If I had kids in the house, or the chance of kids in the house my firearms would be locked in the safe... either that or i would be teaching them how to treat ANY gun, so when they see one they know what to do.

INFORMATION is the key... teach your kids as soon as possible what to do around a gun so they dont get curious... TEACH THEM! if they are not curious about guns they are much less likely to get injured by one (my theory)

-Zach

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Source, please? That specific factoid (formal usage of the term "factoid") came out of a particularly biased and poorly written study backed by (surprise) the Brady organization.

Actually, the link to the study I posted on the previous page has no apparent affiliation with the Brady organization, and the findings are exactly that, in a nutshell:

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Actually, the link to the study I posted on the previous page has no apparent affiliation with the Brady organization, and the findings are exactly that, in a nutshell:

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

The ending statement in that article says it best; especially the last word I emphasized. The study was done with a preconceived notion, and the results fit the notion. There is nothing scientific about it.


"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates"

[Spheric Harlot]

Again: the numbers aren't speculation. They're cold, hard fact.

The study established correlation. Carrying a gun means you're statistically more likely to get shot and killed.

The speculation is about a CAUSAL relationship.

He speculates that carrying encourages riskier behavior in the erroneous assumption that it makes you safer. It could well be the opposite: that people who are at risk are prone to buy a gun, thus establishing a statistical link.

But the link is there.

[sknapp351]

In relation to the study, my first question was whether they took into question how many of the shootings involved generally law abiding citizens vs citizens with criminal histories ( including vs not including violence) and how many of the incidents involved citizens legally carrying firearms with a permit vs citizens carrying a firearm illegally without a permit (thus committing a criminal act).

The proof offered to support that statement of conclusion from that study was generalized, and while that doesn't necessarily negate the conclusion, it does cause me to question the results and whether they were pre-conceived.

SAm

[the_riotgirl]

mister macdaddy,
i might be too late here, but anyway:
i worked for a gun company over here in europe, where nobody considers bying a hnadgun to keep it at home: only two of the 400 employees of the company even owned one.

my advice: go to a shooting range for about a year and use the guns they have there, BEFORE buying one.
1) that way you will really buy something that suits you and
2) it is a far greater risk for your safety to own a gun as long as you dont have serious experience in handling it

last but not least:
gun companies do quite a lot to keep the statistics secret, but the number of people who harm themselves (or their kids!!) with a gun at home is about a gazillion times bigger than the number of people who really did manage to keep someone from robbing/harming, etc them by pointing a gun at the intruder.
also: it is a proven psychological fact that one (in that case the intruder) is less reluctant to shooting someone who is armed himself that an unarmed person. also because it puts a bigger pressure on him to act, before the other one does. that being said i would really reconsider the taser option again. combined with night view goggles that would quite suffice to giving you all the advantage over someone breaking into your house.

so go to the range, learn to shoot calmly and use the time to consider the option :-)

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Sigh.

Police officers are trained to use fire arms in emergency situations. The vast majority of gun owners are not. Threatening situations, when they happen, are rarely clear-cut. Training on a range doesn't prepare you for real life attacks.

These two bolded sentences make no sense. Police officers TRAIN ON A RANGE. They don't go out and find life-threatening, emergency situations and practice how to shoot. Training to shoot a gun by police is no different than training to shoot a gun by private citizens, especially private citizens who compete in IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association).

Also, for those of you spouting off non-sense about people who own or carry a gun being more likely to get shot, in 99.99% of cases, the person handling the gun broke one or more of the Four Fundamental Gun Rules. I GUARANTEE that if you follow these rules, you or someone around you WILL NEVER GET SHOT by your gun:

1) A gun is ALWAYS loaded - treat is as such

2) NEVER place your finger in the trigger guard, let alone on the trigger, UNTIL YOU ARE PREPARED TO SHOOT (i.e., you have your target sighted and know what is beyond it - see Rules 3 and 4).

3) NEVER point your gun at something YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO KILL OR DESTROY

4) ALWAYS know what is beyond your target

There is no such thing as an "accidental" or "unintentional" discharge of a firearm if someone is following these rules.

If you break the law by speeding or running a red light, or if you drive recklessly without regard for those around you your chances of being in a car accident or killing someone with your car increase. If you don't follow the above rules of gun safety, the chances that you or someone else will be harmed by your firearm increase. There is no difference between the two situations.

Follow the rules, be responsible, and guns are perfectly safe. Contrary to popular myth, guns do not fire on there own. Someone has to pull the trigger with a round in the chamber.

Home invasions can happen to ANYONE at ANYTIME, no matter WHERE you live. If you think you are "safe" from a home invasion you are delusional. Personally, I take my safety and the safety of my family into my own hands. I am not going to rely on someone else to provide that safety. If someone breaks into my home when myself and my family are present, they are going to realize quickly they invaded the wrong home.

Here's a "statistic" for you: people who don't own or carry a gun have no means to protect themselves when faced with a violent criminal intending to do them or their loved ones harm.

Saying that people who own guns are more likely to be killed by a gun is like saying that people who drive a car are more likely to be killed in a car accident. DUH. Statistically, 3-4 times more people are killed by automobiles each year than by firearms. Does this mean you should not own a car? If the intent is to save lives, it would make more sense to ban driving than firearms.

[Phileas]

The car = guns argument is so unbelievably insane, I really don't get why anybody would still wheel it out. Let me explain this to you:

The primary purpose of a car is transportation. There are inherent risks associated with moving ourselves from point a to point b, and we accept that.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. End of story. Once I'll get my firearms license there will be a hunting rifle in my house. Locked away, in a safe in the basement. It will never be opened in front of kids, and the locking mechanism will be a number, not a key. I am reasonably confident that my guns will be safe that way.

My wife is the best target shooter I've ever known. She nearly made it to the Olympics as a young girl. She grew up with guns, can out-shoot 99% of the population, has 20 years experience handling guns and yet, strangely enough, would never consider a gun for self defense. Why? Because she knows her limitations.

And Mrjinglesusa, cops train on a range, yes. But that's only part of training. The other part is how to react professionally in threatening situations. And that part is rarely given to civilians.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The car = guns argument is so unbelievably insane, I really don't get why anybody would still wheel it out. Let me explain this to you:

The primary purpose of a car is transportation. There are inherent risks associated with moving ourselves from point a to point b, and we accept that.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. End of story. Once I'll get my firearms license there will be a hunting rifle in my house. Locked away, in a safe in the basement. It will never be opened in front of kids, and the locking mechanism will be a number, not a key. I am reasonably confident that my guns will be safe that way.

My wife is the best target shooter I've ever known. She nearly made it to the Olympics as a young girl. She grew up with guns, can out-shoot 99% of the population, has 20 years experience handling guns and yet, strangely enough, would never consider a gun for self defense. Why? Because she knows her limitations.

And Mrjinglesusa, cops train on a range, yes. But that's only part of training. The other part is how to react professionally in threatening situations. And that part is rarely given to civilians.

Cars are deadly and guns are deadly. Cars don't kill people when sitting in a driveway. Guns don't kill people unless someone pulls the trigger while the gun is pointed at someone. Cars are not inherently dangerous and neither are guns. The analogy is perfectly legitimate. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Like I said, if a gun owner follows the Four Rules, it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to get killed with their gun. Period.

And what are your wife's "limitations"? That she would someone forget how to aim and fire a gun if there were an intruder in the house?

And how many times have you read stories about police shooting innocent people or shooting unarmed suspects? It's one thing to sit in a classroom and be "taught" what to do in particular situations. It's quite another to actually put that teaching into practice. A cop with a gun is not inherently less dangerous than a responsible law-abiding citizen with a gun who follows the Four Rules of gun safety.

Are there irresponsible gun owners? OF COURSE THERE ARE. Just as there are irresponsible drivers. But those irresponsible drivers kill more people every year than those irresponsible gun owners. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's a FACT.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Cars are deadly and guns are deadly. Cars don't kill people when sitting in a driveway. Guns don't kill people unless someone pulls the trigger while the gun is pointed at someone. Cars are not inherently dangerous and neither are guns. The analogy is perfectly legitimate.

Sorry, but that's just completely asinine.

Cars don't kill when used as intended by people.

Guns DO kill when used as intended by people.

That's a fundamental difference, and it makes for somewhat different treatment of the two.

You can claim that they are the same, and that neither is inherently dangerous, but that counts only AS LONG AS NEITHER IS USED AT ALL. Once they're in use, they fulfill completely different purposes, and I'm not sure how anybody could possibly argue that guns aren't inherently intended to cause harm - the entire "deterrent" and "self-defense" lines of argumentation are BASED around that fact!

You can't have it both ways, you know.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Sorry, but that's just completely asinine.

Cars don't kill when used as intended by people.

Guns DO kill when used as intended by people.

That's a fundamental difference, and it makes for somewhat different treatment of the two.

You can claim that they are the same, and that neither is inherently dangerous, but that counts only AS LONG AS NEITHER IS USED AT ALL. Once they're in use, they fulfill completely different purposes, and I'm not sure how anybody could possibly argue that guns aren't inherently intended to cause harm - the entire "deterrent" and "self-defense" lines of argumentation are BASED around that fact!

You can't have it both ways, you know.

You guys just don't get the point. Sorry if it's over your heads, but I'll try to explain.

Guns are not the problem. Got that part? Ok, let's move on from there.

A gun, in and of itself, is not dangerous and can do no harm by itself. With me still?

A gun is simply metal and/or polymer with a firing pin, barrel, and trigger.

A loaded gun, in and of itself, can do no harm. This is a toughy. Read it again slowly, especially the italicized part.

To be dangerous/harmful, a PERSON must pick up a loaded gun, point it at someone, and pull the trigger. I'll repeat that one for you.

To be dangerous/harmful, a PERSON must pick up a loaded gun, point it at someone, and pull the trigger.

By doing so, that person has broken at least 3 of the 4 Fundamental Rules of gun safety.

Of course guns can be used to kill. No one is arguing that. So can ballpoint pens, knives, cars, dumbbells, scissors, bows and arrows, etc., etc., etc. The point is that it's the PERSON using the gun who is to blame when someone is killed with the gun, not the gun itself.

And you are wrong: cars DO kill when "used as intended". The intent is transportation, no? So have you ever heard of a car, sitting in a driveway, killing someone? I sure haven't. It's only when they are being used (by PEOPLE) in transportation ("as intended") that they kill people. And it's also not the car's fault when that happens, it's the driver's.

Just as it's not the gun's fault when it is used by someone else to kill someone/something.

People seem to think that banning guns will solve violent crime. It won't. All gun bans do is ensure that law-abiding citizens don't have the means to protect themselves from violent criminals.

You can claim that they are the same, and that neither is inherently dangerous, but that counts only AS LONG AS NEITHER IS USED AT ALL.

Not true. I use my gun at least once a week and so do millions of other people. We take them to the range and put some rounds through them, take them hunting, compete in shooting matches, etc. I, and millions of other gun owners, following the Four Rules of Gun Safety, use guns EVERYDAY and when we do, no one gets unintentionally hurt/killed just because we own, practice, hunt, compete, etc. with our guns.

If you break one or more of those Four Rules the chances of someone getting hurt/killed increases. No denying that. But...

If you don't break any of those Four Rules, I GUARANTEE that no harm will come to you or others by you owning/handling/using your gun.

A gun can do no unintended harm to you or others if it is always treated as if it were loaded, your finger never touches the trigger until you are ready to shoot, you never point it at something you don't intend to kill or destroy, and you always know what is beyond your intended target.

This is ALL I am trying to say, nothing more, nothing less: Guns only kill when they are used irresponsibly/criminally, with the exception of hunting.

[Spheric Harlot]

If you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot and killed by one.

That is all.

[OreoCookie]

@Mrjinglesusa
My mom works in a hospital. Every late fall/winter, there is a noticeable increase of people cutting off fingers with saws while cutting firewood. Most of them use their saws only once or twice a year. Point being, you shouldn't put dangerous tools in the hands of untrained or unfit people.

You like to bring up the car analogy: cars are designed for safely transporting people and goods from point A to point B while guns are designed to kill. If you use them properly, someone will be dead. Your argument that `if you're not using a car/gun, they're safe' is no argument at all: many things are safe when you're not doing them. Like crack or explosives. You equate things that have been designed for some normal purpose and guns -- which have been designed to kill. Sure, you can kill people with a pen or a pillow and open a bottle of beer with the butt of a gun, but is that really how these objects are normally used?

Another line of argument seems to be that since `cars kill many more, guns should be allowed -- or at least held up to the same standard as cars.' That's just a mere distraction, what makes the two different? You should minimize unnecessary risks. Leaving guns in the hands of people who are not suited/trained (or in the hands of your kids who accidentally stumble upon the key of your vault) is such an unnecessary risk. And not just to yourself, but others -- which is why there are restrictions.

You can see shooting as a sport and things are a bit different. But so are the requirements on the type of weapons are different. If guns are properly stored (separate from the ammo in a safe), they're useless for self defense. If you're storing them as to make your gun/pump gun whatever readily available, you don't store it properly (e. g. loaded under your pillow ) and endanger yourself as well as your family (if you have one).

You're right that a firearm is just a tool used by someone -- and many people are not up to the job owning a gun. That's the point. And I don't talk about shooting accurately or storing them properly. That in particular includes where people escalate situations by threatening or using deadly force when it wasn't necessary. Or shooting innocent people by mistake.

Leave the shooting to the professionals. Just like you should leave the sawing to the professionals. With the latter, amateurs risk losing their limbs. With the former, they increase the risk of losing their lives.

[Mrjinglesusa]

A) And how many accidental shooting victims does your mom see every year? How many people injured/killed in a car accident?

B) Carrying a gun everyday (i.e., law enforcement personal) does make someone a "professional". A responsible gun owner who takes their guns to the range on a regular basis, can handle a gun just as safely as a "professional". A person who practices at the range with their gun regularly can shoot just as accurately as a "professional". Being in law enforcement (which I assume is who you mean by "professional") does not make one inherently more suitable to own/carry a gun.

Case in point: my neighbor has been in law enforcement for over 20 years. He carries a gun everyday. We went to the range together and I was just as accurate as he was. He stores his guns the same way I do. There is nothing magical about law enforcement personal that make their owning/carrying a gun any different than a responsible, law-abiding citizen who practices with their guns.

C) @ Spheric Harlot: That's the stupidest statement I have ever heard. Having a gun does not make one any more or less likely to be killed by a gun. It's less likely that I will be shot by my own gun than you being randomly shot by someone on the street.

D) You can "use" a gun perfectly safely without anyone getting killed. Millions of responsible gun owners do so every day. Can a gun kill? Sure, no one ever said they couldn't. But as I said, so can ballpoint pens, scissors, knives, autos, etc.

E) The law provides for using deadly force if you are are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. Using deadly force when it isn't necessary is against the law and if you do so you will go to jail. What's your point?

F) If you shoot an innocent person by mistake you will go to jail. That's voluntary manslaughter. You'll also likely go to jail if you are negligent/reckless and kill someone with your car. Again, what's your point?

There are consequences for irresponsible use of a firearm, both criminal and civil. Owning a gun is a great responsibility and I agree with you it's not for everyone. But for those of us who choose to own a gun, we accept that responsibility.

By the way, you are more likely to be killed in a car accident than to be killed by a firearm (accidental or intentional). That is a fact backed up by solid statistics. Anti-gun people should worry more about getting in a car accident driving their kids to school that someone shooting them.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Here are a couple of good articles demonstrating the fallacy that strict gun-control reduces crime.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine

results are in on british gun laws

Gun Control Myths: The Case of England by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine

Suffice it to say, in England, where law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns, the crime rate is higher than in the U.S., where they are. AND, the murder rate is increasing in England whereas it is decreasing in the U.S. as more and more states allow their citizens to carry firearms.

In 2003 there were a total of 17,096 homicides (by all methods), and a total of 752 accidental deaths by firearms. That adds up to 17,848 deaths that could possibly be the result of firearms (this does not include suicides, as that is simply an asinine figure in this discussion). (Bureau of Census, 2005) In comparison, deaths from cancer of the colon, rectum and anus registered at 55,616. In other words, you were more likely to be killed by your own rear end than by a gun in 2003. If that's not enough, pneumonia killed 63,241 in 2003. Alzheimer's killed 63,343, and heart disease killed 901,753. (Bureau of Census, 2005) Mother Nature kills far more humans in America than guns do. In addition, since 1993, gun deaths have been on a steady decline.

Write on the Right: The Fallacy of Gun Control

As the Daily Telegraph of London admits, England possesses “the toughest gun control laws in the world.” Despite this, “They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual. Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced.” This is not surprising; criminals, as a whole, do not care to obtain firearms legally anyway. If their means of obtaining a weapon legally are constrained, they will simply resort to more illicit means. Gun control laws only constrain the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from such vandals

The Fallacy of Gun Control

The media and anti-gun advocates argue guns serve only one purpose, to kill. This is true, but there is also a reason guns are considered “the great equalizer.” Many gun control advocates claim the atrocious shootings of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and more are caused by a lack of gun control laws. Once again this comes in direct conflict with facts and logic. It is gun free zones where American’s are the least safe. All of the following areas were gun free zones where the only person with a gun was the shooter: New York City Pizza shop (employee shot 15 times, two officers killed), The Amish West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania (5 children murdered), Columbine (killing 13 and injuring 23), Virginia Tech (32 killed and many injured), and finally Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas where Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp complied with the gun free zone law and placed her gun in her glove compartment before entering the restaurant (23 murdered, 20 injured –Dr. Hupp had to watch her parents being murdered, fully aware her gun was sitting in her glove compartment). These horrific tales are merely the beginning, and if American’s do not begin to understand the concept and morality behind the rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” we shall be doomed to repeat our past mistakes.

A is A: Gun Control Facts and Fallacies

These are but a few of the reasons that I changed my view on gun-control. When you look at the FACTS and not empty, emotional rhetoric, there is no denying that gun-control does nothing to prevent crime.

That's all I have to say on this subject, but I'll leave you all with this:

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” --- Benjamin Franklin

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Here are a couple of good articles demonstrating the fallacy that strict gun-control reduces crime.

I see what you pulled there, good one.
But the issue is gun crime, not all crime, gun control has little effect in reducing illegal parking etc.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Suffice it to say, in England, where law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns, the crime rate is higher than in the U.S., where they are. AND, the murder rate is increasing in England whereas it is decreasing in the U.S. as more and more states allow their citizens to carry firearms

Again with the "crime rate" and whether the murder rate is increasing or decreasing is immaterial compared to the actual per capita murder rates, which you neglected to post.
Murders (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

I will do it for you:
Murders - per capita
0.042802 per 1,000 people - USA
0.0140633 per 1,000 people - UK

Now murders with Firearms - per capita
0.0279271 per 1,000 people - USA
0.00102579 per 1,000 people - UK

Now lets imagine the USA with zero firearms related murders, and subtract them from the murder rate:
0.042802 - 0.0279271 = 0.0148749

The result is similar to the UK murder rate of 0.0140633

I agree guns don't kill people, people do, but they do seem to be helping quite a bit.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The car = guns argument is so unbelievably insane,
I really don't get why anybody would still wheel it out. Let me explain
this to you:

The primary purpose of a car is transportation. There are inherent
risks associated with moving ourselves from point a to point b, and we
accept that.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. End of story. Once I'll get
my firearms license there will be a hunting rifle in my house. Locked away,
in a safe in the basement. It will never be opened in front of kids, and the
locking mechanism will be a number, not a key. I am reasonably confident that
my guns will be safe that way.

So even with your arguments, you are still prepared to have something in your house that kills?
And you have kids, that you aren't going to educate in firearms handling, but are going to hope
that security through obscurity might, just this once in the thousands of years of human history,
work for you?

Do you have seatbelts in your car? Why would you use them since cars aren't meant to kill.

Originally Posted by Phileas 

My wife is the best target shooter I've ever known. She nearly made it to the
Olympics as a young girl. She grew up with guns, can out-shoot 99% of the
population, has 20 years experience handling guns and yet, strangely enough,
would never consider a gun for self defense. Why? Because she knows her
limitations.

I presume your wife wasn't in the police? How many people did she kill while practising for the Olympics?
Does she know anyone that shot themselves? Do you think that she might have had more range time than the
average policeman or woman since she was so good? Why as a young girl did she have access to guns? Did
someone explain weapons to her, teach her how to handle firearms? Was it a member of the police? Why not?

Your arguments have no foundation, and you are only digging a deeper whole with your examples.

Originally Posted by Phileas 

And Mrjinglesusa, cops train on a range, yes. But that's only part of
training. The other part is how to react professionally in threatening
situations. And that part is rarely given to civilians.

Rubbish, you can pay for lots of training, even up to Special Forces standard. Just pick up Guns and Ammo or SoF and have a look.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Sorry, but that's just completely asinine.

Cars don't kill when used as intended by people.

Guns DO kill when used as intended by people.

That's a fundamental difference, and it makes for somewhat different
treatment of the two.

You can claim that they are the same, and that neither is inherently
dangerous, but that counts only AS LONG AS NEITHER IS USED AT ALL.
Once they're in use, they fulfill completely different purposes, and
I'm not sure how anybody could possibly argue that guns aren't inherently
intended to cause harm - the entire "deterrent" and "self-defense" lines
of argumentation are BASED around that fact!

You can't have it both ways, you know.

Phileas' wife never killed anyone in her long hours at the range. I doubt that even 1% of Olympic and world champion shooters are convicted murderers with a firearm.

I bet that the majority of firearms sold in the US are 22LR calibre. Hardly considered man-stoppers.

Put a loaded gun in front of you and watch it. For hours. I bet that it doesn't jump up and kill people.

Plus, if cars aren't meant to kill and in fact do kill more than firearms, don't you think that we should therefore employ EVEN more safety checks on cars and the drivers? Should the testing not be even tougher for a car than for a firearm?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot and killed by one.

The study that you quoted is flawed on so many levels. I don't see a drastic reduction in the population of Switzerland (where they keep weapons at home and do yearly mandatory training) so I'll ignore it. Plus, my family has doubled since I purchased a revolver.

I'll quote from Wikipedia about the Swiss (Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) :

Number of guns in circulation

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.

Gun crime
Further information: Gun violence and Crime in Switzerland

Police statistics for the year 2006[13] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

EDIT Just found an interesting link on Wikipedia :

From here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Association with Urban Areas in the United States

In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[27] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.[28] High rates of gang membership and gang violence in urban areas have been used to explain these differences.[29]

America's level of gun violence cannot be attributed to urbanization alone as international comparisons show. Singapore has the second highest population density in the world (almost 6,814 people per square kilometer, or about 50% more densely populated than Chicago, Illinois) but has the lowest level of gun violence of all the countries in the table above. Its rate of gun violence is 99 times lower than that of the United States which is 200 times less densely populated. Wyoming, despite having a population density of a little over 2 people per square kilometer and one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the U.S. nevertheless has a higher rate of gun violence than England and Wales where the population densities are 383 and 142 people per square kilometer respectively.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The car = guns argument is so unbelievably insane, I really don't get why anybody would still wheel it out. Let me explain this to you:

The analogy is quite apt, even though you don't understand it. Unfortunately, your mental boundaries don't change reality.

The reality is that guns are necessary in some places to protect oneself. Just as cars are necessary in some cases to move from place to place. Guns are tools, just like cars, and in many cases the only tool that will work -- I can't really carry my katana concealed about my person. Tools are dangerous, inherently. But that doesn't make them any less necessary.

For my personal safety, I cannot rely on police. I just spent an hour driving through an area where I would have needed a gun if my car broke down. And I'll do it again tomorrow, and my wife this afternoon. I've evacuated for hurricanes when there were bands of thugs stealing cars from those without guns, and my wife has had to do the same. We're both armed, all the time. That requires practice, and the risk of accident, and gun locks at home, and training the kids, etc etc. It requires all of those things. It's expensive. But it's not an option.

Just because one likes to live in the dark doesn't mean that the light isn't useful to others.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Unfortunately, your mental boundaries don't change reality.

Classy. You can take the Denizen out of the PL, but you can't take the PL out of the Denizen.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by phantomdragonz 

INFORMATION is the key... teach your kids as soon as possible what to do around a gun so they dont get curious... TEACH THEM! if they are not curious about guns they are much less likely to get injured by one (my theory)

Word.

When I was in cub scouts, our den went to a firing range. Our dads discussed firearm safety ad-nauseam and we learned proper shooting skills. I guarantee there was not one boy that left that firing range curious about guns. It was a great foundation for a lifelong respect of firearms.

[The Final Dakar]

Gun Education = Sex Education ?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Gun Education = Sex Education ?

Hopefully their sex education didn't involve dads taking cub scouts somewhere to practice sex.

[The Final Dakar]

Whatever, they're shooting blanks.

[iMOTOR]

^ Says the 40 year old virgin.

[The Final Dakar]

Eh?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

I have no issue with people who need to own a gun. If I ever found myself in a situation where I lived in a neighbourhood where the threat of home invasion was so high I needed to keep a specialised devise for killing people in my bedroom, I would move.

I think a lot of people just want to own guns and are looking for an excuse to get one, I can understand this, it appeals to the little boy in me too, but if home defence is really the reason, getting yourself and your family to a safer area would be a better (and safer) tactic to employ.

Ditto. I'm sure that when there is a Thunderdome in every neighborhood my armed friends will have the last laugh, but until then I'd rather choose to avoid areas where I think I "need" a gun instead of choosing to own a gun.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Classy. You can take the Denizen out of the PL, but you can't take the PL out of the Denizen.

denizen is a gentle euphemism for asshole.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

denizen is a gentle euphemism for asshole.

So let me clarify: if you call someone insane via their argument, that's OK. But if you point out an obvious fantasy, that's just 'classy'. I gotta shoot higher.

On topic:
If you're afraid of guns, you're sane. If you don't want them around, don't have them around. Some of us have to balance those risks, just like the risk of driving.

[ghporter]

This thread is teetering on the not too stable edge of PWL material...I'd prefer that it stay apolitical and get back to the original topic.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Gun Education = Sex Education ?

You usually have to pay extra.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This thread is teetering on the not too stable edge of PWL material...I'd prefer that it stay apolitical and get back to the original topic.

OK.

To the OP, get a Glock 19 (9 mm). It's plenty powerful for HD use (use 124gr +P JHP ammo), hold 15 rounds (+1 in chamber), and is lots of fun (and cheap) to shoot at the range (use 115gr FMJ ammo from Winchester, Federal, etc.).

Glocks are great handguns for first time owners and people new to shooting handguns. Easy to field strip for cleaning, simple to use (no de-cocking levers to mess with), RELIABLE, and plenty accurate. Felt recoil and muzzle flip in the Glock 19 is minimal. Find a range that rents Glocks and shoot one - trust me, you'll like it. Another benefit of the Glock 19 is that it is small and light enough to carry concealed if you ever decide to do so.



Good advice in this thread also RE: shotguns for HD use. Mossberg 500 and Remington 870 with 18.5" barrels are popular choices for such use.

[NosniboR80]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot and killed by one.

That is all.

This statement is the analytical equivalent of the ignorance of racism/homophobia/jingoism.

If someone came out and said that someone's being African-American made them more likely to go to jail, we'd call them racist, or at least simple-minded.

If someone came out and said that a person's being homosexual made them more likely to contract HIV/AIDS, we'd say that that person is a homophobe, or at least should get an education and look at the facts more.

If someone came out and said that a Mexican man is more likely to be an illegal alien, then we would chastize that individual for being jingoist or Nationalist.

My point is that these individuals have made statitistically accurate statements, but that doesn't keep them from being meaningless. There are more factors involved than being African-American, homosexual, or Mexican.

It goes beyond just distinguishing between a causal relationship and a correlation.

If the study pinpointed Philadelphia gun-owners, then it certainly does NOT mean that Texas gun-owners are more likely to be shot by a gun.

More importantly, it might not even mean that rich Philadelphia gun-owners are more likely to be shot by a gun. Or even white, Asian, or middle class gun-owners. If these factors are not included in the study, then the study is useless - even for making correlations.

I'm not sure why we haven't learned that making blanket statements is detrimental to understanding - whether it is in reference to guns, race, ethnicity, or nationalism.

Sure, making a blanket statement about a particular race is morally questionable. Indeed that is worse than making one about gun-ownership. It's still equally ignorant.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by NosniboR80 

This statement is the analytical equivalent of the ignorance of racism/homophobia/jingoism.

No.

It is the analytical result established by the study I linked to, twice.

Despite all your blustering and attempts to paint me as some sort of fascist (or whatever you think you're calling me), that simple statement is simply one thing: True.

If you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot and killed by one.


Read through my subsequent posts (as you obviously haven't bothered to, yet), and you will find that this says nothing about WHY this is so, nor does it judge whether it may be a good idea, in certain circumstances, to purchase a gun. It merely clearly determines a statistically relevant correlation.

Your post is the equivalent of calling someone a racist for stating that a black person living in the USA is more likely to be in jail than a white person living in the USA.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot and killed by one.

I can GUARANTEE you that the odds of you being randomly gunned down are the same as me being shot and killed by a gun. Period. The fact that I own a gun does not change those odds.

That's like saying if you own a car you are more likely to be run over and killed by one, even if you aren't driving.

See how stupid that sounds?

Owning a gun does not change your odds of being "shot and killed by one". Your "study" does nothing to prove your point. What your "study" shows is that criminals and gang-bangers carrying and using illegal firearms are more likely to be shot and killed by a gun. No surprise there.

From your "study":

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

And how many law-abiding citizens with a legal carry permit were included in these statistics? Did they take into account the criminal record of the people shot and killed? Was the gun they were carrying legally obtained? Did they have a permit to carry that gun? Without answers to these questions, your "study" proves NOTHING.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

I can GUARANTEE you that the odds of you being randomly gunned down are the same as me being shot and killed by a gun. Period. The fact that I own a gun does not change those odds.

Statistically, it DOES.

Whether you, personally, are actually at a higher risk depends on whether the statistical correlation, which is to all appearances simply a fact, depends on other, specific criteria that might exempt you from the increased risk.

That is unclear, and completely in the realm of speculation - and that includes your assertion, er "GUARANTEE".

Fund or undertake further studies to break down the catch-all group of "gun-owners", but don't *argue* with this one because it doesn't yet try and break down the possible causative circumstances.

You might as well argue with a photograph of a beach for not showing the grains of sand.

This kind of study is *hard*, dude.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

That's like saying if you own a car you are more likely to be run over and killed by one, even if you aren't driving.

See how stupid that sounds?

There is nothing inherently stupid about reality.

Probabilities really don't care whether you like them or not.

You really haven't a clue what I am saying, and apparently much prefer to insinuate all sorts of judgemental bullshit into my writing.



Oh, and no matter how "safe" and "educated" I am, owning (and driving) a car DOES mean that I am more likely to be killed in a car crash. I feel "safer" driving than walking, but the one crash I've been in would simply not have happened had I not had the car ('twas entirely not my fault, as well). But that's not really relevant to the non-sequitur-nature of your point.


At any rate: Please, just stop for a second to try and understand what I'm NOT saying.

[NosniboR80]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

No.

It is the analytical result established by the study I linked to, twice.

Despite all your blustering and attempts to paint me as some sort of fascist (or whatever you think you're calling me), that simple statement is simply one thing: True.

If you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot and killed by one.

I'm not calling you a racist or a fascist. I'm saying that your statement was ignorant - in the same way that those fascist type statements are. It glosses over details that are important.

If rich white gun owners in Philadelphia are just as likely (statistically) to be shot by a gun as a rich white non-gun owner in Philadelphia, then your statement isn't true.

The study's findings could very well be averaging out statistical correlations from urban rough neighborhoods across other demographics.

In other words, even while ignoring the causal relationship part (which is smart), if enough Philly gun-owners from rough neighborhoods are getting shot, their data can and will skew the statistical likelihood of people that are in virtually no danger whatsoever.

So, I would recommend that you keep statistical findings and facts at an arms length.

[finboy]

I'll argue that the more of us who are responsible gun owners the fewer of us will experience crime. You can argue differently, or that the OTHER spillovers from private guns are greater (crime with stolen guns, accidents, etc.) But the social benefit from gun ownership in this country clearly outweighs the social cost. How do I know? Every day, in towns and cities across America, people buy guns and train with them (incurring more costs) and bear the risk of owning them -- and most of those folks understand the risks, unlike most car owners.

I went to the gunshow just last weekend and I was amazed at the availability of cheap, well-made (S&W & Ruger for example) self-defense handguns. For $400 I could get a Ruger LCR or Smith Airweight 38, or a SP101 Ruger 357, and that's plenty of gun for self-defense. Almost no break-in period, too, unlike automatics, which can require 500 rounds to break in. That's a lot of dough in today's ammo dollars.

[mattyb]

Spheric, did you read what I wrote about Switzerland? That is proof, if any proof was needed, that the study you linked to is flawed.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by NosniboR80 

If rich white gun owners in Philadelphia are just as likely (statistically) to be shot by a gun as a rich white non-gun owner in Philadelphia, then your statement isn't true.

That's not even a logical fallacy; that simply makes no sense at all.

The simple act of buying a gun puts you in a group ("gun owners") that is statistically more likely to be shot and killed by a gun than the other group ("non-gun owners").

Why is simple logic so difficult to grasp?

Allow me to reiterate:

Originally Posted by spheric

Whether you, personally, are actually at a higher risk depends on whether the statistical correlation, which is to all appearances simply a fact, depends on other, specific criteria that might exempt you from the increased risk.

That is unclear, and completely in the realm of speculation - and that includes your assertion, er "GUARANTEE".

Fund or undertake further studies to break down the catch-all group of "gun-owners", but don't *argue* with this one because it doesn't yet try and break down the possible causative circumstances.

I'm not gonna keep on bothering to argue with people who keep telling me what they *think* I'm saying, when they're simply not reading or able to follow the point I'm making.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Spheric, did you read what I wrote about Switzerland? That is proof, if any proof was needed, that the study you linked to is flawed.

The link you posted and quoted is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to what I posted, because there is absolutely no info there that compares Swiss gun-owners to Swiss non-gun-owners.

Also, do note that in Switzerland, it is actually PROHIBITED TO CARRY A GUN, let alone a concealed weapon, unless you have "a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security." [from the link you posted]

I'd think that rifles carried on the way to service don't really qualify.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The link you posted and quoted is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to what I posted, because there is absolutely no info there that compares Swiss gun-owners to Swiss non-gun-owners.

Also, do note that in Switzerland, it is actually PROHIBITED TO CARRY A GUN, let alone a concealed weapon, unless you have "a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security." [from the link you posted]

I'd think that rifles carried on the way to service don't really qualify.

I'd like to point out that these Swiss rifles we're discussing are actually fully automatic rifles-machine guns. In basically unregulated, private hands. No Armageddon, no bloodbaths, etc., etc. Basically this means that, in a properly trained population, firearms seem to be non-threatening, non-dangerous items. Since the Swiss still have mandatory military service, their citizens have good training and basically enforced contact with firearms, so they're not mysterious, magical things, which probably results in less fooling around and less (if any) abuse or accidental misuse.

[Mrjinglesusa]

No offense Spheric, but your "simple logic" is not logic at all. It's a fundamentally flawed conclusion based on a fundamentally flawed "study".

You said:

If you have a gun, you are more likely to be shot and killed by one.

You claim that this statement is supported by a "study" you cited. THE "STUDY" DOES NOT ALLOW ONE TO MAKE A BROAD GENERALIZATION LIKE YOU HAVE. Period.

"Having" a gun does not make someone more likely to be shot and killed by one.

If 90% of those shot and killed by guns in that "study" were career criminals, the logical conclusion is that criminals who have guns are more likely to be shot and killed by one.

If 90% of those shot and killed by guns in that "study" were killed by police in the process of committing a crime, the logical conclusion is that if you use a gun in committing a crime you are more likely to be shot and killed by police.

The "study" you linked to does not factor in possible causative factors such as demographics, prior criminal record, whether the guns were legally owned, whether these were criminals shot by police, etc.

WITHOUT BREAKING DOWN POSSIBLE CAUSATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU CANNOT MAKE THE BROAD GENERALIZATION YOU AND THE "STUDY" AUTHORS HAVE MADE.

FACT: It is not simply "owning a gun" that made these people more likely to be shot and killed by one. There is another statistically significant causative factor that the authors of this "study" have not yet determined or even looked for. They went into the "study" with a preconceived notion that gun owners are more likely to be shot and killed by a gun so they found "data" to support their hypothesis. This is why they don't look at demographics,criminal records, etc. as ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DO.

I wonder how many of those shot and killed by a gun in this study owned a Toyota? How many owned a dog? How many owned a knife? Perhaps it is owning a Toyota or dog or knife that made them more likely to be shot and killed by a gun.

YOU CANNOT SIMPLY LOOK AT ONE VARIABLE AND DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT IT IS THAT VARIABLE THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STATISTICS.

I wonder how many of those people who said they didn't own guns actually did and simply didn't want to tell the "study" authors. I'm pretty sure if someone came to my door and said they were doing a survey and asked me if I owned a gun, my answer would be "No".

If I asked around my office and found that 60% of the people here have a dog (analogous to 60% of those killed with a gun owned a gun) and only 30% of an equal number of random people on the streets around my office have a dog (analogous to 30% of those not killed with a gun own a gun), does that mean that owning a dog makes you more likely to work in my office? Is that the conclusion you would draw from my "study"?

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

I can GUARANTEE you that the odds of you being randomly gunned down are the same as me being shot and killed by a gun. Period. The fact that I own a gun does not change those odds.

That's like saying if you own a car you are more likely to be run over and killed by one, even if you aren't driving.

No its not,
Having a gun:
1) increases the chance that someone will shoot you in a conflict because they know you are armed
2) increases the chance that you will be shot with your own gun if overpowered by an unarmed person
3) increases the chance you will shoot yourself accidentally.

Cars don't do this stuff.