Guns for protection or do they create more harm

John Utah wrote:

JabbyJaywalker wrote:

Following this rationale it would be wise to give everyone his own tank, or lets even go a step further, give everyone its own nuclear bomb!

Why would anyone think libs are irrational?

Why would anyone think you and other cons are intelligent?

I have no problem with guns or people owning guns. My problem is the ease of ownership for people with zero idea how to use them. Living in VA almost everyone I know has a CC permit and almost none of them bother to train or get training on how to use guns. They are all into the training the first few months and then they lose interest. So basically you have a lot of law abiding citizens with a weapon that they have no idea how to handle.

Preface: I'm a Canadian where we have much, much stricter laws on carrying handguns. Incidentally, we also have much, much fewer deaths caused by guns (both in total number and per capita).

I would like to ask a question of those who support personal gun ownership. I don't mean this sarcastically, I'm actually looking for an answer.

Are you proud that you live in a country where you feel so unsafe that you then feel compelled to carry a deadly weapon?

Ezekiel bread wrote:

You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.

You are correct that government overthrow of our freedom is a possibility, but it never been my main concern.

My main concern is the liberal agenda of eliminating 1 on 1 self defense with a gun. Democrats really do want to make it where a little old lady cannot even have a simple revolver for self defense against a large muscular African American man. That is the Democrats goal.

It’s quite incredible that the US continues to allow the purchase of guns to continue in the same way. The number of people killed compared to countries that have imposed strict control is off the scale. Yet you continue to allow things to continue on the same basis and are then shocked whenever there’s a really bad incident involving multiple killings . Get a grip ! Any killing is really bad and the total number of deaths in any given week is huge. Take a look at yourselves from the outside !

Canadian Guy wrote:

Preface: I'm a Canadian where we have much, much stricter laws on carrying handguns. Incidentally, we also have much, much fewer deaths caused by guns (both in total number and per capita).

I would like to ask a question of those who support personal gun ownership. I don't mean this sarcastically, I'm actually looking for an answer.

Are you proud that you live in a country where you feel so unsafe that you then feel compelled to carry a deadly weapon?

How are you "looking for an answer" when you inject the premise that we "feel so unsafe"? It is not that unsafe most places in the US, especially outside of Democrat governed cities. I don't own a gun but I am happy that I am free to. I would be more concerned about a government that can't trust its citizenry with guns. The difference might be that we are a nation of people ruled by law, not a nation of subjects rule by the queen or maple leaves or whatever you've got going there.

Of all my friends and acquaintances, I've never met someone who carried a gun. A handful were assaulted, but none of them were seriously injured.

Have any LRers ever been in a situation where carrying a gun saved them from serious injury or even death? There was an OP that claimed he displayed a gun to a potential attacker, but it was a confrontation he initiated and one he could have run away from.

the430miler wrote:

Ezekiel bread wrote:

You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.

You are correct that government overthrow of our freedom is a possibility, but it never been my main concern.

My main concern is the liberal agenda of eliminating 1 on 1 self defense with a gun. Democrats really do want to make it where a little old lady cannot even have a simple revolver for self defense against a large muscular African American man. That is the Democrats goal.

Just quoting this for posterity, where he felt necessary to point out that the large muscular man was also African American.

el hombre wrote:

the430miler wrote:

You are correct that government overthrow of our freedom is a possibility, but it never been my main concern.

My main concern is the liberal agenda of eliminating 1 on 1 self defense with a gun. Democrats really do want to make it where a little old lady cannot even have a simple revolver for self defense against a large muscular African American man. That is the Democrats goal.

Just quoting this for posterity, where he felt necessary to point out that the large muscular man was also African American.

Freudian slip? He subconsciously wants to be dominated by a muscular black man.

I grew up outside of the US in a country with much stricter gun control laws, but still I was used to live around guns. My family has a long tradition of hunting, so hunting rifles abound... Never warmed up to it but I picked up sport shooting as a kid and was pretty good in high school...

Now, I have bee living in the States for more than 25 years and never understood the whole “obsession” with guns for protection and the 2nd amendment... Yeah, I get what it says and means but come on, this is 21st century and our militia isn’t protecting anything or anybody from “tyranny”... Sorry.

The way I see it, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible but due to such vast ownership there is so much more chance of dimwits and idiots to get their hands on them... We should have stricter limits on ownership but gun lobby would go berserk...

Where I was born, not only you had to pass basic psychological tests but also had two people “co-sign” on your character that you’ll be a responsible gun owner... If they f*cked up, they were on the hook legally!!! Hell, we have it for loans, why not for guns...

Marksch wrote:

John Utah

Consider driving. Drunk drivers kill 10,000 to 15,000 per year in the USA (and for the record, "mass murder" victim count is on average in the ballpark of 150 per year). Should we take away individual ownership of cars and only use mass transit / professional drivers?

That's a pretty apples vs oranges argument.

Might be more analogous to cite the number of deaths due to multi-car multi fatality accidents vs those due to mass murder.

Alternatively, all automotive deaths vs all gun deaths.

The mass murder # doesn't really address the OP question.

I have read that 2/3 of all US gun deaths are suicides. Certainly, those people may have tried another mechanism, but less chance of success.

I'm sure there are other data that are more to the OP point

Anyone hell bent on killing him/herself will do so. Firearm or not.

Not so fast bro wrote:

If you buy a gun, it is statistically more likely to be used by you or a member of your family for a suicide or accidental shooting than in preventing a crime.

What stats do you have relative to the deaths or injuries that were prevented?

Ezekiel bread wrote:

You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.

You have to understand our history. We stole land from Native Americans by using our guns. So we need to protect our land with guns from those invading Mexicans and Middle Easterners.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Anyone hell bent on killing him/herself will do so. Firearm or not.

Suicides are mostly impulsive and "success rates" when using firearms is an order of magnitude higher than other means.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Of all my friends and acquaintances, I've never met someone who carried a gun. A handful were assaulted, but none of them were seriously injured.

Have any LRers ever been in a situation where carrying a gun saved them from serious injury or even death? There was an OP that claimed he displayed a gun to a potential attacker, but it was a confrontation he initiated and one he could have run away from.

I happened to be lucky...once. Could have used a firearm to help someone out who was being assaulted, the guy didn't have a gun or knife otherwise I'd have been a statistic. I was able to wrestle the guy down and hold him for police. And he was at least 200 lbs, I was a skinny 155 lb runner (at the time). Like I said....lucky once. Luck generally does not strike twice so where legally allowed, I carry. And I'm well trained. Also, while the probability of someone needing a firearm is low (dependent obviously on where one lives), when you need one its good to know its available. I suggest you look up the Petit family in CT.

Monkeys typing wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Anyone hell bent on killing him/herself will do so. Firearm or not.

Suicides are mostly impulsive and "success rates" when using firearms is an order of magnitude higher than other means.

Well, to date I have known a number of people that successfully offed themselves, none with firearms.

1.) My brother - Hung himself.

2.) Founder of an Institute I was working at in LA - Slit his wrists.

3. ) Team mate of mine on my college swim team - Carbon Monoxide.

4.) Husband of a co worker - Hung himself.

5.) My wife's cousin - OD.

I'd be interested to see data that suggests your hypothesis is accurate, and if so, the order of magnitude.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I'd be interested to see data that suggests your hypothesis is accurate, and if so, the order of magnitude.

I doubt you are interested or you would have looked for it yourself.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Not so fast bro wrote:

If you buy a gun, it is statistically more likely to be used by you or a member of your family for a suicide or accidental shooting than in preventing a crime.

What stats do you have relative to the deaths or injuries that were prevented?

Eh? Are you talking about all the NRA studies that purport to show that crime was averted because someone saw an NRA window sticker on a house and therefore a gun saved someone's life even though nothing actually happened?

Let me know when you've figured out how to count things that didn't happen based on a supposition from an organization that has a political agenda.

John Utah wrote:

JabbyJaywalker wrote:

Following this rationale it would be wise to give everyone his own tank, or lets even go a step further, give everyone its own nuclear bomb!

Why would anyone think libs are irrational?

Reductio ad absurdum might be expected to produce this reaction. Another way of broaching the issue is to acknowledge the importance of the right to bear arms, but ask which ones are acceptable.