Guns or not Guns

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Be warned- wall of text ahead. If you respond, please have the courtesy to read the whole thing thoroughly or not at all.

 

The simple and sad fact is that the only person capable of responding to a threat immediately is oneself. Even in the very best of conditions, assuming one is even able to dial 911 in the first place, the police will take several minutes to respond to an emergency call. That is not fast enough to prevent homicide, assault, or any other violent crime. It is worth noting that police response is discretionary- even on emergency calls. Unless a police officer witnesses a crime in progress, they aren't obligated to respond at all. Even then the case law is iffy. The very fact that violent crime continues to happen in nations that have completely banned defensive use or ownership of guns (or in the UK's case, of knives as well)- testifies to the fact that the government is incapable at any level of providing basic civil defense. Since the law and the police cannot prevent crime, nor respond with sufficient haste to stop crime, who then does it fall to if not the criminal's intended victim... and what weapon is more effective for that purpose than a gun?

 

Yes, a gun is a tool with a very specific and narrowly defined purpose. It is a weapon. It can be used to kill or wound; any recreational use is incidental to the design- but it is the notion that weapons have no place in society that is problematic, not the nature of the device. It is already illegal to commit murder; whether one does so with a gun or a bomb or a bare fist is irrelevant. Dead is dead. Wounded is wounded. The only possible way to stop violence as it occurs is to meet it with the threat of equal or greater violence- and if necessary, to carry out that threat; that is what weapons are for. So long as violent crime exists, so must weapons to deter and combat it.

 

Less lethal weapons have their place, but are severely limited in capacity and their effects are by definition temporary. The best civilian Taser on the market can be fired twice and is then useless; it can be defeated by heavy clothing through which its contact darts may not penetrate. Pepper spray does not necessarily incapacitate even if delivered successfully. Knives, stunners, batons, and any other contact weapon requires that you make contact to use it- and require a great deal more training to use without risking equal injury in return. Knives in particular are no alternative; they are regarded by the law as lethal force if used... even if the blade itself is never used (for example, if you whack somebody with the hilt). Until somebody comes up with a Star Trek phaser that can dependably and repeatedly render a person unconscious for an extended period of time, there is no other weapon which equals the gun as a means of self defense.

 

The argument against civilian firearm ownership usually comes backed by statistics on the numbers of deaths caused by the use of firearms... but never do they mention the statistics on how many times the presence of a firearm prevents a person from being killed. Does somebody get shot every time a cop draws their weapon? No? Then what on Earth makes anti-gunners think that criminals are any less likely to stop, submit, or run away when any other person points a gun their way? There is no deterrent that can match the immediacy of death, threatened or delivered. Crime is by definition selfish. Selfish people (generally) have a strong instinct for self-preservation. It follows that pointing a gun at a man whose intent is to harm you, whether you fire or not, will likely cause him to reconsider his position with some degree of urgency. If he does not reconsider, then the gun provides you with the means to put a stop to the threat immediately. "Gun crime" is a meaningless statistic unless the removal of guns also reduces the overall rate of violent crime by a percentage equal to the rate of criminal firearm use. That fantasy has yet to become reality anywhere it has been attempted.

 

I own thirteen guns of various calibers and chamberings; nine of them are handguns and only two might be suited for 'sporting purposes.' I also have a permit to carry them which is recognized as valid in more than 30 states (since each state in the US may pass its own gun laws, not every state recognizes every other state's permit and a few don't issue or recognize any permits at all). I have never carried a gun anywhere I was not able to legally do so, I have always obeyed every law regarding the storage, transportation, and use of firearms, and I have jumped through my home state's onerous and capricious bureaucratic hurdles repeatedly in order to acquire my collection. I do not believe I should have to go through that much trouble to exercise the basic human right of self defense, nor to purchase and own things which I desire. I have already been examined with a higher degree of scrutiny than most law enforcement officers are subjected to, and they may carry in all 50 states with no restrictions.

 

Undoubtedly the anti-gun folks will raise the question of need... to which I reply that need hasn't got a thing to do with it. Having 13 guns doesn't make me any more likely to do something stupid or criminal with them than wearing polo shirts would make me want to whack a ball around on horseback. I have no particular need for a great many things that I own. A case of dynamite would, if improperly stored and handled, potentially pose a danger to other people; dynamite decays and becomes volatile if neglected. A cannon or rocket launcher carries the potential for massive collateral damage with every shot fired and is thus not a reasonable means of self defense. In contrast I could leave a gun loaded all my life and it would do nothing but sit there until I put my finger on the trigger and squeezed. Guns are not inherently dangerous. They have a single axis of threat; they drive small amounts of lead very quickly into and through what lies along that axis, if and only if a human being causes them to discharge. Because a gun requires active and very specific human input to cause harm, the danger it poses is directly proportional to the intent of the wielder to do harm. Without a wielder, the gun is no more dangerous than a brick. With a wilder who intends to do harm, a brick is as dangerous as a gun.

 

Should certain persons be prohibited from owning or using guns? Absolutely. Convicted felons and those unfortunate people who are ruled by a court of law to be mentally incompetent are such... and they are already prohibited. To prohibit civilian gun ownership in general is to issue a de facto statement that all citizens are guilty of the intent to commit criminal or negligent acts. It abolishes the essential liberty inherent in the presumption of innocence in favor of a culture of suspicion and paranoia. It would encourage fear that every person you meet- be they your neighbor, your mailman, your spouse- would kill you if only they had the means to do so (because surely a kitchen knife or a car offers no such means!).

 

Guns do not and cannot make a person more inclined to do another person harm. If a person does not possess the will to murder, they will not murder with a gun any more than they would with their bare hands. A person inclined to do others harm will find a means of doing so regardless of the availability of guns. The pseudo-science behind assertions to the contrary argues that the ability to do a thing is directly linked to the desire to do a thing. You could turn your car onto the sidewalk and flatten a dozen pedestrians- but you wouldn't. If the ability to commit crime were even remotely linked to the desire to commit crime, civilization would collapse on itself as people murdered each other left and right with hammers, pencils, and stole everything not locked securely in a case behind the store counter. Human behavior simply does not work that way. Violence is not human nature, it is the exception to human nature- else civilization would not exist at all. Laws do not control people, they organize people, and there will always be those who refuse to submit to the rule of law. Guns- and all personal arms- are the means by which those few, violent exceptions may be effectively prevented from harming the sane, reasonable whole.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Wrath_Of_Deadguy01

[marharth]

Be warned- wall of text ahead. If you respond, please have the courtesy to read the whole thing thoroughly or not at all.

 

The simple and sad fact is that the only person capable of responding to a threat immediately is oneself. Even in the very best of conditions, assuming one is even able to dial 911 in the first place, the police will take several minutes to respond to an emergency call. That is not fast enough to prevent homicide, assault, or any other violent crime. It is worth noting that police response is discretionary- even on emergency calls. Unless a police officer witnesses a crime in progress, they aren't obligated to respond at all. Even then the case law is iffy. The very fact that violent crime continues to happen in nations that have completely banned defensive use or ownership of guns (or in the UK's case, of knives as well)- testifies to the fact that the government is incapable at any level of providing basic civil defense. Since the law and the police cannot prevent crime, nor respond with sufficient haste to stop crime, who then does it fall to if not the criminal's intended victim... and what weapon is more effective for that purpose than a gun?

 

Yes, a gun is a tool with a very specific and narrowly defined purpose. It is a weapon. It can be used to kill or wound; any recreational use is incidental to the design- but it is the notion that weapons have no place in society that is problematic, not the nature of the device. It is already illegal to commit murder; whether one does so with a gun or a bomb or a bare fist is irrelevant. Dead is dead. Wounded is wounded. The only possible way to stop violence as it occurs is to meet it with the threat of equal or greater violence- and if necessary, to carry out that threat; that is what weapons are for. So long as violent crime exists, so must weapons to deter and combat it.

 

Less lethal weapons have their place, but are severely limited in capacity and their effects are by definition temporary. The best civilian Taser on the market can be fired twice and is then useless; it can be defeated by heavy clothing through which its contact darts may not penetrate. Pepper spray does not necessarily incapacitate even if delivered successfully. Knives, stunners, batons, and any other contact weapon requires that you make contact to use it- and require a great deal more training to use without risking equal injury in return. Knives in particular are no alternative; they are regarded by the law as lethal force if used... even if the blade itself is never used (for example, if you whack somebody with the hilt). Until somebody comes up with a Star Trek phaser that can dependably and repeatedly render a person unconscious for an extended period of time, there is no other weapon which equals the gun as a means of self defense.

 

The argument against civilian firearm ownership usually comes backed by statistics on the numbers of deaths caused by the use of firearms... but never do they mention the statistics on how many times the presence of a firearm prevents a person from being killed. Does somebody get shot every time a cop draws their weapon? No? Then what on Earth makes anti-gunners think that criminals are any less likely to stop, submit, or run away when any other person points a gun their way? There is no deterrent that can match the immediacy of death, threatened or delivered. Crime is by definition selfish. Selfish people (generally) have a strong instinct for self-preservation. It follows that pointing a gun at a man whose intent is to harm you, whether you fire or not, will likely cause him to reconsider his position with some degree of urgency. If he does not reconsider, then the gun provides you with the means to put a stop to the threat immediately. "Gun crime" is a meaningless statistic unless the removal of guns also reduces the overall rate of violent crime by a percentage equal to the rate of criminal firearm use. That fantasy has yet to become reality anywhere it has been attempted.

 

I own thirteen guns of various calibers and chamberings; nine of them are handguns and only two might be suited for 'sporting purposes.' I also have a permit to carry them which is recognized as valid in more than 30 states (since each state in the US may pass its own gun laws, not every state recognizes every other state's permit and a few don't issue or recognize any permits at all). I have never carried a gun anywhere I was not able to legally do so, I have always obeyed every law regarding the storage, transportation, and use of firearms, and I have jumped through my home state's onerous and capricious bureaucratic hurdles repeatedly in order to acquire my collection. I do not believe I should have to go through that much trouble to exercise the basic human right of self defense, nor to purchase and own things which I desire. I have already been examined with a higher degree of scrutiny than most law enforcement officers are subjected to, and they may carry in all 50 states with no restrictions.

 

Undoubtedly the anti-gun folks will raise the question of need... to which I reply that need hasn't got a thing to do with it. Having 13 guns doesn't make me any more likely to do something stupid or criminal with them than wearing polo shirts would make me want to whack a ball around on horseback. I have no particular need for a great many things that I own. A case of dynamite would, if improperly stored and handled, potentially pose a danger to other people; dynamite decays and becomes volatile if neglected. A cannon or rocket launcher carries the potential for massive collateral damage with every shot fired and is thus not a reasonable means of self defense. In contrast I could leave a gun loaded all my life and it would do nothing but sit there until I put my finger on the trigger and squeezed. Guns are not inherently dangerous. They have a single axis of threat; they drive small amounts of lead very quickly into and through what lies along that axis, if and only if a human being causes them to discharge. Because a gun requires active and very specific human input to cause harm, the danger it poses is directly proportional to the intent of the wielder to do harm. Without a wielder, the gun is no more dangerous than a brick. With a wilder who intends to do harm, a brick is as dangerous as a gun.

 

Should certain persons be prohibited from owning or using guns? Absolutely. Convicted felons and those unfortunate people who are ruled by a court of law to be mentally incompetent are such... and they are already prohibited. To prohibit civilian gun ownership in general is to issue a de facto statement that all citizens are guilty of the intent to commit criminal or negligent acts. It abolishes the essential liberty inherent in the presumption of innocence in favor of a culture of suspicion and paranoia. It would encourage fear that every person you meet- be they your neighbor, your mailman, your spouse- would kill you if only they had the means to do so (because surely a kitchen knife or a car offers no such means!).

 

Guns do not and cannot make a person more inclined to do another person harm. If a person does not possess the will to murder, they will not murder with a gun any more than they would with their bare hands. A person inclined to do others harm will find a means of doing so regardless of the availability of guns. The pseudo-science behind assertions to the contrary argues that the ability to do a thing is directly linked to the desire to do a thing. You could turn onto the sidewalk and flatten a dozen pedestrians. If the ability to commit crime were even remotely linked to the desire to commit crime, civilization would collapse on itself as people murdered each other left and right with hammers, pencils, and stole everything not locked securely in a case behind the store counter. Human behavior simply does not work that way. Violence is not human nature, it is the exception to human nature- else civilization would not exist at all. Laws do not control people, they organize people, and there will always be those who refuse to submit to the rule of law. Guns- and all personal arms- are the means by which those few, violent exceptions may be effectively prevented from harming the sane, reasonable whole.

Agree with that, but I have to disagree violence is not part of human nature. We have just learned how to control it.

[Balagor]

Be warned- wall of text ahead. If you respond, please have the courtesy to read the whole thing thoroughly or not at all.

 

>snip<

 

I read it all. Being 75 % anti-gun, you gave me something to think about. Good post. Kudos :thumbsup:

 

BTW, neither do I agree that humans are not violent by nature. But that belongs in another topic.

[hoofhearted4]

you noted an interesting fact which i was gunna say but found it in your post as well, and this is: cops are not obligated to help you. you can call for them via 911 and then dont have to come in any sort of hurry at all. there is nothing saying they HAVE to help you

 

 

also i disagree with the humans arent violent by nature. i very well believe we are.

[kvnchrist]

As a freind of mine was fond of saying,

 

A GUN IN HAND IS WORTH TWO COPS ON THE WAY.

[crimsonblade1]

I love guns, maybe even a little bit too much. But I am responsible with them. I only own 2 at the moment. A Glock 19, 9mm pistol, and a Mossberg 500 12 gauge pump. A friend of mine has a Bushmaster AR-15, and I really love that gun. Too bad I can't afford one right now. I do plan on getting an AR-15 sometime in the future. A good AR-15 will run you $1100-$1400 or so. I rarely shoot the mossberg, I got it mostly for home defense, and the area I live is borderline hood, and its not uncommon at all for people to get broke into.

[Aurielius]

As a freind of mine was fond of saying,

 

A GUN IN HAND IS WORTH TWO COPS ON THE WAY.

And as far as I am concerned relating to use....

 

I'D RATHER BE JUDGED BY TWELVE THAN BE CARRIED BY SIX.

[JimboUK]

When you criminalise firearms you ensure only criminals have them and you leave the law abiding defenceless. We have some of the strictest firearms laws in the world here, has the country become less violent since they were introduced? hell no. If people want to be violent then they will be and there's not much you can do about it, take away the guns and they'll use knives, take away the knives and they'll use bats, take away the bats and they'll use fists. Gun crime is a symptom of a wider problem, the answer is not to treat the symptoms but to tackle the disease.

[Nintii]

And as far as I am concerned relating to use....

 

I'D RATHER BE JUDGED BY TWELVE THAN BE CARRIED BY SIX.

 

Brilliant Aurielius, well put ... Well in light of this topic i actually went out yesterday and bought myself a paintball gun with solid and pepper balls ... it's just a bit heavy but it's the easiest thing to buy without a license in this

country.

Here's a pic of the exact same "gun" I purchased, except that I purchased a longer barrel and feeder that is a bit more sophisticated and is a bit off to one angle .

 

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/sierra01.jpg

 

Ok, so the salesman told me that this was more expensive but much better than the standard one ... yeah but heavier, i got sucked right into that one.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Nintii

[Ghogiel]

The argument against civilian firearm ownership usually comes backed by statistics on the numbers of deaths caused by the use of firearms... but never do they mention the statistics on how many times the presence of a firearm prevents a person from being killed. Does somebody get shot every time a cop draws their weapon? No? Then what on Earth makes anti-gunners think that criminals are any less likely to stop, submit, or run away when any other person points a gun their way?

If you have some numbers and statistics for how many deaths the presence of guns have prevented then by all means. I think the point is these numbers point to criminals being armed and ready to shoot as quickly as someone will have the opportunity point a gun their way, for all the reasons which you stated. It's a Mexican stand off. An armed society is not a deterrent for crime, nothing backs that up, if there is something then by all means. It every one is armed with quite lethal weapons then everyone leans to shoot first, whether criminal or who ever. Which does lead to to people protecting their homes unlawfully and shooting an unarmed intruder and more occurrences of robbers being armed.

 

Now having said that, in the US, I am pro gun. Having lived there and grown up with guns. It's a normal thing. I have to say there are a LOT of illegal arms where I used to live. Its quite common for guns to be unlicensed with the stricter gun laws where I used to live in Baltimore city. I was offered full auto hand guns for very cheap on the black market, and I was just visiting. Oh well. different experiences in Texas, Virginia and Tennessee, where laws and gun culture are different. So even in the one country, there is the worst of it and not so bad. I wouldn't want someone to judge the police or the people go about gun circulation on just one place.

 

Having said that, I am mostly against handguns in the UK, even in the home. I am fairly confidant it would increase the gun crime, probably would not reduce crime in any other area. It wouldn't be a solution to anything imo. If you haven't owned guns, I have lived with a 22 rifle in the UK and tbh you aren't missing out on any extra protection. Home invasion by armed intruders is quite a rare occurrence I've only had my door booted down once by a raving loony bleeding everywhere and attacked me with a broken broom handle... he was 6' 6" with a tattoo of a union jack and scorpion on his head. I might have been in jail for blasting him if I had a gun. So I am kinda against them here atm. I'm open to persuasion, but I haven't seen a good, beneficial reason to have them here.