Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage

[velkyn]

well, a armed society is a polite society, or so the saying goes.....

I've lived in Pennsylvania all of my life.  We have a huge hunting population and I grew up with guns. I'm also a pretty good shot with rifles.  Can't hit a damn thing with a pistol though, it seems.  My favorite professor, had the most amazing gun collection I've ever seen and I had much lust after it.   I personally think that guns for hunting are okay but those expressly made for killing another human being should be tightly controlled.  They become too easy of an "answer" by stupid ignorant people and are esssentially worthless hunks of metal if you would never consider using it. Not even worth collecting.  

I currently have no guns in my home since they are not good to have around someone with bipolar, no matter how well controlled.  I would like to have at least one rifle, to keep away a theocracy.  

[Azdgari]

He thinks the second amendment should REQUIRE guns, but doesn't own one himself? How is that not a joke? Even ignoring the fact that it completely misses the point about getting the government out of our lives.

Oh, that part.  Yeah, that's pretty nonsensical.  But his own hypocrisy doesn't bear on his argument.

And the deterrance argument for gun ownership is unrelated to the goal of "getting government out of our lives".

[Azdgari]

... I personally think that guns for hunting are okay but those expressly made for killing another human being should be tightly controlled.  They become too easy of an "answer" by stupid ignorant people ...

You mean like people who think that pulling a gun in a confrontational situation is a good way to defuse it?

[koberulz]

And the deterrance argument for gun ownership is unrelated to the goal of "getting government out of our lives".

On the other hand...

The right to bear arms was created for one reason, so the people have the capability to dismantle the government should it become too powerful and not be a gov't of the people.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to. Even in the states that allow you to get an assault rifle or automatic weapon, you're usually registered as having it, so if there ever was a revolution finding and eliminating the few people with enough arms to pose a legitimate threat to fascism/dictatorship could be done almost instantly. Nevermind the fact that some of the military capable weapon systems that ARE available to the public, cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, nevermind ammunition.

That sort of leans in the 'too much government' direction.

[Azdgari]

More of a "rival the government" angle, imo.  And he's right.  If you want to be able to resist an actual military/police state, then you need to be heavily armed.

[velkyn]

... I personally think that guns for hunting are okay but those expressly made for killing another human being should be tightly controlled.  They become too easy of an "answer" by stupid ignorant people ...

You mean like people who think that pulling a gun in a confrontational situation is a good way to defuse it?

that, and that killing someone will "solve" something.  In some cases yes, I think killing will indeed solve a problem but those are rare. 

[Azdgari]

So someone who says this, isn't someone who you think should have a gun?

Regarding "keeping crime down":
From a statistical perspective, guns are rarely used in self defense situations.  If one examines the FBI's crime statistics, "justifiable" discharge of a firearm is used minimally, even when adding together police and civilian incidents.  I think it is about 5% of all cases of discharged weapon.  Looking at the FBI's compiled uses of firearms, they are mostly used half and half (roughly) for suicides or resolving arguments.  The remaining uses are minimal or unclassifiable due to the nature of the circumstances.  Mind you, this is discharged weapons, not necessarily murders, and I am generalizing what I read.  The statistics are available online for you to read.

That doesn't take into account the number of times merely pulling out a gun defuses whatever situtation you happen to be in. If I feel like beating you up and you pull out a gun, I'm sure as shit not going to wait until you pull the trigger before I rethink things.

[velkyn]

So someone who says this, isn't someone who you think should have a gun?

I'm having trouble following who is claiming what here.  But as an answer for right now,  I am of the philosophy that if one pulls a gun, you are in effect committing to kill a person. If I draw, I am shooting. Waving one around as only a threat is ridiculous, in my opinion. 

[Azdgari]

Koberulz is basically complaining that Jim's statistics don't take into account all the defusing effects that guns have had - all the crime-prevention they've done by defusing hostile situations.

Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.

[nogodsforme]

The one time in my life that I have had someone pull a gun out and threaten me, it was a crazy relative. Luckily, the lunatic was not crazy enough to fire it. The nutcase did once spray me with mace, though.

I bet I have been in situations more dangerous than most people on this site and I have rarely even considered owning a gun. In many of the bad scenarios, I would have shot and possibly killed someone unnecessarily if I had been carrying a gun.

Either I was able to talk my way out of the danger, or someone came to help. Or the gun would have been worthless because by the time I knew I was really in danger, it was too late to pull out a weapon. Or introducing a gun into the situation would have escalated it way beyond what was going on.

The problem arises of exactly when you should apply the use of deadly force in the form of a firearm. If you wait until you are really in danger, it is probably too late. If you don't think you are in danger yet, you are probably too early. The difference between the two could be a split second, way to short a time to get a gun out and fire it.

[koberulz]

Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.

For the person holding the gun, yes.

I'm having trouble following who is claiming what here.  But as an answer for right now,  I am of the philosophy that if one pulls a gun, you are in effect committing to kill a person. If I draw, I am shooting. Waving one around as only a threat is ridiculous, in my opinion. 

There's a difference between waving it around idly, and pulling it out and having the situation immediately defuse, at which point firing it would be ridiculous.

[Arakk]

He thinks the second amendment should REQUIRE guns, but doesn't own one himself? How is that not a joke? Even ignoring the fact that it completely misses the point about getting the government out of our lives.

Oh, that part.  Yeah, that's pretty nonsensical.  But his own hypocrisy doesn't bear on his argument.

And the deterrence argument for gun ownership is unrelated to the goal of "getting government out of our lives".

I was just pointing out the irony in my statement. It's not that I don't want a gun, quite the contrary. Thing is they're expensive items, nevermind I just turned 24 so I've really only been legally able to own a handgun for 3 years. I've always wanted one, but recently have had feelings closer to a "need" of sorts after someone broke into my house at 3:30 a.m. while my wife and I were sleeping. Dog woke me up viciously barking and when I left the bedroom saw a guy climbing out the window. Suppose he was armed, I'd probably be dead, wife probably raped and then killed, or worse sold to a Mexican cartel (I live near the border).

If you can afford a weapon, I think its ignorant to not have one. Ignorant because no matter how much you focus on safety and security, if you're not armed there is always a scenario that can take advantage of that. And to be able to own one (financially & legally) and choose not to because "those things will never happen to me" is pretty ignorant.

While the deterrence argument isn't related to ability to resist a police state, both arguments are related to gun ownership and legal status, which I believe was the subject matter.

I don't think a population with a majority of gun owners would eliminate violence or even come close, but it would certainly drastically decrease it, and also decrease how bad some crimes are. Take the school shootings for example, if the gunmen would still follow through with their plan to murder people knowing most people are armed, how many people that are dead would have lived because the shooter got smoked right after he opened fire? Its not just a deterrent, in many cases it would stop crimes in progress from getting worse.

 

[nogodsforme]

My brother in law (a very smart and nice guy BTW) is a "gun nut", an NRA member with many firearms. He's had all the training, etc. He also admits that the need to own a lot of guns comes from feelings of insecurity, ie the need to feel safe, not the reality of his life. Much of what I know about "gun owner philosophy" if you will, I learned from conversations with him, and from reading his gun magazines.

One thing he says is that you never pull out a deadly force weapon in a real life scenario unless you are willing to fire it and kill someone. Guns are not to threaten people with, or to show someone to "defuse a dangerous situation". You are assuming the person is not crazy or immature enough to rush at you anyway, or does not have a friend with a baseball bat or knife (or another gun) sneaking up behind you. 

Whereas before you might have been in a situation where someone might get hurt, robbed or maybe just insulted, you have now definitely changed the game into life and death. When you introduce a gun into a threatening scenario, you have, by definition, escalated the situation into something far more dangerous.

Self defense and martial arts classes teach the same thing. Real life is not tv. If someone attacks you with fists, try to defend yourself and/or get away. If someone has a gun, try to take them out, because you have to assume that they mean to kill you. The bad guy is thinking the same thing.

[Azdgari]

Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.

For the person holding the gun, yes.

Are you basing this off of personal experience, or are you basing it off of empirical data?

[snkiesch]

I have had guns pulled on me 3 times, two were drunken idiots and the third was the police. I was scared only by the police. I was in the army, living in an upstairs apartment.  Some friends decided to visit when they got off guard duty at 6am.They knocked on the door and when I did not answer they decided to climb in thru the window.

About half hour later there was a knock on the door I thought it was Ray another guy getting off work. When I said who is it they answered Junction City Police open the door. I said we don't want you. The next thing he said was open the door or we will kick it in. I went over to the door and started to unlock the door I told him he better start kicking. As soon as I got the chain off the door it flew open and the pistol with trigger pulled was in my face. He had his other hand on the hammer.

I hit the wall so fast.  A buddy of mine was rolling a joint and he could see the half dozen cops that stormed into the room,  The cop walked over and picked up the bag and said is this all you have. I advise you to get rid of it. They then left.  We looked out the window and the every windowe had cops with guns aimed at the house.

I do not blame them often times in the last few weeks soldiers living off post had went to work as soon as they left. there would be knock on the door.  The wife thinking the husband had forgotten something opened the door and they were raped. If I remember right there were 3 rapes in the neighborhood.

[Seppuku]

Self defense and martial arts classes teach the same thing. Real life is not tv. If someone attacks you with fists, try to defend yourself and/or get away. If someone has a gun, try to take them out, because you have to assume that they mean to kill you. The bad guy is thinking the same thing.

I've been taught the exact same thing, it keeps you alive. The point of self-defense is to get yourself out of the situation as quickly as possible with the fewest risks and the least violence. Retaliation with any kind of force is the last thing any good self defense instructor will recommend, after all, it results in retaliation.

[koberulz]

Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.

For the person holding the gun, yes.

Are you basing this off of personal experience, or are you basing it off of empirical data?

If someone wants to beat me to death, and I don't pull a gun, I die. If I do pull a gun, I've increased my chances of living to approximately 50%. Seems safer to me.

[Seppuku]

I push him back at the first sign of danger and run for my life. I've increased also increased my chances of living. Being practised in self defense and martial arts increases my chances, having gone to the gym and eating protein to build lean increases my chances, being fit increases my chances. You say you're weak, you don't need a gun to make yourself strong, you can do plenty to increase your chances of walking away safely from a scene of violence - at least if you're fit and well practiced in self-defense you don't need to bring a gun to a fist fight to walk away. Better than a 50/50 chance (who's able to aim and pull the trigger first), it puts your situation to chance rather than having much control over it. If you can avoid the violence then avoid it.

If there's a gang of them - 1 man with 1 gun isn't going to help you much anyway (you might kill one, but you might not kill them all and they no doubt want to kill you if you pull a gun on them anyway)

Truth is...you can never really judge a situation and what you'd do until you're in it and no doubt you'll be in a panicked state of mind, therefore you can't put too much logic to what you do - a person trained in self-defense I think stands a better chance because they're practised, even then the pressure of the situation may have an effect, but we could sit here all day and argue 'potential' situations, but in actuality, we rarely know what'll happen. Most of this is conjecture - I know what I know from what I've been taught and from fights people have tried to start with me (that I've managed to avoid), rest is talking in potentials.

[screwtape]

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to.

What newspapers have you been reading?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html

You could not take back the country if you wanted to anyway and neither gun registration nor the weapons allowed have anything to do with it.  Cops shoot people all the time and almost everyone assumes they were in the right to do it.  Any time a cop is ever shot, almost everyone assumes the shooter was in the wrong.  It would be impossible for a person to take arms against "the government"[1] and be perceived as legitimate by anyone but a fringe minority.  You would be seen as Tim McVeigh, David Koresh or the kooks at Ruby Ridge.  You would by definition be an insurgent.

The whole idea that the second amendment is to prevent tyrrany in this day and age is preposterous.  That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it.  It is a naive and childish idea.


I'd just be happy if they would have better regulations for when police are allowed to use tasers.  Right now, they use them like a cattle prod.

1.	whatever that means

[Agamemnon]

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to.

This is a myth. If guns were banned in the U.S. there would be entire industries collapse, wreaking the economy. Gun and ammo manufacturers would lose most of their markets. Private arms retailers would close up shop by the thousands. Hunting and firearms media would be out of business. A huge source of federal, state and local tax revenue would be lost. It would be a massive economic disaster.

In their place a thriving black market would spring up, and it would be like a re-enactment of the 1930's, except instead of alcohol it would be firearms. Prisons would be overflowing with criminals.

Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.

[RaymondKHessel]

The whole idea that the second amendment is to prevent tyrrany in this day and age is preposterous.  That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it.  It is a naive and childish idea.

Completely agree. I love guns as much as anybody, and I like the idea in theory. But protecting ourselves from a corrupt government with handguns and rifles went out the window pretty much around the same time that the U.S. millitary split an atom.

Hell, it went out the window as soon as they had the technology to drop bombs from a bi-plane a few thousand feet in the air.

[Agamemnon]

All things being equal, I doubt any kind of large-scale, internal revolution could even get past the initial planning stages now.

[koberulz]

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to.

This is a myth. If guns were banned in the U.S. there would be entire industries collapse, wreaking the economy. Gun and ammo manufacturers would lose most of their markets. Private arms retailers would close up shop by the thousands. Hunting and firearms media would be out of business. A huge source of federal, state and local tax revenue would be lost. It would be a massive economic disaster.

In their place a thriving black market would spring up, and it would be like a re-enactment of the 1930's, except instead of alcohol it would be firearms. Prisons would be overflowing with criminals.

Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.

If that logic occurred to them, the War on Drugs never would have happened.

[Azdgari]

^^ Yeah, and Prohibition would have ended.  Oh, wait...

[Agamemnon]

Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.

If that logic occurred to them, the War on Drugs never would have happened.

If that logic occurred to ME I KNOW it has occurred to them. You can rest assured, the NRA lobbyists have made it abundantly clear to everyone in power that there will be devastating consequences if guns are banned.

[xphobe]

molon labe.  If guns are banned, then I've lost mine in a ... uh, "boating accident".

[Azdgari]

^^ Which goes to show that, no matter what political beliefs one has, one has to admit that banning possession of guns in America is simply a logistic impossibility.  It's like discussing whether the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupting is good public policy.  It's simply logistically impossible to do anything about it one way or the other, so the point is moot.

[koberulz]

Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.

If that logic occurred to them, the War on Drugs never would have happened.

If that logic occurred to ME I KNOW it has occurred to them. You can rest assured, the NRA lobbyists have made it abundantly clear to everyone in power that there will be devastating consequences if guns are banned.

Care to explain how they missed the exact same logic with drugs, then?

[Agamemnon]

You might have overlooked the fact that drugs aren't BANNED. They are CONTROLLED. It is an important distinction. We have gun CONTROL laws, not a gun BAN. If drugs were banned then we would have a massive collapse of the pharmaceutical industry.