Gun Fails

[epidemic]

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Four-Year-Old-Rolls-Over-And-Kills-16-Month-Old-Sibling-221013361.html

You miss the point.  I even quoted it.  You said they don't hand out guns to school children.  I pointed out they did in fact give a gun to a 5 year old.  It was his gun.  No sane person would give a car to a preschooler, but some dumb, cornpone asshat gave a gun to one.  And a 2 year old girl died as a result.  So, as so often happens, an innocent person had to die for the rights of a "responsible" gun owner.

Ok we are in agreement.  So I should not be able to defend myself because some asshole decided to give their kid a gun, and you should not be able to own a car because some asshole decided to leave their kid unattended with the car.

The only one I think... I am all for... I do not like... I most certainly should...

1. you keep voicing your opinions, as if it is self evident that your opinions are how the rest of us should operate.  I find that...tiresome.  I have put effort into making the case that my opinions are better opinions because they would lead to a maximally happy and safe country.  You are only making a case that you have lots and lots of opinions and they happened to be kinda selfish and egotistical.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one, and they all stink.  So, do better.

2. You seem to be advocating for some kind of anarcho-libertarian feverdream, where there are no rules and no society and if someone happens to be hurt or injured, well, fuck him, that's his own fault.  Well, that's great.  But unfortunately for you, senator AquaBuddha and the Tea Party nightmare have not yet overthrown our government.  So if you want that kind of freedom, I recommend Somalia as your new residence.  Or possibly Afghanistan.  That is what a country looks like when a whole society takes on your governmental philosophy.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.  I never suggested a world with no rules.  Just not a nanny state.  Somalia has no laws and I am not in any recommending anarchy.   What I said was that I believe laws should not be based on a few assholes who do idiotic things that are already covered by other laws.  No one is suggesting a 5 year old or a 2 year old should be given a gun for their birtday.

I don't believe in laws that protect people from stupidity.

There you go again with your opinions. 

Try this out: If the problem were only idiotic gun owners hurting themselves, I would call it natural selection.  But that is not the case.  As often as not, someone else pays for their stupidity.  So this is not about laws to protect you from your own stupidity.  It is about laws to protect me and the rest of us from your stupidity.  Why should I - or my wife, or my kid, or my friends - have to pay because some gun owner is an irresponsible asshole?

Look at the title of this thread.  The whole point of it is to show the stupid accidents supposedly responsible gun owners make.  Look at all the people who have to pay for it. 

Idiotic people with cars are hurting innocent people I am not for banning cars or restricting their use further.  We have sufficeint motorvehicle laws, and we have sufficient gun laws in my opionion.

But there is also not a law that says I can not have a car because some irresponsible parent will let their kid have access to the keys to run his sister over  either.

Because death from a car by a kid is a lot harder to come by than death from gun by a kid.  Do a search on kids who accidentally killed someone with a gun this year.  Search the links in this thread.  Then do a search onkids who accidentally killed someone with a car. 

Accidental death by gun by a child is almost always preventable,  I still don't see what law anyone is proposing that will stop this.  Well beyond abolition of guns.  How many kids were killed last year in swimming pools do to negligent parents.  Pools serve virtually no legitimate purpose most of the time (beyond entertainment) and negligent people drown their kids in huge numbers through negligence.   Negligence nows no law I don't want the nanny state making laws based upon negligent behavior.

America has a murder rate that is higher than most of Europe even with out the advent of the gun.

?  I do not know what you are trying to say, but I do not think that means what you think it means.

I don't know where your confusion is, but I will try again.  The United States Of America has a (non fire arm related ) murder rate that exceeds The UK's total murder rate.  In other words even absent guns and even if all the murders that are comitted with guns in America were eliminated we would still have a murder rate that exceeded the UK's.  There also would not be a 1 for 1 reduction in murders if guns were eliminated tomorrow.  I suspect that many murders use guns only for their convenience, that if that tool were magically eliminated that many if not most of the murders would still happen by other means.  I still need to review your link below

  If you could magically eliminate guns tomorrow do you think that all those people killed with guns would be alive?  or do you believe that many would still be killed by other means?

I believe the overwhelming majority of them would still be alive.  The statistics bear this out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/gun-violence-study_n_3924063.html
fresh off the press.

I still need to review this link.

Suicide rates in many European countries exceed that of the USA even with less access to guns.

this is an unsupported claim.  links or gtfo. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate  The UK with virtually no access to guns comparitively to the us has a suicide rate that is 11.8 vs 12.0 here in the US.  It appears that even with out guns the UK manages to have just about as many people per capita commit suicide.  Apparently people will kill themselve in other ways if you remove the gun.

But being a human being with empathy

Whom are you talking about?  Not yourself, I hope.

I have empathy for people who are preyed upon by criminals, I understand that some people live in situations far worse than mine and I would not take away their best means of defense.

800,000 to 2,500,000 times per year people use guns defensively

this is an unsupported claim.  links or gtfo.  You make a lot of bold claims, without any reason to do so. 

So it is your claim that guns are never used defensively?  The 800,000 to 2.5  million claim is a well known statistic.  I would think you could find it if you look hard enough.  The contested number is approximately 800,000 and the 2.5 million is the claim made in a study

Some of those .8 to 2.5 million people would be dead today had they not had a gun.  You would have them surrender their lives for the potential of some small greater good.

this^ is a mess.

 

Turned out I did not need it.  Instead of skipping the purchase of the car that was too good to be true I was able to go out there with out incident and purchase an 8,000 dollar car for 2,300.  I thought this was a craigslist deal that was designed to liberate me of the 2,500 dollars I was carrying but in this case I did not need it.

You are an idiot.  You walked into a situation you thought was potentially life threatening over a couple thousand dollars.  And you thought you'd be safe by carrying.  Stone. Cold. Stupid.   
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence

Principle #1: Avoid dangerous people and dangerous places.

Everyone involved in that deal was lucky no one was hurt.  I've sold cars over the internet before and met perspective buyers.  I've felt completely safe and never once felt I wanted a gun.  Do you know where we meet?  Across the street from the police station.   If any of them had showed up with a gun, I would have assumed they were there to steal my car.   

You probably should not own a gun.

First off in the situation at my sisters house there was extremely little chance of them getting the drop on me.  I walked over to her house to identify if there was any criminal activity going on.  My gun was drawn had the people emerged from the house and made aggressive move they would have been the only ones at risk.  My plan was to see if they appeared to be there for good reason and I identified the vehicle and ultimately the people before they even knew I was there.  If the vehicle could not have been identified I would have called the police and retreated to a safer postion.  The gun offered me a defensive option had things turned ugly.  My alternative was to Call the police on someone who was either  supposed to be there or not, and waited 30 minutes for them to arrive.  I was willing to put my life on the line for my sister cause I am a nice guy.  You apparently would allow your sister to be robbed blind.

and the situation with the my craigslist purchase was in a seedy neighborhood.  The vehicle was not on the road and could not have been driven legally to a safe location.  Ultimately when I evaluated the situation the gun remained in my vehicle.  On the off chance  I needed it I could have retreated to my vehicle and potentially used it defensively.   If the situation had looked bad enough I would not have even left my vehicle.   I am not looking for a confrontation.  but I do receive some solice in the fact that I had the gun and was willing to partake of this iffy transacton.  Had I not had the gun with me I would not have even driven to the location.

[nogodsforme]

Dear US gun collectors;

I have taken up toxic substance and poison collecting. Not to worry-- it's the same as collecting dolls, baseball cards or military grade weaponry. Eventually, I'd love to own a sample of every poisonous substance known. I never plan to use any of them to kill anyone. I just want to collect all the poisons and look at them and take them out and play with them from time to time. Because poisons are bad ass. I promise not to let any children or crazy people near them. And I promise to wash my hands well before I go off to my job as a dental technician. What could go wrong?

Sincerely,

A very sane person

[Nam]

The Sheriff has complete discretion on who can own a machine gun in his or her county in NC.

So, no black people then. That is the whole point of sheriff discretion and has been the case since Jim Crow, particularly in NC.

BTW, NC just made it legal to carry guns in bars. 
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/04/3163383/chapel-hill-downtown-group-targets.html
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/08/guns-bars-0821
FREEDOM!

I heard yesterday that it's now illegal for guns to be destroyed there. You have to, by law, recycle them back onto the streets.

-Nam

[Chronos]

BTW, NC just made it legal to carry guns in bars. 
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/04/3163383/chapel-hill-downtown-group-targets.html
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/08/guns-bars-0821
FREEDOM!

Consumption of alcohol remains illegal when carrying a firearm. However, the new law says that unless the owner has posted a notice saying otherwise, carrying a concealed weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol is OK ...

This is not just Gun FAIL, this is Logic FAIL. It's also Legal FAIL. IF bartenders are prohibited from drinking while working but wanted the privilege of carrying a gun, then there might be some logic to this law. But if any conceal-carrier can walk into a bar, what other conclusion can we draw that the conceal-carrier is about to engage in illegal behavior? Do conceal-carriers only drink Dr Pepper and orange juice?

The stop-and-frisk unit should be stationed at the doorway of every bar in North Carolina.

[Odin]

This is not just Gun FAIL, this is Logic FAIL. It's also Legal FAIL. IF bartenders are prohibited from drinking while working but wanted the privilege of carrying a gun, then there might be some logic to this law. But if any conceal-carrier can walk into a bar, what other conclusion can we draw that the conceal-carrier is about to engage in illegal behavior? Do conceal-carriers only drink Dr Pepper and orange juice?

The stop-and-frisk unit should be stationed at the doorway of every bar in North Carolina.

It was always illegal to drink any alcohol and carry concealed in NC.  The new law didn't change any of that.  The presumption is that a concealed carry holder will not be drinking in any establishment that serves alcohol while carrying.

As was stated, any establishment that serves alcohol can post a sign prohibiting concealed carry.  No need for stop-and-frisk.

Odin, King of the Gods

[epidemic]

is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?  Links?

[Odin]

is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?

No, and that's part of the point.  CCW licenses are obtained so folks can "legally" carry their handguns on them, or within reach in an automobile.  They are, by rational definition, law abiding.  If they weren't they would just carry their guns and not worry about the law.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415 .11 (c2).
  It shall be unlawful for a person, with or without a permit, to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol or at any time while the person has remaining in the person's body any alcohol or in the person's blood a controlled substance previously consumed, but a person does not violate this condition if a controlled substance in the person's blood was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts or if the person is on the person's own property.

We were taught in CCW class that law enforcement in general would not tolerate any amount of alcohol in one's system while carrying. 

Odin, King of the Gods

[screwtape]

is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?  Links?

What is a big problem?  I would say any problem with drunk people carrying guns is a pretty big problem.  I would guess it was not (past tense) because it used to be (past tense) illegal to carry in an establishment that sold or provided alcohol.  But that superfluous law is history.  You may now carry your concealed weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol.

I think I'd feel better about it if it was open carry instead of concealed carry.  I know ccw carriers are not supposed to take their guns inside places that have signs that forbid it.  But the gun's concealed, so how do you know?  And if they do get caught doing it, the penalty is... they're asked to leave.  Big deal. 

They are, by rational definition, law abiding.  If they weren't they would just carry their guns and not worry about the law.

It is not a binary choice - be a criminal and break every law or be law abiding and never break a law.  A person could conceivably get a ccp - because the penalty of getting caught with a gun without one is very high - but still break some of the rules, particularly if the consequences are negligible.  Like carrying in a mall, where one entrance may not have the "legal signage". 

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/122032-nc-gun-buster-signs.html#post1910804
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/north-carolina-discussion-firearm-news/25995-cross-creek-mall-conceal-carry-question.html

[Dante]

is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?  Links?

What is a big problem?  I would say any problem with drunk people carrying guns is a pretty big problem.  I would guess it was not (past tense) because it used to be (past tense) illegal to carry in an establishment that sold or provided alcohol.  But that superfluous law is history.  You may now carry your concealed weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol.

But it was, and still is, illegal to consume alcohol while carrying. So, if these permit holders were already following the law and NOT going into places that served alcohol, why do you conclude that they'll now be lawbreakers and start consuming alcohol?

Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?

[screwtape]

Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?

Because doing the wrong thing has been made easier. 

Look, I'm not saying every gun owner is going to go out to the local bar, get boozed up and start shooting the place up.  And I don't deny that most - by a large majority - gun owners are (or try to be) law abiding.  But as was demonstrated in the forums I linked in the previous post, you don't have to sort through too many gun owners who find one who is willing to bend the rules, play stupid, or ignore the law because he thinks his rights trump everyone else's. 

So, because it is now okay to carry a gun in a bar, people will.  And cases of people - who are otherwise and generally law abiding -  with guns who drink will go up.  And only a tiny fraction of them will be caught.  But it will make a difference.  The more opportunities there are to make a mistake, the more mistakes there will be.  It does not take a lot of alcohol to cause a person to make bad decisions. 

Is it happening now? Sure.  But this gives a whole lot more people a whole lot more opportunity to say to themselves, "eh, one beer with my pals won't kill anyone."  And mos of the time it won't.  Sometimes, it will. 

This was a pretty common sense law.  Repealing it was pretty unnecessary.  I wish I were shocked by Odin and epidemic's knee-jerk responses to defend it, but I'm not.  Typical of the gun crowd.

[Dante]

Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?

Because doing the wrong thing has been made easier. 

Fair enough.

My take is, while the wrong thing could happen anywhere, I wish they could have somehow made it more narrowly focused. I'm guessing here, but I bet the law was instituted not so much so people could carry in bars, but in places where "alcohol is served", which is to include restaurants. I don't know about where you live, but around here, were it not for the new law, going out to dine while carrying would be limited to fast food franchises almost exclusively. Nearly all local and chain restaurants sell booze of one kind or another. Hell, even the Denny's up the road sells booze. But, I can't think of a very easy or definitive way to seperate the dive bar from the high end restaurant in this case.

If we really think about the frequency that people are given the tools to more easily do the wrong thing, it's almost astounding. Including, but not limited to; cigarettes sold in convenience stores, parking lots at bars, having a "legal limit" for drinking and driving, cars and motorcycles that can go well in excess of 75mph, pick-up trucks weighing in at over 4tons, etc. All those things make it easier to do the wrong thing. We just keep hoping that the next idiot that does the wrong thing doesn't affect our lives, or the lives of others.

[screwtape]

Ok we are in agreement.  So I should not be able to defend myself because some asshole decided to give their kid a gun, and you should not be able to own a car because some asshole decided to leave their kid unattended with the car.

your dodging wearies me.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.  I never suggested a world with no rules.  Just not a nanny state.  Somalia has no laws and I am not in any recommending anarchy.

You absolutely are.  You said: "I don't believe in laws that protect people from stupidity".  But that pretty much covers every law, doesn't it?  What are laws but codified rules to protect society? 

What I said was that I believe laws should not be based on a few assholes who do idiotic things that are already covered by other laws.

No, that is not what you said.  That might be what you meant, but it was not what you said.  If that was what you meant, you should say what you mean.  It would help prevent the perception that you are back pedaling.

No one is suggesting a 5 year old or a 2 year old should be given a gun for their birtday.

I do not think you understand what "no one" means, because obviously someone thought it was a great idea.

Idiotic people with cars are hurting innocent people I am not for banning cars or restricting their use further.  We have sufficeint motorvehicle laws, and we have sufficient gun laws in my opionion.

Back on the cars analogy?  I don't know why you do that.  It is a losing analogy for you.  We regulate cars at a far higher level than guns.  Guns and cars are not equal comparisons.  The primary purpose of a car is transportation.  The primary purpose of guns is destruction.  A better comparison would be guns and TNT.

Plus, I've not mentioned banning anything in this thread.  So again, losing point for you.  They call that a Strawman Argument.

In this thread I've tried to point out the extremely common mistakes with guns and tried to find reasonable laws to keep guns away from people who should not have them.  You and Odin have just reacted in knee-jerk fashion, essentially saying, there is nothing we can do, and all these dead people are the price of our freedom.
 

Accidental death by gun by a child is almost always preventable,

I take it you didn't do the research?  Great.  I'll just ignore you until you do.


 

The United States Of America has a (non fire arm related ) murder rate that exceeds The UK's total murder rate.

Do you think that is a problem we should do something about?  What happens to the rate when you add guns to the mix?   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate 

was that so hard?

Apparently people will kill themselve in other ways if you remove the gun.

You cannot just look at gross numbers and draw that conclusion.  Sure, they have fewer guns that we do.  But they also drink a lot more alcohol,[1] and eat more bangers and mash.  So, their diet is as likely a factor as anything.

And, those figures aren't even the same year.  2009 US, 2011 UK.

I have empathy for people...

Please.  You are embarrassing yourself.  It is unlikely you are going to convince me, or anyone else on this forum, that you are not a replicant.  And not even a Nexus-6.

So it is your claim that guns are never used defensively?

No.  Your numbers are in question.  Numbers like that have already been called into question in this thread.  I've read Kleck's study and he's fucking bonkers.   Even the low end you give - 800,000 - means that amost 10% of gun owners "defend" themselves every year.  That also means a regular, non-gun toting individual would have the same probability of being in a defense situation every year.  And that is clearly not the case. Or criminals are just picking on gun owners.

I think these numbers are evidence of gun owners' paranoia.  In their minds, threats are everywhere.
 

First off ...

Nope.  Justify it all you want, but you made a monumentally bad decision.  High risk, low reward.  You are the karate guy who walked into central park at night.  You just lack the ability to recognize it.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption

[jaimehlers]

Regarding the law about not drinking while carrying a firearm...it's also illegal to operate your car after drinking a certain amount of alcohol.  I'm not sure specifically how much it is, but it's not a very high amount.  How many people drive when above the legal limit of alcohol anyway because they assume they're sober enough to drive safely?  According to the Justice Department[1], there were more than a million people arrested for DUI in 2012.

That illustrates the problem with making it legal to carry a firearm into a bar.  I don't think most of those people were career criminals.  In fact, I'll bet that most of them thought of themselves as law-abiding drivers before their arrest.

So, if that many people are willing to break the "don't drive while intoxicated" laws, how many will be willing to break the "don't carry while intoxicated" law, especially now that they can take a gun into a bar?

1.	http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-dui-arrests-per-state/

[Nick]

Two concealed carry permit holders shot and killed each other in a road rage incident in Michigan.  Just like the Old West except this is real.

[nogodsforme]

Two concealed carry permit holders shot and killed each other in a road rage incident in Michigan.  Just like the Old West except this is real.

The Old West was not even the Old West. It was not nearly as lawless and violent as we think from movies. Most people were hardworking dirt farmers who used shotguns for hunting, not for "defense". People did not carry guns all the time or shoot other people for looking at them sideways. Even famous outlaws avoided confrontations that involved gunplay.

Most of the stories about outlaws shooting up a town or gunslingers doing fancy shooting were exaggerations of a few drunken bar brawls. The guntoting cowboy hero was created from dime novels written by people who never went west of the Mississippi. Traveling rodeo shows, movies and tv did the rest.

So, don't blame our modern gun obsession on the US frontier. That would be like saying  the sexual revolution and drug use of the 1970's was caused by rock music.

[screwtape]

Two concealed carry permit holders shot and killed each other in a road rage incident in Michigan.  Just like the Old West except this is real.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/road_rage-related_shootout_lea.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491.html

A bad guy with a gun is only stopped by a good guy with a gun, right?  So who was the bad guy here and why did the good guy die too? 

The Old West was not even the Old West. It was not nearly as lawless and violent as we think from movies.

True, that.  They actually had gun control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

...

Ready the fainting couch for gun lovers:
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/guns-wild-west-48208/

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona — the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral” — also barred the carrying of guns openly.

[epidemic]

Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?

Because doing the wrong thing has been made easier. 

Look, I'm not saying every gun owner is going to go out to the local bar, get boozed up and start shooting the place up.  And I don't deny that most - by a large majority - gun owners are (or try to be) law abiding.  But as was demonstrated in the forums I linked in the previous post, you don't have to sort through too many gun owners who find one who is willing to bend the rules, play stupid, or ignore the law because he thinks his rights trump everyone else's. 

So, because it is now okay to carry a gun in a bar, people will.  And cases of people - who are otherwise and generally law abiding -  with guns who drink will go up.  And only a tiny fraction of them will be caught.  But it will make a difference.  The more opportunities there are to make a mistake, the more mistakes there will be.  It does not take a lot of alcohol to cause a person to make bad decisions. 

Is it happening now? Sure.  But this gives a whole lot more people a whole lot more opportunity to say to themselves, "eh, one beer with my pals won't kill anyone."  And mos of the time it won't.  Sometimes, it will. 

This was a pretty common sense law.  Repealing it was pretty unnecessary.  I wish I were shocked by Odin and epidemic's knee-jerk responses to defend it, but I'm not.  Typical of the gun crowd.

It is not a knee jerk reaction.  I don't like laws that dont accomplish anything. 

1) You already are not allowed to drink and carry. (the safety aspect is covered.)
2) No one knows if I brought the gun into the resturant that sells booze.  (so the guy who breaks the law is already to break the law)
3) If I did for some reason forget my gun was on me when I went in to hang with my friends as the designated driver and ended up using it to defend my life I am made into a criminal by a useless law.  (The DA will have little alternative but to charge me.)

So the law makes criminals out of innocent people, it does not accomplish the desired task of saving lives, and it is unenforcable generally speaking.


4)

[screwtape]

It is not a knee jerk reaction.  I don't like laws that dont accomplish anything. 

It is, you just do not have the ability to be introspective and recognize it. 

What does making murder illegal accomplish? 

The rest of your post was either unintelligible or obviously wrong.

[shnozzola]

Spray of bullets went out shortly before 10:15 p.m. Thursday at Cornell Square Park

Chicago's top police official says that an assault style rifle with high capacity magazine was used in the park shooting that injured 13 people, including a 3-year-old child.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/10-People-Shot-In-South-Side-Park-224517491.html

[Azdgari]

Clearly, some of those people needed to have fired back.  That's how society stays safe, right?

[nogodsforme]

I have to take issue with the idea proposed here that people need to have guns to defend their lives. Folks all over the world live quite well without packing firearms. The residents of Vancouver BC, Paris, Tokyo and Stockholm are not being robbed, raped or mowed down in the streets due to the lack of personal weaponry. The foreign students at the college where I teach are shocked that guns are sold at the local Walmart and in neighborhood pawn shops.

I gave the silly example of comparing poison collecting to gun collecting to show how we have this special place in our hearts for firearms, but not other dangerous items. Why not let people carry a bottle of sulfuric acid to throw in the face of an attacker?  At least then you would be less likely to hurt someone in the house next door by accident. How about a small bomb for personal defense? I know that I would feel safer on the road knowing that the person in the next lane might be packing an incendiary device.

In the US we have a very strange relationship with firearms; if you have lived in other similar countries you can probably attest to that. I think we are stuck on myths about our history--heroic pioneers and manly cowboys building America by shooting their way west.  We also have some uniquely US-style cultural values--individualism, independence, freedom, capitalism, materialism, and being anti-government.   

We associate guns with security and freedom--being able to do what we want with our lives. (If I have a gun, I can go anywhere at anytime and feel safe.) And we associate security and freedom with capitalism--being able to buy what we want for any reason. (Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have 10 handguns and 25 shotguns if I can afford them?) We also associate security and freedom with individualism and independence--not having to rely on or worry about other people when we make decisions. (A rancher in Montana should be able to get whatever weapon without having to care about kids getting shot in the puke holes of New York.)

These ideas are so tangled up in the way we view guns that we have a hard time being rational about them. That is why people get so emotional about restricting access to weapons. I have heard people defend gun ownership in terms that in other countries people would use to describe their children or their homeland. It is like if you don't love guns, you hate mom, apple pie and the flag. Even if it could be shown that we could save many lives and a lot of money while increasing safety and security by ditching the 2nd amendment, most Americans would still be against it.

Removing guns from the US landscape would symbolize the loss of things that most Americans like about living in the US. We have to change the way we think about guns before we will be able to do anything about the gun fails. In the future maybe we will have phasers so we can just vaporize the bad guys. Then when they are all gone, we will really be safe.[1]

1.	Just like how the war of terror has brought peace to the Middle East.

[jaimehlers]

It is not a knee jerk reaction.  I don't like laws that dont accomplish anything.

Look, don't take this personally, but you're acting on a feeling here.  It's been shown in a couple of recent studies that even intelligent people fall prey to misinterpreting things if their feelings (including political feelings) get in the way.  It happens to everyone[1][2] and that's why you need to take a step back and reexamine why you're so adamantly defending your position here.

I want you to stop and seriously think about my responses to these points you raised.  Don't just come right back with an answer, because it'll be based on your gut feelings about guns.  Look at what you want to say and ask yourself why you want to say it.

1) You already are not allowed to drink and carry. (the safety aspect is covered.)

Earlier in this thread, I cited U.S. Department of Justice statistics which showed that despite the fact that it's illegal to drink and drive, there were more than a million DUI arrests last year.  So my question for you is why you think drinking and carrying would be qualitatively different than drinking and driving.

2) No one knows if I brought the gun into the resturant that sells booze.  (so the guy who breaks the law is already to break the law)

However, having it be illegal to bring firearms into establishments that sell alcohol makes it less likely that someone who considers themselves law-abiding will bring a gun inside to begin with.  So this law is preventative as much as retributive.  So my question for you is if you think that a preventative law is worthwhile or not, and if not, why it isn't.

3) If I did for some reason forget my gun was on me when I went in to hang with my friends as the designated driver and ended up using it to defend my life I am made into a criminal by a useless law.  (The DA will have little alternative but to charge me.)

I will admit that there is some validity to this.  However, forgetfulness is not justification for breaking a law, anymore than someone forgetting what the speed limit is justifies repealing speed limit laws, or any other law for that matter.  So my question for you is why you think that forgetfulness is a valid reason to abolish a law.

o the law makes criminals out of innocent people, it does not accomplish the desired task of saving lives, and it is unenforcable generally speaking.

It does not make criminals out of innocent people, anymore than speed limit laws make criminals out of innocent people, or shoplifting laws make criminals out of innocent people.  If a person is driving 45 or 55 miles in a 35 mile per hour zone because they forgot what the speed limit was, they are breaking the law.  If a person leaves a store with merchandise they haven't paid for because they forgot it was in their pocket, they are breaking the law.  And if a person carries a gun into a bar because they forgot they were carrying it, they are (or were) breaking the law.  Why should forgetfulness justify breaking a law?

It also saved lives via a preventative measure.  At least some people who might have carried guns into a bar or some other place they could buy alcohol probably thought twice about it and decided not to because it would be breaking the law.  There's no way to tell how many of those people, if they ended up getting drunk, might have done something stupid with their gun and ended up being responsible for killing someone.

And finally, it is not unenforceable.  It might be difficult to enforce, depending on the circumstances, but (say) if someone goes into a bar and flashes that they have a gun, it is certainly enforceable then.

1.	I fall prey to it myself unless I'm very careful
2.	For that matter, The Gawd, who is normally very sensible, fell prey to it in the Zimmerman thread and quit the site because several people, myself included, kept pointing out where he was wrong in his belief about what happened.

[Chronos]

I have to take issue with the idea proposed here that people need to have guns to defend their lives. Folks all over the world live quite well without packing firearms.

So far, I have lived 47 years without the need for my own personal firearm. I have experienced no threats in which I would need a firearm, and very few threats beyond that.

The residents of Vancouver BC, Paris, Tokyo and Stockholm are not being robbed, raped or mowed down in the streets due to the lack of personal weaponry. The foreign students at the college where I teach are shocked that guns are sold at the local Walmart and in neighborhood pawn shops.

Not surprisingly, there are two subsets of voters with a lot of overlap. Those who think everyone should have the right to buy firearms but expect no one to ever use their firearms, and those who think teenagers should not be given prophylactics because if we do give teenagers prophylactics the teenagers will think they have permission to have sex with abandon. Likewise, these groups are confounded by the high birth rates among teenagers who have almost no way to get birth control but they are not the least bit confounded by the high death rate from the proliferation of firearms.


When does ignorance stop being bliss?

[Odin]

(Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have 10 handguns and 25 shotguns if I can afford them?) We also associate security and freedom with individualism and independence--not having to rely on or worry about other people when we make decisions.

I know a man, who lives in a very liberal state with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the US, who has 150 long guns and 250 handguns.  He is a collector.  He has not personally fired most of the guns.  There is little chance any of them will ever be used in a gun crime.  They are kept in a fireproof vault, secured by a bank-vault style door.  He has followed the spirit and letter of the law in obtaining each of these guns.  Should he have to turn in his collection?  Would he be compensated for the value of about $500,000?

(A rancher in Montana should be able to get whatever weapon without having to care about kids getting shot in the puke holes of New York.)

That is correct.  If you can't see the disconnect between the rancher in Montana and the gang-bangers in Chicago (I said New York, but let's use Chicago, because the problem is worse there), then my cause is lost.

Even if it could be shown that we could save many lives and a lot of money while increasing safety and security by ditching the 2nd amendment, most Americans would still be against it.

The 2nd Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.  It's not a new concept.  Yes, there are different weapons available now than there were in 1791.  There are more means of communication than in 1791, and we still have the 1st Amendment.  We have to fight to defend the 1st Amendment against encroachment, such as the recent NSA fiasco.  It doesn't mean we ditch the whole thing, just because things have changed.

If we "ditch[ed] the 2nd Amendment," how would you enforce it?  Since guns are, for the most part, not registered, how would you impose the gun ban?  Would you also ditch the 4th Amendment, and allow the government to search every house to confiscate all the guns.

Let's suppose we banned all magazine capacities over, say, ten rounds, for all weapons - rifles, shotguns, and handguns.  Would that satisfy you?  No weapon would then resemble an "assault weapon," because the ability to fire hundreds of rounds in a short period of time would effectively be curtailed.  Would you then leave the rest of the 2nd Amendment unchanged?

Odin, King of the Gods

[Odin]

So far, I have lived 47 years without the need for my own personal firearm. I have experienced no threats in which I would need a firearm, and very few threats beyond that.

I fired my first gun at about age 10, under training and direct supervision of my father.  We were hunting doves.
These days, I shoot about 6,000 rounds a year out of a shotgun, almost all at sporting clays.  I haven't hunted in 25 years, at least.  The only things endangered by my guns are evil clays pigeons, some of whom are lucky to escape.

I also have yet to experience any threat that would rise to the level of deadly force, and therefore I have not had to use deadly force.  However, if I were to experience deadly force being used against me or my loved ones, I would not hesitate to defend against it with deadly force.

By the way, I have a CCW, and several handguns, but I rarely carry them.  My opportunities to carry are almost always at night, going out to eat or drink, and I won't take the chance of having alcohol in my system while carrying.

Not surprisingly, there are two subsets of voters with a lot of overlap. Those who think everyone should have the right to buy firearms but expect no one to ever use their firearms, and those who think teenagers should not be given prophylactics because if we do give teenagers prophylactics the teenagers will think they have permission to have sex with abandon. Likewise, these groups are confounded by the high birth rates among teenagers who have almost no way to get birth control but they are not the least bit confounded by the high death rate from the proliferation of firearms.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not one of the ones who overlap.  I think birth control should be distributed freely, as should sex ed.  I think the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, and especially prophylactics, is tantamount to genocide.

Odin, King of the Gods

[Azdgari]

I also have yet to experience any threat that would rise to the level of deadly force, and therefore I have not had to use deadly force.  However, if I were to experience deadly force being used against me or my loved ones, I would not hesitate to defend against it with deadly force. ...

It's a good thing you never ran into Epidemic and had him think you were stealing something...

[shnozzola]

Let's suppose we banned all magazine capacities over, say, ten rounds, for all weapons - rifles, shotguns, and handguns.  Would that satisfy you?

Odin, King of the Gods

Odin,

I can't speak for nogods, but that would satisfy me.  Would it satisfy you?  Or are guns not the real problem?  Is the slippery slope and the government the problem for you?  You have probably addressed this issue in these gun threads, but, just wondering your view on US government?  It 's the same with Obamacare.  Can we as a society attempt policies, realizing that policies that do not work could be changed, because the people of the U.S. are the government?  Or do you consider that foolish and idealistic - are we at the mercy of a government run amuck that is seeking only to get bigger, add laws, and take away freedoms, without the possibility to undo unjust and unnecessary laws?

[Mrjason]

interesting take on the US' "gun problem"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter

this stat if true is nuts

To absorb the scale of the mayhem, it's worth trying to guess the death toll of all the wars in American history since the War of Independence began in 1775, and follow that by estimating the number killed by firearms in the US since the day that Robert F. Kennedy was shot in 1968 by a .22 Iver-Johnson handgun, wielded by Sirhan Sirhan. The figures from Congressional Research Service, plus recent statistics from icasualties.org, tell us that from the first casualties in the battle of Lexington to recent operations in Afghanistan, the toll is 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.

That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US is a staggering fact, particularly when you place it in the context of the safety-conscious, "secondary smoke" obsessions that characterise so much of American life.

[Nam]

I wonder if that counts the plethora of wars against Native Americans and if the Native Americans are counted in the total?

-Nam