(February 14, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Is there a legitimate push by congress to ban guns all together?

Nope. Just the guns I like.

(February 14, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: That's the up front reason, "PROTECT OUR HOMES!!!". "Cool toys" is frown upon as being too honest. Toys killing kids is bad PR.

Well, that didn't really answer my question. We both know that a 30-30 isn't purchased for self-defense, that shotguns often aren't and so on.

The point was that PIDOOMA numbers aren't worth much in a discussion.

You need a 30-30 if you hunt big game. You'll never effectively take down a large buck, a wild boar (also a menacing threat to livestock and human safety), a moose, nor a bear with a little .22, and you may not get more than one shot.

You need a shotgun if you hunt game birds - period!

Why should civilians be restricted to owning a .22 rifle, which is dangerous for being useless and ineffective, when police officers are allowed to carry .44 or 9mm handguns? If you think we don't need them to stop an attacker, then neither do they.

(February 14, 2016 at 9:14 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, that didn't really answer my question. We both know that a 30-30 isn't purchased for self-defense, that shotguns often aren't and so on.

The point was that PIDOOMA numbers aren't worth much in a discussion.

Actually, the discussion isn't worth much.

... and yet here you are.

Also, the DGU stats I mentioned earlier:

Quote:According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.” As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

So while in comparison to the overall crime rate the number of DGUs are small, they still average around 47,000 per year -- quite a bit higher than your back-of-envelope calculation assumed. It should be noted that that number far outweighs total gun deaths from all causes, including suicides, for each year.

(February 14, 2016 at 9:27 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: But I have to wonder why you object to the numbers you supplied? I was generous with them.

No, as shown above, you were significantly short, and you avoided addressing altogether my point that your assumption that every gun sale is rationalized by self-defense is just that -- an assumption, and a fatuous one at that.

(February 14, 2016 at 10:11 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, that didn't really answer my question. We both know that a 30-30 isn't purchased for self-defense, that shotguns often aren't and so on.

The point was that PIDOOMA numbers aren't worth much in a discussion.

You need a 30-30 if you hunt big game. You'll never effectively take down a large buck, a wild boar (also a menacing threat to livestock and human safety), a moose, nor a bear with a little .22, and you may not get more than one shot.

You need a shotgun if you hunt game birds - period!

Why should civilians be restricted to owning a .22 rifle, which is dangerous for being useless and ineffective, when police officers are allowed to carry .44 or 9mm handguns? If you think we don't need them to stop an attacker, then neither do they.

Exactly my point. Not every single gun purchased is bought for self-defense, further diminishing the pertinence of 'Zilla's point.

Quote:Exactly my point. Not every single gun purchased is bought for self-defense, further diminishing the pertinence of 'Zilla's point.

USians my find this interesting: When apply for a firearms license in NZ, indicating a desire to use you gun for self-defense makes it less likely that your application will be approved.

Boru

If I knew someone around me had a gun, I would be shit scared. I've never even seen a real one. I'd probably start shaking and perhaps run off.

This isn't an argument by the way, it's just how I am, having lived in (safe parts of) England my whole life. I do plan to visit America eventually, and just knowing people can be walking about with guns has put me off for a long time. I think I can come to terms with it, and hopefully I'll stop thinking about it after a while when I get there.

(February 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: How would you feel about a restriction that requires you to keep any firearms - unloaded - under lock and key, and to have your arrangements inspected at random by the local police?  Bear in mind that if your gun safe is found to be unlocked (or your weapons loaded, or your guns and ammo stored in the same place), you will lose your firearm permit.  Because that is exactly the arrangement here, and no one - as far as I know - has found it to be objectionable.

That -restriction- already exits in our gun laws, I'm fine with it.

@Rob, You won't even notice that people have them.  Your fear is based upon misinformation and a "finessed" summary of stats.  In most places you're likely to visit...the only people who are walking around with guns are the cops.  In the places you -could- visit where alot of people -do- walk around with guns, the rates of gun deaths are ludicrously low and -still- contained to the usual demographics.   Seeing a redneck with a gun is a bit like seeing a golfer with clubs, in reality.

It aint the wild west anymore, and the wild west itself, the age of the cowboy, lasted less than 20 years itself near 200 years ago now.   You'll find very little difference between the safest parts of the UK and the safest parts of the US, with respect to gun violence, regardless of how many guns the citizens have in their cabinets.  If you come to the US to walk around the wastelands of detroit at midnight OTOH...........

There are -massive- swaths of the US wth comparable rates of gun related violence and death to the UK (and those areas, I;ve discussed before, also happen to be some of the highest ownership areas).  That our national stats are so poor, relative to your own, is, in -some- sense, geography.  The US is very large.  Imagine if the UK incorporated as many of the largest cities on an entire continent as the US does.  How would your murder stats look?  That's -exactly- why ours look the way they do.  Our borders are large enough to encompass a great many places that, despite their tiny size relative to the overall nation..are grossly over-represented in gun deaths, skewing our stats into the toilet.  In point of fact, unless you plan on crossing the pond to commit suicide or run a low level meth operation....you, personally, are no more likely to be shot in the US than you are in the UK.  

Long story short, stop worrying, come shoot some elk /w me when you visit, I'll lend you a cannon...and I promise not to mistake you for a woodland creature. 

(February 14, 2016 at 9:33 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Is there a legitimate push by congress to ban guns all together?

Nope. Just the guns I like.

Yes, that was my point to Mr. Hanky, the argument that the liberals in congress are trying to render the American people defenseless is melodramatic and not really true. Home defense is a good argument for gun ownership but I don't think this is really being threatened by gun regulation.

(February 15, 2016 at 7:48 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 9:33 pm)KUSA Wrote: Nope. Just the guns I like.

Yes, that was my point to Mr. Hanky, the argument that the liberals in congress are trying to render the American people defenseless is melodramatic and not really true. Home defense is a good argument for gun ownership but I don't think this is really being threatened by gun regulation.

Guns are more dangerous to the occupants than to the intruder. The intruder comes and goes, the occupants have to live with the guns.

Liberals in congress know they lack the power to enact such legislation..however, the liberals which, presumably, elect them...are asking for us to go the way of gun bans, yes. All that's needed is a good, emotionally charged incident to make people lose their sense, as mass shootings made us lose our sense and enact a bevy of ineffective laws which have since lapsed.

Targeted bans will only work, in this country, if they aim squarely at handguns, which are already the most heavily restricted class of firearm in the US. Our congress critters have a history of leaving them untouched, however, and focusing on guns that look scarier in pictures, or guns that they can misidentify as assault rifles nee assault "style" rifles. In reality, that class of firearms is filled with hunting rifles and target guns painted black. It's a manufactured boogeyman. I'm no fan of the AR series, but at least I know what it is...and what it isn't.

The AR series is the darling of well moneyed target shooters and 3 gun comp runners. A demographic that, emphatically, does -not- shoot people - not even in self defense (they're rarely in such a position). It;s not the go-to gun of the criminal or the criminally insane. It's the go-to gun of middle aged suburbanite white men with a few thousand dollars to spare and no criminal record. They're hard to get ahold of, easy to spot, difficult to use, and most commonly chambered in .22 centerfire or other small game rounds (to keep target shooting costs down). Functionally, they're no different than the old long wooden barrel loading .22 semi autos no one worries about.....except they jam alot more often. Their main advantage, their reason for existence, is that a short barreled carbine puts less stress on the shooters arms, leading to tighter shot groupings at-range on a range. That they have a military pedigree is marketing, entirely untrue, but effective for pushing units through retailers and working the gun control crowd up into a frenzy state where their comments are no longer representative of reality, where their solutions can not and will not achieve their aims.

(February 15, 2016 at 7:48 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Home defense is a good argument for gun ownership but I don't think this is really being threatened by gun regulation.

In my case it is. I defend my home with an AR15.