Another gun thread...

[The Grand Nudger]

Strictly speaking Tibs, -your- chances are about the same either way, it's the guy who broke in that just had his odds cut (if we put a weapon in the hands of the homeowner). I do want to mention that other people in the area have all just had their odds cut a bit as well, as there are now two weapons firing in (presumably) opposite directions. It really is a bad idea to discharge a firearm in a populated area. In the self defense scenario, I personally could not justify it unless the intruder had already opened fire on me and I felt like there was a reasonable expectation that I would not survive (simply opening fire won't evoke that response in me btw). I wouldn't shoot -a burglar-, but I might be tempted to shoot someone who is shooting at me, I guess is how I'd phrase it.

(I'd talk anyone who'd listens ear off about the realities of firefights on urban terrain btw, gives me a chance to be nostalgiac..lol)

The above bit about chances btw....assumes that it's your run of the mill surprise in the middle of the night. If the person inside has any notice that a person is attempting a breach - and all other things being equal - which they rarely are- , then there's actually very little chance for the person breaching to survive (single digits...I shit you not-the subject has been researched..lol), and very little risk to the person that's already entrenched.

[JohnDG]

They are right Tiberious, it's idiological nonsense. It won't change reality, it's simply there to make you feel better, like you have some measure of control. It's impossible to be free, we just have to accept what is present and exist in this reality while trying to conform.

[Napoléon]

It's relevant because the 2nd amendment was written precisely because the USA had been born through a violent uprising against an oppressive government. The founding fathers surmised that the same action might be needed again. That is why it is relevant today.

Couldn't disagree more. That amendment was written in a time when bullets took minutes to fire not seconds. It really isn't the same.

It's outdated.

Because the citizens can fight back against oppression.

So let me get this straight.

You think that the 2nd amendment enables citizens to fight an authority with the power and wealth the size of the US army. Riiight. Keep telling yourself that.

With the number of laws going around in recent years that try to reduce civil liberties, this mindset is still relevant today, if not more so.

To me, owning a gun shouldn't be a civil liberty in the first place. Just my opinion.

I fail to see how that topic is completely different now to what it was then. This is a universal truth of governments; if you have a government which holds all the power, it will become tyrannical (I have never seen a benevolent dictatorship). If a government is restricted and controlled by the electorate, liberty is maximized.

It's massively different because the times are different. Again, when the laws were made about gun ownership, no one at that point envisioned automatic assault rifles that could deal the kind of damage they do today. How can you say it is the same? Aside from the guns themselves, what about the US military. Again the notion that the general public could take on this sort of government, it's ludicrous and outdated.

If you're talking about governments in general, then that quote wasn't even relevant to this thread was it?

Are you saying there are more effective ways to enslave people than to take away their methods of fighting enslavement?

Did I say that? What does it matter? I've not been talking about enslaving anyone.

The idea that the general public can 'fight against' an oppressive government (in America and in this day and age) is an absurd notion when it comes to guns. If Americans were to fight a battle against an oppressive government all guns would do would amplify the amount of people dead. There's other ways to fight against oppressive governments than going all redneck and blowing each other to pieces.

Given the number of criminals who are killed by people in self-defense in America, I'd say this mindset is very much in date. If a person breaks into your home, they will rarely stay long enough for the police to show up, that is, if you manage to call them. If you have a gun, you can stop the criminal yourself.

Well, it's as in date a mindset as believing that Noah built an ark as far as I'm concerned.

Saying that people do think that way makes it no better or worse. You're just stating the obvious.

Having a gun makes it no easier to stop a criminal in the act, I'd like to see the stats that prove this.

How about this one? A criminal breaks into your home carrying a gun. Are your chances of survival higher if you have a gun, or if you don't? Without a gun, the criminal could shoot you easily. With one, you can shoot them back.

I think Rhythm answered this, but a gun in no way makes your chances of survival higher. I really think you're deluding yourself if you think that it is. You're equally as likely to miss and take a bullet to the brain yourself as you are to shoot anyone.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be fair...our foreign adventures have clearly shown that you -can- resist US influence with very little in the way of weapons tech - not that we didn't already realize this........
(extend this to domestic experience)

[Tiberius]

Couldn't disagree more. That amendment was written in a time when bullets took minutes to fire not seconds. It really isn't the same.

It's outdated.

The first amendment was written at a time when speaking freely and openly to someone across the country took weeks, not seconds. It really isn't the same.

It's outdated.

So let me get this straight.

You think that the 2nd amendment enables citizens to fight an authority with the power and wealth the size of the US army. Riiight. Keep telling yourself that.

That is exactly what it says. The 2nd amendment says this:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, because the security of a free state requires the presence of a militia (i.e. the US Army), it is also necessary for the people of that state to keep and bear arms, in case a time arises when the people need to fight back against the government.

You make the big mistake of assuming that in a civil war with the people against the government, the government would have complete control over the army they have now. That wouldn't be the case, for the simple reason that some of those soldiers would defect to the side of the people. This is exactly how it went down in the American Revolution. All soldiers in America were British and part of the British Army at that time, but many defected and became the Continental Army.

It's massively different because the times are different. Again, when the laws were made about gun ownership, no one at that point envisioned automatic assault rifles that could deal the kind of damage they do today. How can you say it is the same? Aside from the guns themselves, what about the US military. Again the notion that the general public could take on this sort of government, it's ludicrous and outdated.

If you're talking about governments in general, then that quote wasn't even relevant to this thread was it?

I never said it was the same, but the point is, it doesn't matter that there are now automatic assault rifles. The founding fathers never envisioned something like the Internet either, but that doesn't mean laws regarding freedom of speech or a right to privacy should change.

What matters is, the 2nd amendment is there so that revolution can happen if it is needed. A revolution is more easily fought if the side of the people is roughly evenly matched with that of the government. The government have access to assault weapons; so should the people. Before the point about WMDs is brought up, I should point out that even in the event of a civil war, it is unlikely that he government would nuke its own country, so I don't see why they would be needed by anyone.

See above for my comments about why your assertion that the general public couldn't take on the US government is in my opinion, relying on bad assumptions.

Did I say that? What does it matter? I've not been talking about enslaving anyone.

You made a comment about this quote not being relevant:

"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them."

The idea that the general public can 'fight against' an oppressive government (in America and in this day and age) is an absurd notion when it comes to guns. If Americans were to fight a battle against an oppressive government all guns would do would amplify the amount of people dead. There's other ways to fight against oppressive governments than going all redneck and blowing each other to pieces.

See above points.

Having a gun makes it no easier to stop a criminal in the act, I'd like to see the stats that prove this.

I'd have thought common sense would have done. If a criminal breaks into your house and you don't have a gun, you'll have to engage them in close combat (or more likely flee if they are well armed). If you do have a gun, and they don't, you clearly have the upper hand and can force them to leave. If they have a gun, then I still hold that you are better off with one, in case the criminal is crazy enough to try and use it. Burglaries where a criminal has shot the victim (either on purpose or by accident) do happen. Even worse than that, home invasions do happen, where people are held at gunpoint or beaten up. If someone came into my home for that purpose, I know I'd like to have some kind of weapon I can use at both long and short range.

I think Rhythm answered this, but a gun in no way makes your chances of survival higher. I really think you're deluding yourself if you think that it is. You're equally as likely to miss and take a bullet to the brain yourself as you are to shoot anyone.

I disagree with Rhythm's assessment and your own. I'd like to see where you got the "equally likely to miss" statistic. If you are trained in handling a firearm, your shot could be pretty accurate. I'm assuming here that any household with a gun knows how to use it, and has training in order to make them a better shot.

Sure, there is a risk of taking a bullet yourself, but that risk is there with or without your gun. A criminal with a gun is what you are facing.

There was a case in the UK recently where a farming couple used a shotgun against burglars who had invaded their home. They stopped the crime in the act. I'm not sure what the burglars were armed with, but it was likely knives. Without a gun, who knows, perhaps the couple would have been stabbed?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lei...e-19496531

[jonb]

I disagree with Rhythm's assessment and your own. I'd like to see where you got the "equally likely to miss" statistic. If you are trained in handling a firearm, your shot could be pretty accurate. I'm assuming here that any household with a gun knows how to use it, and has training in order to make them a better shot.

You would be surprised how much training it takes to get somebody to intentionally put a bit of lead in somebody else's body. Yes I know men talk big down the pub, but when faced with it it's another matter. Even then the effects on those that have shot and killed does not end when we say; well you had a perfect right to do that, and it was a good thing, and you were doing your job, and you protected us.

But hey this is a blokes debate, men have massive weapons, I want one is all that matters.

[popeyespappy]

I think Rhythm answered this, but a gun in no way makes your chances of survival higher.

Yep he did. His conclusion is different than yours. At least if you know they are coming and have just a little bit of time to prepare.

If the person inside has any notice that a person is attempting a breach - and all other things being equal - which they rarely are- , then there's actually very little chance for the person breaching to survive (single digits...I shit you not-the subject has been researched..lol), and very little risk to the person that's already entrenched.

I really think you're deluding yourself if you think that it is. You're equally as likely to miss and take a bullet to the brain yourself as you are to shoot anyone.

The evidence suggests your baseless assertion is wrong, Napo. In his paper Self-Defense with Guns: The Consequences, Lawrence Southwick found the exact opposite. Among other things he found that a woman that uses a gun to defend against rape is 2.5 times less likely to be injured than one that doesn’t resist and 4 times less likely to be injured than one that resists by any other means.

[Tiberius]

Cheers for the sources guys. I'll admit I haven't read much gun literature, but I'll read Southwick's paper. Anyone know where it can be obtained for free?

[popeyespappy]

Cheers for the sources guys. I'll admit I haven't read much gun literature, but I'll read Southwick's paper. Anyone know where it can be obtained for free?

Not me. I had to pay for access, but only after I tried to find it for free. There is some stuff in there I don't like. Namely he counts criminals using guns in self defense. Including criminals or the police skews the statistics in all kinds of ways. I don't like that when either side of the debate does it. It is also the reason I singled out the rape statistics.

[Napoléon]

The first amendment was written at a time when speaking freely and openly to someone across the country took weeks, not seconds. It really isn't the same.

It's outdated.

And I guess that's a fair comparison?

Freedom of speech is on par with the right to own a gun? The ability to say what you like, is on par with the ability to handle dangerous weaponry. Is this the comparison you're making?

That is exactly what it says.

I didn't ask for what it says. I asked for what it enables.

The 2nd amendment says this:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, because the security of a free state requires the presence of a militia (i.e. the US Army), it is also necessary for the people of that state to keep and bear arms, in case a time arises when the people need to fight back against the government.

You make the big mistake of assuming that in a civil war with the people against the government, the government would have complete control over the army they have now. That wouldn't be the case, for the simple reason that some of those soldiers would defect to the side of the people. This is exactly how it went down in the American Revolution. All soldiers in America were British and part of the British Army at that time, but many defected and became the Continental Army.

Yeah you're right, many in the army probably would defect. Never did I make the assumption they wouldn't. But for precisely that reason, why is it then necessary to arm average citizens as well as soldiers? I just don't buy that the average person with a gun would do anything but get their head blown off if they were to revolt. Not against the US military. Now if the military were to fight the military, then it's a different story. But if that's the case then what good becomes of arming citizens?

Maybe the impact of arming citizens against an oppressive government is where we disagree.

I never said it was the same, but the point is, it doesn't matter that there are now automatic assault rifles. The founding fathers never envisioned something like the Internet either, but that doesn't mean laws regarding freedom of speech or a right to privacy should change.

What matters is, the 2nd amendment is there so that revolution can happen if it is needed. A revolution is more easily fought if the side of the people is roughly evenly matched with that of the government. The government have access to assault weapons; so should the people. Before the point about WMDs is brought up, I should point out that even in the event of a civil war, it is unlikely that he government would nuke its own country, so I don't see why they would be needed by anyone.

So you think arming the population with assault rifles puts them on par with what the government can do? Oversimplification or what? The government has access to a shit ton more than assault rifles, yet we aren't crying that the american people should have access to all this other stuff such as tanks and fighter planes.

Even with that said, I still don't buy that it's a good enough reason that people should have access to these things as a right. I find it ludicrous. Hell, I find it funny that it's even talked about as though it's the real reason at all. People aren't getting their knickers in a twist because they might not be able to fight oppressive governments are they? How come the arguments about home invasion and the chances of death with or without guns come up as people's reasons for wanting to own a gun, yet these aren't the supposed reasons people have as a right to own guns in the first place?

I also still think it's an unfair comparison between what is essentially freedom of speech and the second amendment. They have drastically different potential outcomes (one being that people have access to life ending weaponry).

See above for my comments about why your assertion that the general public couldn't take on the US government is in my opinion, relying on bad assumptions.

I've not seen any reasoning or evidence to show that owning an assault rifle makes it any easier to fight an oppressive government. Unless I'm blind or have made a serious error in judgement here.

You made a comment about this quote not being relevant:

"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them."

My bad.

Guess I'll have to take the guy who said that's word for it then.

Having a gun makes it no easier to stop a criminal in the act, I'd like to see the stats that prove this.

I'd have thought common sense would have done.

It's obviously not that common.

If a criminal breaks into your house and you don't have a gun, you'll have to engage them in close combat (or more likely flee if they are well armed). If you do have a gun, and they don't, you clearly have the upper hand and can force them to leave.

I disagree with this. That having a gun necessarily empowers you to force an intruder to leave. Is it not possible the intruder could force the gun off you and shoot you with your own gun? Would this scenario not lead to having a gun being a fatal mistake? Is it that unlikely this could happen? Is that good enough reason to dismiss it?

If they have a gun, then I still hold that you are better off with one, in case the criminal is crazy enough to try and use it. Burglaries where a criminal has shot the victim (either on purpose or by accident) do happen. Even worse than that, home invasions do happen, where people are held at gunpoint or beaten up. If someone came into my home for that purpose, I know I'd like to have some kind of weapon I can use at both long and short range.

Burglaries happen, so on the off chance I get burgled I think I should have the right to blow the fuckers head off.

Fair enough. Guns are good in this instance right? Not disagreeing there.

But to me, the odd chance that a gun might defend you, is not good enough reason to have them as a right when the vast majority of times (I guess that's a bare assertion), guns just end up getting people killed, be that by the good guy or the bad guy.

I'd be interested to see the statistics on successful home invasion preventions directly because of guns, and the rest of deaths in america due to violent gun crime. Because essentially you're wiping out all the bad that happens with guns because some good can happen with them.

I disagree with Rhythm's assessment and your own. I'd like to see where you got the "equally likely to miss" statistic. If you are trained in handling a firearm, your shot could be pretty accurate. I'm assuming here that any household with a gun knows how to use it, and has training in order to make them a better shot.

So you're relying on this assertion that you would be a better shot than the burglar. Yeah, I'd like to see that statistic.

Sure, there is a risk of taking a bullet yourself, but that risk is there with or without your gun. A criminal with a gun is what you are facing.

Bolded because I think it's important. With or without a gun you still have a chance of getting shot. So how does that make having a gun any better than not. Guess we're gonna be going in circles here.

There was a case in the UK recently where a farming couple used a shotgun against burglars who had invaded their home. They stopped the crime in the act. I'm not sure what the burglars were armed with, but it was likely knives. Without a gun, who knows, perhaps the couple would have been stabbed?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lei...e-19496531

Perhaps they could of dropped the gun and ended up getting stabbed anyway? Perhaps the burglars had guns and shot both the farmers because they opened fire first?

We could draw any assertion we want as to what might have happened, either way it's still not a moving argument.

---

Yep he did. His conclusion is different than yours. At least if you know they are coming and have just a little bit of time to prepare.

Ahh my bad. I guess when people's houses get burgled they know about it in advance.

I really think you're deluding yourself if you think that it is. You're equally as likely to miss and take a bullet to the brain yourself as you are to shoot anyone.

The evidence suggests your baseless assertion is wrong, Napo. In his paper Self-Defense with Guns: The Consequences, Lawrence Southwick found the exact opposite. Among other things he found that a woman that uses a gun to defend against rape is 2.5 times less likely to be injured than one that doesn’t resist and 4 times less likely to be injured than one that resists by any other means.

Interesting. I will concede that I am perhaps wrong on that point. Still, as I've said, how does this negate the bad that happens with guns. How does this give you the right to own them.

For the record looking back on posts I've said some conflicting things. It's a complicated subject, I'm tired, and I'm still wrapping my head around a lot of this stuff, so forgive me if I have made any glaring contradictions. I don't pretend to know all the facts, and I'm still trying to make up my mind on several things so my opinions have probably changed since starting the thread.