Gun Use, and targeting, training and self defence

[DanielDeFig]

snip

Sigh. You are still missing the point. I know non-lethal weaponry isn't 100% safe, but it's a lot safer than guns, and they serve the same purpose of self-defence. As you said yourself guns are efficient and easy to use, so are most non-lethal alternatives. So why not buy a non-lethal alternative, and encourage others to so do? The increased use will cause an increase in demand , which means more investment and money id put into making such weapons safer, easier to use, and more readily available to the public, but also better address the need to atop assailants more effectively.

All i'm asking is that you consider an alternative for your need of a tool to defend yourself with. One that has u much smaller risk of killing an individual.

No. Life wasn't better before, people were raped, murdered, and simply died off from disease at such a high rate that violence and death wasn't news like it is today.

And finally. Killing is ethically wrong. You can never logically argue for killing to be right. It may sometimes be necessary, but it will still be wrong. And When we have reached a technological level where we can travel to the moon, i'm sure we can come up with non-lethal methods for defending ourselves against other people.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Honestly, the idea that a good is to be used for "Self Defence" is just silly.

"Somebody is breaking into my house and wants to steals my insured $500 TV."

"I MUST END THEIR LIFE OR MAIM THEM CONSIDERABLY"

Seriously? Sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself if you can, but, damn.

It's nice to see someone with a sane mind and attitude on this thread.

Yeah, how does A = B in that scenario? If anything, Burglars in my house = Stop them = call the police. If the burglar gets away, there will be evidence around that might lead to their capture, along with the guy selling a $500 TV down the street or on Ebay (probably very cheap too, only $300). If nothing else, like you said, that's what insurance is there for.

 

[Scolar Visari]

This is why I want dogs to defend my property and my person. Dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark, they shoot bees at you.

Either that, or a robotic Richard Simmons.

BEEEEEESSSS!!!

But why robot Richard? When you lose his sweaty chunk bouncing around in spandex you lose a lot of the power.

Anyway, it seems like some people imagine the U.S. to be some sort of modern O.K. Corral where people are involved in rolling firefights to just get to the corner store. Everyday millions of gun owners go about their daily lives and nothing happens. But when something does happen, the media acts like Stalin just did a backflip out of his grave.

To the OP's points:

1. Tranqs are misrepresented by Hollywood. The actual act of tranquilizing something is an incredibly involved process that requires you to be able to accurately measure out the required sedatives for a particular subject. Getting the amount wrong can either have no effect or a lethal effect. Even then, it would take the chemicals some time to circulate through the body. Not a viable option.

2. Less Than Lethal (LTL) ammunition is so far only usable really in shotguns and purpose built LTL launchers. As others have pointed out, LTL munitions are far from safe and if used improperly can easily result in death.

3. There is no nonlethal spot to aim for. I have a picture of a gentleman who had a negligent discharge cut through both of his femoral arteries, would you like to see just how much blood he lost in a couple of minutes? Anyway, one of the first things to go in a high stress situation is fine motor skills and tunnel vision can also set in. This is why you're trained to fire at the center mass of a human. It's the largest part and contains most of the organs.

Also: Vid related. What some people think the average afternoon in the U.S. is like.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Honestly, the idea that a good is to be used for "Self Defence" is just silly.

"Somebody is breaking into my house and wants to steals my insured $500 TV."

"I MUST END THEIR LIFE OR MAIM THEM CONSIDERABLY"

Seriously? Sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself if you can, but, damn.

It's nice to see someone with a sane mind and attitude on this thread.

Yeah, how does A = B in that scenario? If anything, Burglars in my house = Stop them = call the police. If the burglar gets away, there will be evidence around that might lead to their capture, along with the guy selling a $500 TV down the street or on Ebay (probably very cheap too, only $300). If nothing else, like you said, that's what insurance is there for.

Why is it always black and white on these forums?

Everyone seems to think that if you own guns, you will always shoot people regardless of the situation. That frankly is not true. I am a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I've never drawn my weapon in self-defense and I pray that I will never have to. Though I have been in some scary situations, I didn't feel that the use of lethal force was necessary to defuse the situation. Hell, I've been mugged before while concealed carrying. The guy threatened me with a knife. It was really quite pathetic on his part, but I took out my wallet, removed my ID and threw the whole thing on the ground behind him. Then I turned and ran. I think I lost like $50 cash and my debit card in that ordeal, but a quick phone call the the bank shut down the card. No big deal.

Example 2: This particular story happened to me. I conceal carry every now and then (depending on what I'm wearing) and it's really quite normal for me to have a firearm on my person. I'm from a Castle Law state. About 4 months ago I went outside to my truck to get a text book for a paper I was writing (I had a firearm on my person,) it was about 9:30 at night. So, I walk out to my truck and standing on my property are two teenagers fucking with my vehicle. According the state law I could have shot and killed both of them with no repercussions.

But I didn't. I didn't feel threatened by them. Hell, I was pissed about my truck, but I never once thought about shooting these two kids. Instead, I called the police and reported what happened and the like. The police showed up and took care of the situation and made the kids pay for what they had done.

Let there be no mistake. If ever a situation arises that I believe I will die if I do not use lethal force, I will not hesitate to neutralize the threat with deadly force.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Sigh. You are still missing the point. I know non-lethal weaponry isn't 100% safe, but it's a lot safer than guns, and they serve the same purpose of self-defence. As you said yourself guns are efficient and easy to use, so are most non-lethal alternatives. So why not buy a non-lethal alternative, and encourage others to so do?

First of all, NO the less-than-lethal alternatices AREN'T as effective or easy to use as guns. As I've previously said in this very thread, a stun-gun or tazer have NO GUARANTEE to actually be effective against a target. Some people think it hurts so much that they become incapacitated by them. Some think it hurts but can still act with some added strain and SOME are COMPLETELY UNAFFECTED by the currents generated by such weapons.

THAT'S WHY you can't expect people to be encouraged to use such weapons for purposes of self-defense- Self-defense is about safeguarding your own life, and what you're asking people to do is to try and safeguard their lives with a weapon that MIGHT help them to do that. It would be the same thing like walking around with a revolver with only half the chamers loaded. You might actually get away a shot, but you might just as well try to fire an empty chamber, and by then the assailant might have already tackled you to the ground and snatched your weapon away from you.

That's why you don't buy less than lethal (as I've said "non-lethal" doesn't exist when it comes to weapons), because they are unreliable to fill their function depending on the target you are forced to use them on.

Oh, and a sidenote about stun-guns and tazers: In sweden, they are banned under the laws concerning firearms. I.e if I carry a stun-gun (a less than lethal weapon) and I get arrested then im going to be charged with a felony just as I would've been charged if I carried a gun on me. in other words, in the eyes of the Swedish legal system, carrying a stun-gun on your person is just as bad as carrying an actual firearm.

The increased use will cause an increase in demand , which means more investment and money id put into making such weapons safer, easier to use, and more readily available to the public, but also better address the need to atop assailants more effectively.

Not likely. The increase in use of already ineffective and unreliable weapons will only serve to make companies try to sell them as much as possible. If you promote the manufacture and sale of an inferior product by buying it then the company making it will have no incentive to improve it. People are buying it after all so what reason would they have to spend profits in R&D to improve it?

If however the government let people arm themselves with guns and this leads to a significant increase in deaths during self-defense related issue then the government might be pressured into trying to fund a company to develop such weapons with the goal of letting citizens arm themselves with those instead.

So basically in order for a proper incentive to be generated, some bodies of assailants have to pile up in the streets first. Otherwise there will be no reason to develop the needed product.

All i'm asking is that you consider an alternative for your need of a tool to defend yourself with. One that has u much smaller risk of killing an individual.

Im using a punch-dagger at the moment. Easy to conceal, easy to use, quick to pull out and I've trained with a variety of knives as well as had some actual experience in fighting with a bladed weapon against an opponent armed with the same thing, so I can actually control my thrusts and slashes so that they either just cut skin and give the target a good scare or sever major blood vessels/rupture internal organs depending on what I need to do.

That said, the only reason this would have a smaller risk of me killing anyone has more to do with my skills than the weapon I use. Someone who don't know how to use it could just as easily kill someone by accident. Also they run a great risk of getting taken down anyway than they would using a gun. Some aggressors just don't take the hint even if you pull a blade and tell them to back off an leave you alone.

No. Life wasn't better before, people were raped, murdered, and simply died off from disease at such a high rate that violence and death wasn't news like it is today.

It's not news today either. People get raped and murdered each day no matter where you go in the world, but that wasn't the question I asked. The question was that if regular people could all carry guns in the open and in public and not get embroiled in daily shootouts like you imply, then what makes you so sure that this would happen today?

And finally. Killing is ethically wrong. You can never logically argue for killing to be right. It may sometimes be necessary, but it will still be wrong. And When we have reached a technological level where we can travel to the moon, i'm sure we can come up with non-lethal methods for defending ourselves against other people.

Ethics are not universal. Ethics and morals are relative matters, so it is very possible to argue that killing is right. For instance I can easily argue that it is right to kill in self-defense if you genuinely believe that your life is being threatened and when another person basically force you to choose between your on life and their life.

And also it doesn't matter what we "can" come up with. The fact remains that we haven't come up with such methods yet that are equally effective as the lethal methods. Your argument bottles down way too much to things that "could be" and how you "want" them to be, but when all is said and done, that is irrelevant to the current situation.

I focus on how things are now, and what kind of actual impact on society that naive idealism has.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Why is it always black and white on these forums?

Everyone seems to think that if you own guns, you will always shoot people regardless of the situation. That frankly is not true. I am a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I've never drawn my weapon in self-defense and I pray that I will never have to. Though I have been in some scary situations, I didn't feel that the use of lethal force was necessary to defuse the situation. Hell, I've been mugged before while concealed carrying. The guy threatened me with a knife. It was really quite pathetic on his part, but I took out my wallet, removed my ID and threw the whole thing on the ground behind him. Then I turned and ran. I think I lost like $50 cash and my debit card in that ordeal, but a quick phone call the the bank shut down the card. No big deal.

Example 2: This particular story happened to me. I conceal carry every now and then (depending on what I'm wearing) and it's really quite normal for me to have a firearm on my person. I'm from a Castle Law state. About 4 months ago I went outside to my truck to get a text book for a paper I was writing (I had a firearm on my person,) it was about 9:30 at night. So, I walk out to my truck and standing on my property are two teenagers fucking with my vehicle. According the state law I could have shot and killed both of them with no repercussions.

But I didn't. I didn't feel threatened by them. Hell, I was pissed about my truck, but I never once thought about shooting these two kids. Instead, I called the police and reported what happened and the like. The police showed up and took care of the situation and made the kids pay for what they had done.

Let there be no mistake. If ever a situation arises that I believe I will die if I do not use lethal force, I will not hesitate to neutralize the threat with deadly force.

You are clearly a reasonable person. The examples you have shown are pretty much how i believe those situations should be handled. You say you are ready to use lethal force only to preserve you own life, which i can agree with.

Do you really need a gun though? If you approach crime as you have explained, do you believe you will ever be in a situation where your life will be threatened by criminals? And if they do discover you are concealing a weapon, don't you think you are simply giving them a reason to kill you (to prevent you from killing them)?

A Taxi driver her in Nairobi bough a large wooden stick from a street vendor while we were in a queue. When i asked him what it was for, he said it was to fend of thieves. It was all he needed to feel safe in a city rife with armed kidnappings and robberies. I'm thinking he was only expecting knife-wielding assailants, but he didn't feel the need to carry a knife himself to respond in kind.

I'm really just trying to find out how similar approaches to being targeted by crime, end up with one feeling the need to own lethal weapons, and the other not.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Well, I just put this in the other thread:

Well, I feel the UK's gun laws prior to the 1987 Hungerford massacre were fine. Semi automatic rifles and shotguns as well as handguns being legal to own but with very strict registration laws. The strict laws and low ownership rates meant that guns were never really an issue in terms of either causing or preventing crime, the changes just meant a few gun owners had to get rid of weapons, although there are certain loopholes.
I would love to own a Lee Enfield and in theory I could but it's quite a long drawn out and expensive process to get all the paperwork and other things necessary to own one. Of course it would be used for target shooting rather than self defence and I don't feel the need for a weapon for self defence.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Snip.

Ethics are universal, morals are relative. I have Studied philosophy, and continue to pursue it outside of class.

That's all i have to say. Now it's late, i'm tired of arguing and i'm going to go watch LoadingReadyRun for some laughs. If you insist on continuing this discussion, leave a message and i will deal with it tomorrow.

 

[macfluffers]

Ethics are universal, morals are relative.

Um...what? Ethics and morals are synonyms. My ethics teacher even says that any difference in the two terms is based on feeling, not semantics.

 

[s0m3th1ng]

Hello there fellow boys, girls, men and women
This topic is not a new one and there will be many more like this. I dont own a gun, i dont want a gun and i dont think i will ever need a gun. however other people do/think they do, so i was wondering to those people who do use, own and need a gun.

The major argument for the use and requirement for a gun is self defense correct? I will agree with that much, however the Ammo that people use is a concern, Why do you need the projectiles that most people use for self defense. For example the use of non-lethal bullets that cause pain or disorientation to the target rather then a puncture wound. Why not want the use of a Tanq gun instead, non lethal (directly non lethal, however the target would still be vulnerable to their environmental surroundings.) If your not willing to do this do you decide to aim for non-lethal shots or are you trained to so? Aiming for the Arm, leg sholders seems to be more tactical then aiming for the center mass of another person.

Why do you guys think, feel free to rip into me for my lack of knowledge on the subject or my all around Hippyness, i will try to rebuttal to all that i can.

There is no such thing as a "tranq" gun being used for self-defense. The tranquilizers take minutes to take affect...not exactly an attribute you want when an assailant comes at you. not to mentioned the extremely tight tolerances you are working with when you inject those chemicals into a human body. Doctors spend years learning how to properly anesthetize people. A catch-all tranq gun is a figment of Hollywood. You would kill your attacker as surely as shooting him in the face.

Also, there is a list of guidelines you MUST follow before you are legally and morally allowed to shoot someone.
* There must be an real and immediate threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault such that a normal person believes Deadly Force is necessary.
* The threat must be otherwise unavoidable.
* You cannot instigate the dispute: "If you start a fight, you lose your rights."
* You cannot use excessive force.

If you were to wound someone rather than making a kill shot, you are pretty much admitting to the courts that you were not in a life threatening situation and could have resolved the incident without shooting. Concealed weapon permit owners are taught to ALWAYS shoot to kill. A dead person can't testify against you in court.
Also, it is extremely hard to actually shoot a single body part at will under duress. Even at the average distance of gun-related incidents, 18 feet, you have a very low chance of "wounding" a target unless you are combat trained and conditioned.
So, there's some learnin for yah.

 

[Regular Guy]

1. Nonlethal weapons are really, extremely inconsistent. Rubber bullets have been known to bounce off harmlessly at times, but they are extremely capable of killing a person if they impact the neck, head (especially eye), or other fragile regions. Tazers often fail to penetrate clothing (both electrodes have to contact skin to deliver a shock), and if swept off of the skin fast enough, an attacker can regain his composure.
2. Pistols are a whole lot more difficult to aim than videogames would have you believe. Combine this with the fact that you're probably getting burglarized at night, and you only have a short time to draw and fire, and you're scared shitless, and going for tiny targets like arms and legs is pretty much impossible. Center of mass is the way to go.

So yeah, for self defense, guns are the most effective tool.

 

[macfluffers]

Sorry, didn't mean to post this.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Why is it always black and white on these forums?

Everyone seems to think that if you own guns, you will always shoot people regardless of the situation. That frankly is not true. I am a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I've never drawn my weapon in self-defense and I pray that I will never have to. Though I have been in some scary situations, I didn't feel that the use of lethal force was necessary to defuse the situation. Hell, I've been mugged before while concealed carrying. The guy threatened me with a knife. It was really quite pathetic on his part, but I took out my wallet, removed my ID and threw the whole thing on the ground behind him. Then I turned and ran. I think I lost like $50 cash and my debit card in that ordeal, but a quick phone call the the bank shut down the card. No big deal.

Example 2: This particular story happened to me. I conceal carry every now and then (depending on what I'm wearing) and it's really quite normal for me to have a firearm on my person. I'm from a Castle Law state. About 4 months ago I went outside to my truck to get a text book for a paper I was writing (I had a firearm on my person,) it was about 9:30 at night. So, I walk out to my truck and standing on my property are two teenagers fucking with my vehicle. According the state law I could have shot and killed both of them with no repercussions.

But I didn't. I didn't feel threatened by them. Hell, I was pissed about my truck, but I never once thought about shooting these two kids. Instead, I called the police and reported what happened and the like. The police showed up and took care of the situation and made the kids pay for what they had done.

Let there be no mistake. If ever a situation arises that I believe I will die if I do not use lethal force, I will not hesitate to neutralize the threat with deadly force.

You are clearly a reasonable person. The examples you have shown are pretty much how i believe those situations should be handled. You say you are ready to use lethal force only to preserve you own life, which i can agree with.

Do you really need a gun though? If you approach crime as you have explained, do you believe you will ever be in a situation where your life will be threatened by criminals? And if they do discover you are concealing a weapon, don't you think you are simply giving them a reason to kill you (to prevent you from killing them)?

A Taxi driver her in Nairobi bough a large wooden stick from a street vendor while we were in a queue. When i asked him what it was for, he said it was to fend of thieves. It was all he needed to feel safe in a city rife with armed kidnappings and robberies. I'm thinking he was only expecting knife-wielding assailants, but he didn't feel the need to carry a knife himself to respond in kind.

I'm really just trying to find out how similar approaches to being targeted by crime, end up with one feeling the need to own lethal weapons, and the other not.

A lot of it has to due with how we were raised. I'm from a gun owning, hunting family. I've always been around guns my whole life and we take them very very seriously (we were taught to respect guns with almost religious reverence in regards to philosophy of use and safety.) My father, though a gun owner of many years has never carried a weapon for self defense, and never will. Though he doesn't disagree with using weapons for self defense, he just chooses not to carry.

I on the other hand like to have options. I don't solely carry a firearm in my every day carry, I also have pepper spray and a knife, all of which are easily concealed and accessible. On days when I can't conceal a weapon, or don't feel like carrying, I ALWAYS have at least pepper spray and a knife on me. 99.9% of the time I'm out of my home, I never feel threatened by anyone or any situation. But that 0.1% of extreme situations need to be met with extreme measures. You could say I'm overly prepared for what I may be up against. But I want to be sure that the outcome will be in my favor.

 

[shootthebandit]

best way to defend yourself against someone with a gun is.......... the answer may surprise you..............DONT HAVE A GUN.

think about it. live by the sword, die by the sword. if someone mugs you just give them what they want, if you pull a gun on them they are more likely to shoot you. if i had to choose id choose my life over my wallet 100% of the time

 

[WrongSprite]

The purpose of a gun (and that attack) remains: to kill another person (Accidents happen, and sometimes thats a good thing, obviously).
All i'm saying is that if you insist that you own a gun for "personal defense", owning a non-lethal weapon would decrease the chances that whomever you are defending yourself against dies. If all you want to do is to stop someone from doing something (stealing, vandalism, rape, murder), you do not need to kill them to do that.
There is technology available to achieve the same effect, except chances of survival for everyone involved are increased drastically. (There really should be a lot more money into research into widely available non-lethal weaponry)

(yeah i suppose capitalizing always was a pretty bad move. I was trying to point out that guns are built for killing, i just ended up wording it weirdly)

It seems you aren't looking at these situations in a realistic manner. If someone is inside my house swiping my stuff, I'm not going to take my chances with a close-range or one-use thing like a taser or mace. I don't know if they are armed or not, and I'm not going to wait and find out. I doubt you would, either. Because at that point I'm not worried about whether or not they die. I'm worried about MY safety, because I know they sure as hell aren't worried about me.


The fact is criminals have guns, and they always will until something even more dangerous and effective hits the market. How is it "safe" "logical" or even "ethical" to say that everybody shouldn't have guns? Because criminals will always have access to guns--and that is a definite and irrefutable ALWAYS. Washington DC is proof of that, and that is why they repealed their gun ordinance. Taking away guns from regular citizens only puts the criminals at an advantage. They KNOW when they walk into a store or break into a house that nobody there will have a gun, and they can take their time thinking up all of the ways they can exploit that for its full effect.

Actually, when citizens aren't allowed guns, as they aren't here in the UK, it does become very difficult for criminals to obtain them. The majority of our burglaries aren't armed, especially compared to countries that allow guns.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Which is utter bullshit since statistics show that countries and states with the more liberal gun-laws actually epxerience A LOT less violent crime where guns are used than more restrictive states and countries do.

No, that's a lie put out by people with other reasons not to see guns restricted.

Some actual statistics by actual statistical agencies:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

You will note that the US has a massively larger amount of homicides than nations such as the UK (including Northern Ireland), Australa etc with tougher restrictions on firearms.

No there is no such technology available that guarantee's 100 percent effectiveness at stopping a human being in it's tracks like live ammunition fired from a gun does.

I would like to point out that live ammunition is not guaranteed to stop a human in it's tracks either. Shooting to wound is perfectly possible, and happens quite frequently. Just not intentionally, and it leads to people (including trained police officers, who you'd think would know better) being injured or killed by persons that didn't go down like they do in the movies. Shooting someone through the heart may not stop voluntary movement for something like 10 seconds, that's why police snipers aim for a specific part of the head.

 

[subfield]

Unfortunately for people in the U.S., the citizens there have the right to "bear arms". So there are really two answers to the "what do I think".

1) If you don't live in the U.S. or some other country where every other person has a weapon either at home or on them or can buy one at the local Walmart, the question is trivially answered - I'll leave whoever reads to this to do that themselves.

2) If you do, all I can say is sorry, but you've got yourself a dilemma. Should be clear that such a thing can only be resolved by an individual - so again, I leave it to the reader.

 

[omega 616]

I don't like the idea of guns in a domestic setting.

There is the whole self defence thing but it is just escalating the situation, from loaing a few things (which isn't a problem if your insured) to somebody losing there life. I don't really care what you have in your house, life is worth more (is some cases it is a close call though).

Guns in America are (seemingly) easy as hell to buy, your local supermarket sells them! So you can end up with a house with more guns than the local police. How many shootings have there been in America, from traffic cops to bank robberies to school shootings and the whole gang culture (crips/bloods and the rest of them stupid gits) thing.

In England it is much harder to get hold of one (unless you know the right people), so instead knives are used. There are farmers who have them for "pest" control and pellet guns are quite easy to get but the serious stuff is hard to get. (just going off my own experiance)

The only people who should have guns are farmers, police and the armed forces. Nobody else needs one, if you really need defence? Get a Baseball bat, good security and a house alarm.

Anyway, can any of these gun onwers actually see themselvs killing another person? Watching the life drain from them Explaining to the cops what happened? Living with the memory of what happened? Who knows who will be effected by your choice.

I don't think I could do it.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

When you say that the woman should have shot her assailant and "hopefully" killed him, you show how little you value human lives. Personally i find it disgusting that someone "hopes" for someone else to die. I don't care who they are or what they have done, NO ONE deserves to die.

People die every day, none of them deserved it. There is no such thing as good and evil, and belief that there is makes it very easy for people to dehumanize others. And only once we dehumanize others can we feel anything but disgusted at killing other people (because we no longer see them as people, as a reflection of ourselves).

Yes well when your being raped, remember that. A rapist as far as I am concerned has no life. They are beyond lifeless, and they do not qualify as humans. Period. I would not hesitate to put a bullet in a man's head that was raping a women if i saw them in the alleyway. OF course this would be after telling the guy to get of the gal and get up against the wall and phoning the police before I approached.

There are two reasons:

1) I'm a small guy, close quarter combats don't WORK for us. They don't. Until technology comes up with better personal defense, guns are the way it is. Plain and simple. I honestly could care less about the attacker. If it's between myself or others and the attacker, I honestly going to care more about the people and myself than the attacker.

2) He choosed to attack/rob/whatever myself or others, he will bare the result of the consequences. Period. If he exhibits extreme danger to myself or others that I cannot handle without a gun, then I will surely as the sun rise put a bullet in his head or body for the trouble he caused.

Just to toss that in, yeah there is such a thing as good and evil, and our values that are given to us when we're growing up. Rape = Bad. Killing = Bad. Killing in self-defense of yourself and others = Kind-of good if you can live with yourself. Morality is what we make of it.

Also People die all the time because of their own stupidity. Stepping on a land mine in a clearly marked mine field. Not putting on their seat belt, so when they do get in a car crash they are propelled out the wind shield. Life is all with risks. People die more often of their own stupidity nowadays. While they did not deserve to die, they did not learn from past mistakes they and others have proven. Other low life's like rapists and child molesters - I have beyond disgust for them. If I catch them in the act, I'm more than likely to attempt to beat the **** out of them. Same as many others would. Society and parents, but most important - our selves determine what values we like to have in this world. The world is but a large board where people attempt to get their values dominant throughout society. Why? Because they are better able to one up the other person. Home turf and all that. Also there is other benefits that morality or value might bring.

No, that's a lie put out by people with other reasons not to see guns restricted.

Some actual statistics by actual statistical agencies:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

You will note that the US has a massively larger amount of homicides than nations such as the UK (including Northern Ireland), Australia etc with tougher restrictions on firearms.

Yes but you also have a 200% burglary rate of the US when you factor in size of population. You may have less deaths, but your other crimes are much higher than the US when compared and scaled correctly. We deal with murders/homicides more often, but you deal with increased Burglaries/Home invasions and car jackings? Think I rather take the murder and the homicides. At least I have a chance to defend myself. Not to mention that the UK has a total crime rate of roughly half of America. Not to mention your population is 61 million compared to America's 307 million. If your going to compare the UK or any such things, you have to factor in populations.

It's like rolling 6 dice and saying your opponent gets 30 dice and whoever gets the most 3's is bad off. Obviously America is going to have a higher gun rate death. Compare all of Europe and then tell me that America has the worse crime rate.

 

[manaman]

The purpose of a gun (and that attack) remains: to kill another person (Accidents happen, and sometimes thats a good thing, obviously).
All i'm saying is that if you insist that you own a gun for "personal defense", owning a non-lethal weapon would decrease the chances that whomever you are defending yourself against dies. If all you want to do is to stop someone from doing something (stealing, vandalism, rape, murder), you do not need to kill them to do that.
There is technology available to achieve the same effect, except chances of survival for everyone involved are increased drastically. (There really should be a lot more money into research into widely available non-lethal weaponry)

(yeah i suppose capitalizing always was a pretty bad move. I was trying to point out that guns are built for killing, i just ended up wording it weirdly)

It seems you aren't looking at these situations in a realistic manner. If someone is inside my house swiping my stuff, I'm not going to take my chances with a close-range or one-use thing like a taser or mace. I don't know if they are armed or not, and I'm not going to wait and find out. I doubt you would, either. Because at that point I'm not worried about whether or not they die. I'm worried about MY safety, because I know they sure as hell aren't worried about me.

The fact is criminals have guns, and they always will until something even more dangerous and effective hits the market. How is it "safe" "logical" or even "ethical" to say that everybody shouldn't have guns? Because criminals will always have access to guns--and that is a definite and irrefutable ALWAYS. Washington DC is proof of that, and that is why they repealed their gun ordinance. Taking away guns from regular citizens only puts the criminals at an advantage. They KNOW when they walk into a store or break into a house that nobody there will have a gun, and they can take their time thinking up all of the ways they can exploit that for its full effect.

It is safe, logical, and especially ethical to say no-one should have guns. When civilians have guns. they escalate crimes, because now everyone has a gun, and crimes turn into shootouts.

Look, you ppl from the USA have to realize this: Gun legislation is not an issue in most first-world countries (not including USA). Guns are illegal for civilians without a license, it's difficult to even get a hunting Rifle (but possible, if you are actually interested). The black market for guns is small, so if anyone is seen with a gun in public, police are informed and the person in question will be asked to show proof of licence.

Guns are not really an issue outside of the USA. In most third-world countries, it's still illegal, but the black market is bigger because the police is easily bribed (low wages, due to low government budgets, etc.).
Guns are an issue, in that a lot of criminals can easily get a hold of them. But i don't think iv'e ever heard of third-world countries proposing introducing gun ownership as a solution. Why? Because its not a solution to the problem, only an escalation of it. Both the civilians and the political officials seem to know this.

A country where some states have legalized civilian gun ownership, and others have banned it, is obviously going to have some problems. What most of us outside the USA don't get is: Why would a civilian need a gun in the first place? We just don't understand why you would feel the need to use one, unless you were a criminal (so you can get what you want by force). Stopping criminals is a job for the police.
If most ppl in the USA had a gun in their house, of course simple burglar will bring guns to meet that threat. Most burglaries are just opportunistic, they're not there to kill you. So why would you feel the need to kill them? You can simply call the police, while locking yourself up in a room somewhere.

I would like to know where you got this information. Study names? Personal experience? Word of mouth? Say comment sense and I will tell you all about how uncommon common sense actually is.

The fact is using police reports from all 3,200 plus counties in the US it was determined shots are fired in less the 8% of reported cases a gun was used in defense by a civilian. It was walk uncovered that a large number of cases where a crime is prevented go unreported to the police. There are estimates as low as .9% of the is a gun actual fired in defense, and that the majority of the time it is fired, warning shots are used. Police on the other had fire as often as 30% of the time they draw a gun in defense, and they are not in the practice of firming warning shots.

Catching criminals is the job of police but most police forces sure, and it would all be great if a cop followed me around 24 hours a day and prevented all harm to me, but how in the world am I supposed to co the cops while the crack head tugging me is stealing my cell phone, and even if I could most cities have response times exceeding 8 minutes.