Poll: is a gun a good tool to have in a household?

[DoctorNick]

I say yes, a gun is a very good tool to have in ones home.

In fact, I have no less than seven in my home.

Is that 'safe'?

'Safe' for who? For me? I like to think so, that's why I have them.

Safe for others? That depends on their intentions towards me.

Ultimately to me it doesn't matter one way or the other. We can dicker all day about the merits of civilian ownership of weapons and it effects on society but it all boils down to this:

Governments, over time, have a tendency to expand in their power and influence over the populace. I don't mean in a good way either, not that I'm accusing control of being good.

As such, it is in the best interest of the people to make sure they have the government BY THE FUCKING BALLS.

When we get right down to it, the only, ONLY way that is practically done is if the populace is armed and has the ability to rise up in violent revolution and dispose of a government that has become despotic and abusive.

So does the presence of guns increase the murder rate? Maybe.

Are they inherently unsafe to have? Damned if I know.

But at the end of the day, the government needs to be absolutely terrified of the populace and that it rules only so long as we suffer its presence.

I'm willing to take the other negative side effects of the presence of guns to have that, and anyone who tries to force me to live otherwise can take my bullets from me One. At. A. Time. from the business end of my rifle.

 

[colourcodedchaos]

Hawks_Pride:

Um, firstly, gun ownership does not make you a citizen OR a subject - that is the sole preserve of whether the country in which you make your home is a monarchy or not.

Secondly, EVERY PERSON in ANY country with ANY form of government AT ALL is "at the mercy" of that government at all times.

Third, the government of the day repealed it because of all the highwaymen and armed gangs shooting Peelers and postmen around the country - how is that a good thing?

Fourth, the question of gun competence doesn't come into it. I'm perfectly qualified to masturbate into someone's soup at a fancy restaurant, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it.

DoctorNick: Yes dear. Now take your anti-Deep-South-loony pills.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

I'm willing to take the other negative side effects of the presence of guns to have that, and anyone who tries to force me to live otherwise can take my bullets from me One. At. A. Time. from the business end of my rifle.

Your point is respected, despite the Ruby Ridge theatrics there. Trust me, the government would have no problems taking them away, it's called ATF. To some degree, that ship has already set sail.

Do you really think that your hunting rifle and handful of shotguns are going to do much against a fully armed SWAT team? I mean, they have rope and stuff.

Due to the ever growing escalation of firearm innovations the common civilian is so outgunned that the government wouldn't have much to fear from their society.

 

[colourcodedchaos]

Bigcountry78:

Castle Doctrine seems (at least, the Wikipedia article makes it seem to a British guy) to be a throwback to the 'thump-with-club' nature of intruder deterrent. As has been said already, "Castle Doctrine" is hilariously open to abuse by the cleverer members of the murdering community. To reiterate an earlier point, the answer to such questions is simple: put punitive tax on non-military firearms and massive prison sentences for gun-runners.

Do some good with the frankly retarded "Life Means Life" legislation America possesses - remove it for Class B & C drug offences and stick it on illegal gun possession and supply. That's what SENSIBLE people would do. So yeah, no luck finding support from the American Christian Right...

 

[Trilby]

I live in England. And in England, we aren't so afraid of ourselves that we feel the need to have gun-carrying as a constitution-given right (partly because we lack a constitution). However, I would say that, yes, a gun is a good tool.

I live in a rural area, and almost everyone in that area is in possession of a gun. A shotgun. For killing birds. And only birds. They aren't needed for some ridiculous notion of "self defence". And this is a remote rural area, with police support a good half-an-hour away.

Guns aren't needed for that. Because in this country, a casual burglar isn't going to be using a firearm. Too hard to get hold of (and don't come giving those ridiculous stories about "I bought a gun in London yesterday rly eazee to get lololol" because we know you're lying), and as a general rule they aren't worth the risk. Anywhere that merits an armed robbery is usually prepared for it.

And re. the school shootings: has this ever happened in the UK? I may be wrong (links or it didn't happen), but I don't think it has.

And while I don't normally descend to this level of macho posturing: Guns for show, knives for a pro, but if you're good enough you won't need either.

 

[Mathurin]

I hate coming in at the end of a long thread like this, but it looks like it will get longer anyway.

I live in England. And in England, we aren't so afraid of ourselves that we feel the need to have gun-carrying as a constitution-given right (partly because we lack a constitution). However, I would say that, yes, a gun is a good tool.

Not just guns, pepper spray, knives, anything that could possibly be a weapon, or even an imitation weapon.

Burglars in your house?
Dont threaten them with a toy gun, its a crime.

I live in a rural area, and almost everyone in that area is in possession of a gun. A shotgun. For killing birds. And only birds. They aren't needed for some ridiculous notion of "self defence". And this is a remote rural area, with police support a good half-an-hour away.

I also live in a rural area, also cops are 30 mins away, burglaries are incredibly rare here because country people in the US generally have guns, making it stupid to break into their houses.

Guns aren't needed for that. Because in this country, a casual burglar isn't going to be using a firearm. Too hard to get hold of (and don't come giving those ridiculous stories about "I bought a gun in London yesterday rly eazee to get lololol" because we know you're lying), and as a general rule they aren't worth the risk. Anywhere that merits an armed robbery is usually prepared for it.

In this country a casual burglar isnt going to choose a home with an armed homeowner, whether the burglar is armed or not.
This isnt the only time I have heard the false assumption that american criminals arm themselves only because their victims are armed, it must be some kind of brit propaganda, I am here to tell you that its totally false.

And re. the school shootings: has this ever happened in the UK? I may be wrong (links or it didn't happen), but I don't think it has.

Yes, I think it was dunblane in the 1990s. I should note that britain had stronger gun control then than we in the US do now.
Dunblane was used as a reason to tighten it up even more.

And while I don't normally descend to this level of macho posturing: Guns for show, knives for a pro, but if you're good enough you won't need either.

"Only an idiot takes a knife to a gun fight"
a gun does not have to be fired to be used. a 90 year old wheelchair bound grandma with a gun is still deadly and plenty of reason for a 20 yo bandit to run away
Machismo and martial arts only trump armed assailants in the movies and in your head.

 

[gamebrain89]

Number one: A gun is not a tool, a gun is a weapon. It serves no purpose as a tool.

Number two: Weapons are used to kill things. so unless you really need to kill something, you have no need for a weapon.

Number three: A Gun shouldn't even be in your house unless you're working in law enforcement and/or the military.

Number four: and don't come say it's for hunting purposes. You don't hunt with a gun, you use a rifle or possibly a bow.

Number five: self defense isn't a valid reason either, you're better of with a baseball bat or go learn a martial art.

Edit: Guns should only be allowed to people who actually need them, i.e police and military. Can't really understand how you in America are so fixated with the right to own guns. Most parts of the world doesn't allow civilians to own guns and the percentage of murders involving guns in all those countries are alot lower than in the states.
Just accept it, legalizing guns leads to more deaths.

I agree with you on certain hand guns and assault rifles, there is no need for civilians to have those types of weapons. However, some handguns are made predominantly for hunting, and hunting with a handgun is an accepted pratice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting Edit, changed to a different link. And, um, a rifle is a gun(sorry, was too tempting to pass up).

Right, so when people say "gun" I take it they mean handgun not firearm, but that may just be a mistake on my part. None the less, why go hunting with a handgun when a rifle does a much better job?

It depends on the situation, as well as the person. hauling a 8 pound rifle on your shoulder up and down hills for 5-6 miles a day can be a pain. And some areas the brush is so thick it is easier to carry and fire a handgun than a rifle. but most of the time I think it is just personal preference.I am more comfortable with my rifle, so that is what I use. Though I think there are handgun only seasons in some areas of the US.

 

[nepheleim]

A gun is a tool. It is basically an elaborate contraption designed to move a very small pin a very small distance forward, and then to contain the resulting explosion in a useful manner. Bullets are dangerous, but only while they're in (very fast) motion.

As the supreme court decided that the police have no obligation to protect individuals, I'd say it's a pretty good tool to have on your person, as well as the home.

 

[tr65]

Lets look at facts:

Murder rate in the United States: 5,7 murders for every 100.000 people.

Murder rate in Sweden (which is amongst the top in controling guns): 2,39 murders for every 100.000 people.

Theres less than half as many murders relative to the population in Sweden. I attribute that to the extreme scarciness of guns, and personally im really happy to live in a country where i dont have to be afraid of being robbed by gun-armed assailants. Not even outlaws are able to get guns in Sweden.

For the general populace, there is simply no use for handguns or automatic guns. Bolt-action hunting rifles or shotguns, sure, why not, hunting is a noble sport which i myself enjoy with my bolt-action Tikka or my Winchester Super-Grade shotgun, but i have no need to possess a handgun, not when criminals dont either.

People who want to keep handguns at home doesnt want to have them for protection, they want them because they theyre attracted to guns and it gives them the feeling of power.

 

[Trilby]

I hate coming in at the end of a long thread like this, but it looks like it will get longer anyway.

Well, it will only get longer if I quote your entire post in paragraphs, as you did mine, so forgive me if I do not.

First point: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I made no reference to any of those items, nor did I suggest the use of toy guns in home defence. It was merely a piece of historical double entendre that seems to have completely passed you by. That and saying that in literal response to the OP, a gun is a good tool. But not any gun - I would agree with the sentiment stated elsewhere on the forums that that gun should be a shotgun. Like doctors and cars, shotguns have an intended use other than killing or wounding or threatening people. Handguns do not.

Second point: So between us we have shown that guns are not necessary for home protection in rural areas. Which is what I was saying anyway. Next.

Third point: I wasn't implying that burglars only arm themselves if their targets will be armed. I assume it was paranoia that made you read that meaning into my statement, which was purely that gun control in the UK is tight enough to prevent guns being used in anything other than major jobs. The risk I was referring to was that of being caught with a gun. The sentences are usually somewhat severe. Really, you seem to have missed every single point thus far. Please take more careful aim.

Fourth point: Dunblane. I don't recall it; probably when I was still a bit too young to register fully the national news. But you have proved my point better than I could have:
1) "Yes, I think it was dunblane in the 1990s." So about ten years ago, then? Not a few months ago, like in the USA?
2) "Dunblane was used as a reason to tighten it up even more." And I don't think we've had many teenagers running amok shooting up schools since then. Sorry, what was your point again?

Finally: I apologise, that was meant as a bit of light-hearted relief, not as a serious point. Next time I shall be sure to add a /humour tag to it. Was there really a need to get so personal?

 

[Hawks_Pride]

Bigcountry78:

Castle Doctrine seems (at least, the Wikipedia article makes it seem to a British guy) to be a throwback to the 'thump-with-club' nature of intruder deterrent. As has been said already, "Castle Doctrine" is hilariously open to abuse by the cleverer members of the murdering community. To reiterate an earlier point, the answer to such questions is simple: put punitive tax on non-military firearms and massive prison sentences for gun-runners.

Do some good with the frankly retarded "Life Means Life" legislation America possesses - remove it for Class B & C drug offences and stick it on illegal gun possession and supply. That's what SENSIBLE people would do. So yeah, no luck finding support from the American Christian Right...

So.. you want to punish people who want to shoot for recreation? Or to help put food on the table in these trying times of crisis and economical brouhaha (a word that doesn't get near enough usage these days, but I digress)? Such people exist in DROVES over here. And many of the former are retired military. The guy who taught me the finer points of shooting is retired USAF.

Castle Doctrine is not as open to abuse as you might think. They are still held accountable for their actions, and responsible for every piece of metal that gets kicked out of the barrel of their weapon.

I agree with you on the drug offenses thing; people do not need to be in jail for getting high, or possessing small amounts of, say, marijuana. If they find a camper full of the stuff, though, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Nepheleim had two very good points: A gun is really just an elaborate device for containing the rapid deflagration of nitrocellulose powders, and directing the resultant energies towards propelling a small piece of metal through another metal tube at a spot some distance away. However, it's not the gun itself that is the danger, nor is it the piece of metal. I've personally fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and the only things I've hit is paper, plastic backing board, the odd 2x4, and dirt. Oh, and metallic targets shaped like various game animals, but now I'm just getting obscure. If I were to set my Cold-War-manufacture Walther P38 on a kitchen table, fully loaded, with the safety off and hammer back, then, assuming no one touched it, it would not go off. The final decision to discharge a firearm is made by the wielder. It's been said often enough, but I'll say it again: The best firearm safety device is between the shooter's ears.

Neph also brought up another good point: There is case law in the US that states that police forces have no specific duty to protect individuals. I've read this in court documents, and I've heard this from active duty police officers. What do you suggest I do, then, with someone who has broken into my home, with unknown intent? Bearing in mind that the person in question is already guilty of trespassing, breaking and entering, and possibly some form of larceny or another? And before you ***** at me about shooting him: I agree that the death penalty is a bit extreme for that. But at the same time, I don't know if he means to leave immediately upon catching sight of me, or not. I would rather have a gun in hand, than a cop on the phone (Actually, I'd rather have both; cop on a cell phone headset and both hands on a .45 pistol, but if I had to choose, I mean.)

Tr65: I don't agree with your logic. While I applaud the Swedish murder rate for being so low, I don't believe it's to do with fewer firearms. (Actually, automatic weapons are a pain in the ass to get hold of in the US. You can legally do it as a private citizen, sure, but it's very cumbersome, and frightfully expensive. To say nothing of the cost of ammunition.) A possible reason might be the military system there, which, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) requires a minimum period of service, at least for males. By my way of thinking, this sort of thing, if nothing else, gives everyone a marketable skillset. I'm still not in favor of military conscription in general, but I will agree that is a point in its favor.

EDIT: Knocked off the thing at Trilby due to the sarkiness. However, I'd point out to Trilby that it wasn't a teenager at Dunblane.

 

[Mathurin]

Lets look at facts:

Murder rate in the United States: 5,7 murders for every 100.000 people.

Murder rate in Sweden (which is amongst the top in controling guns): 2,39 murders for every 100.000 people.

Theres less than half as many murders relative to the population in Sweden. I attribute that to the extreme scarciness of guns, and personally im really happy to live in a country where i dont have to be afraid of being robbed by gun-armed assailants. Not even outlaws are able to get guns in Sweden.

For the general populace, there is simply no use for handguns or automatic guns. Bolt-action hunting rifles or shotguns, sure, why not, hunting is a noble sport which i myself enjoy with my bolt-action Tikka or my Winchester Super-Grade shotgun, but i have no need to possess a handgun, not when criminals dont either.

People who want to keep handguns at home doesnt want to have them for protection, they want them because they theyre attracted to guns and it gives them the feeling of power.

Try this fact
The majority of guns are in the rural areas
The majority of crime occurs in urban areas


If guns are the problem then there should be similar problems, yet somehow the rural area in which I currently live has no police presence at all (they come when called, takes 30 mins, but dont drive through unless called) yet a nearly complete absence of criminals and crime


Also, crime rates of america are not directly comparable with other nations, generally because we hamper our police alot more in their investigations.


How many people do you know who have handguns that you can make such defamatory stereotyping statements about them?
More likely you have been fed leftist propaganda intended to demonize gun owners, dont fall for that, we are normal americans who happen to enjoy the activities associated with guns, including hunting.

 

[Trilby]

EDIT: Removed the response to Hawk_Pride due to him removing his.

Like I say, the Dunblane affair is not one with which I am well acquainted. Evidentially I made the fatal error of speculating without data.

However, I will say that the fact that it was a 43 year old man who did the shooting brings the UK's total of "schools shot up by angst-ridden teenagers who shouldn't have had guns" down to zero. I'm not entirely sure I want to know what America's tally is.

 

[rawrrscarydinosuar.]

Hawks Pride the case you are referring to is this one.

Just to everyone expecting the cops to defend you in the US.
Castle Rock Vs. Gonzales a supreme court case found: that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.
So yeah I am in favor of protecting myself.
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

 

[Mathurin]

I hate coming in at the end of a long thread like this, but it looks like it will get longer anyway.

Well, it will only get longer if I quote your entire post in paragraphs, as you did mine, so forgive me if I do not.

Its my favorite posting style, but you do as you like (threads tend to run in #of posts rather than # of words, though escapist might be different)

First point: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I made no reference to any of those items, nor did I suggest the use of toy guns in home defence. It was merely a piece of historical double entendre that seems to have completely passed you by. That and saying that in literal response to the OP, a gun is a good tool. But not any gun - I would agree with the sentiment stated elsewhere on the forums that that gun should be a shotgun. Like doctors and cars, shotguns have an intended use other than killing or wounding or threatening people. Handguns do not.

I was pointing out that it seems that your people are very afraid of eachother, since it banned all weapons or anything close enough to be considered a weapon.
If you dont fear a person then there is no reason to disarm them.

I carry a handgun when walking in the pastures, (exercise and recreation mostly) its light and unobtrusive, yet makes a great defense against snakes.
Some people hunt with a handgun
But mostly I consider it a challenging test of marksmanship.
They have more than one use, it is really unfortunate you have not been allowed to find that out for yourself.

Second point: So between us we have shown that guns are not necessary for home protection in rural areas. Which is what I was saying anyway. Next.

Not really, I have shown that a high proportion of firearms in a population != crime in that population, proving that guns != crime
Which begs the question: Why do we keep talking about guns, why dont we try to fix the real problems which cause crime.

Third point: I wasn't implying that burglars only arm themselves if their targets will be armed. I assume it was paranoia that made you read that meaning into my statement, which was purely that gun control in the UK is tight enough to prevent guns being used in anything other than major jobs. The risk I was referring to was that of being caught with a gun. The sentences are usually somewhat severe. Really, you seem to have missed every single point thus far. Please take more careful aim.

Ahh, I get you.

Fourth point: Dunblane. I don't recall it; probably when I was still a bit too young to register fully the national news. But you have proved my point better than I could have:
1) "Yes, I think it was dunblane in the 1990s." So about ten years ago, then? Not a few months ago, like in the USA?
2) "Dunblane was used as a reason to tighten it up even more." And I don't think we've had many teenagers running amok shooting up schools since then. Sorry, what was your point again?

School shootings are a sign of more severe problems in our youth, those problems will not be solved by banning guns.

Finally: I apologise, that was meant as a bit of light-hearted relief, not as a serious point. Next time I shall be sure to add a /humour tag to it. Was there really a need to get so personal?

Eh, I usually argue gun control on a political forum, and we get very contentious, I have to remember that this is a lighter forum.
Still, the point stands, taking a knife to a gun fight is a good way to get killed.

 

[Hawks_Pride]

EDIT: Removed the response to Hawk_Pride due to him removing his.

Like I say, the Dunblane affair is not one with which I am well acquainted. Evidentially I made the fatal error of speculating without data.

However, I will say that the fact that it was a 43 year old man who did the shooting brings the UK's total of "schools shot up by angst-ridden teenagers who shouldn't have had guns" down to zero. I'm not entirely sure I want to know what America's tally is.

That makes (at least) two of us.

Mathurin had a good point. I'm one of those average everyday Yanks who happens to enjoy the shooting sports. I find myself lumped in with infuriating frequency with Deliverance-inspired rednecks (Such beings I have never seen, by the way, in either Georgia or Alabama, though I admit to not venturing near their reputed stomping grounds for any number of reasons) who shoot at anything on their 'propertah.' I'm really just an average 22-year-old painfully-myopic geek with a fondness for taking an accurized AR-15 (known to everyone who doesn't wander the gun circles as an M-16 that can only fire one round per pull of the trigger) to the shooting range, and burning through about a hundred rounds of ammunition; half in a shooting match, and the other half to challenge myself to shoot straighter. If I had a good pistol and a good holster, I'd do the same with pistol matches, and if I could force myself to clean out Grandpa's Old Shotgun (which is actually of Cold War-era Italian make, as opposed to a Depression-era double-barreled smoke-pole), I'd do the same with skeet and trap.

Semi-unrelated rant, GO!
And if certain folks had their way, I'd have to find a new hobby? What if football (GASP! A Yank who doesn't call it soccer?! Yeah. Now go collect your socks.) were banned because of the football hooligans? Now tell me how the things are different.
Semi-unrelated rant, STOP!

 

[TheDean]

no. never, having a gun gives you the desire to use it. also, why would you need one? you shouldn't need to shoot people.

 

[Hawks_Pride]

no. never, having a gun gives you the desire to use it. also, why would you need one? you shouldn't need to shoot people.

I agree. And I also shouldn't have to pay to get a physical exam done, but I did, not three hours ago.

We do not live in a perfect world. Deal with it however you like. It is not my place to tell you how. By the same token, it is not your place to tell me how to deal with it.

The diplomatic version of that: You dun bodda me, I dun bodda you.