The case against guns

[Gallstones]

Most studies show that it's the people who need guns the least, who buy them the most.

Even if.......So?

Thing is, the more you have the less you need more. So what?
The only limits are money and space.

[Jason]

I own three firearms. I guess that makes me a triple idiot. A triple idiot that apparently has a better grasp of logic and argumentation than the majority of anti-gun people.

Do you shoot critters? Do you live in a slum? If so, you can have a gun for each purpose.

I do shoot critters. I also cook and eat them.

Stating the obvious then: Firearms do serve legitimate purposes. Whether it be for hunting, sport shooting (i.e. target shooting), or self-defense.

Furthering the obvious: People who call for a ban on firearms are myopic at best.

[Seth]

Oct 7:

By Bettina Boxall
Los Angeles Times

LA HABRA, Calif. — An off-duty La Habra police officer was shot with his own weapon early Saturday during a fight after a traffic accident on the 5 Freeway in Castaic, authorities said.

The shooting is under investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which said the officer's injuries were not life threatening.

The incident occurred near Templin Highway at 5:15 a.m., when the officer was involved in a traffic collision. During a subsequent struggle, the other driver used the officer's handgun to shoot him, according to the Sheriff's Department.

The gun has not been recovered, and no description of the suspect or his vehicle was released.


McClatchy-Tribune News Service
Copyright 2013 the Los Angeles Times

Hm. Inadequate weapons-retention and self-defense training on the cop's part I'd say. Consequences...

[JimC]

And a great sport it is too...

Responsibly pursued, good safety mechanisms, bolt-action rifles for hunting or competitive shooting, go for it!

It's even fun giving them a good clean after shooting!

Arguments against certain aspects of gun ownership are not arguments against guns per se, at least not from my perspective...

[Jason]

The problem of disturbed people getting their hands on weapons capable of mass murder is often raised, especially in the past year. It is a moot point. If something is available to the qualified public, it is available to the unqualified public as well. At least determined and/or clever ones who are often the more dangerous kinds of disturbed people. An ugly truth, but a necessary evil of allowing firearm ownership.

Then again, these disturbed people are determined and/or clever and will, with a high individual probability, find another means to perpetrate their crimes. Which means the problem isn't guns, it's people. People who want guns - to save time.

[JimC]

The problem of disturbed people getting their hands on weapons capable of mass murder is often raised, especially in the past year. It is a moot point. If something is available to the qualified public, it is available to the unqualified public as well. At least determined and/or clever ones who are often the more dangerous kinds of disturbed people. An ugly truth, but a necessary evil of allowing firearm ownership.

Then again, these disturbed people are determined and/or clever and will, with a high individual probability, find another means to perpetrate their crimes. Which means the problem isn't guns, it's people. People who want guns - to save time.

Lots of rapid fire weapons in circulation means, statistically speaking, it's much easier for evil idiots to get their hands on one, and do the gun massacre thing...

Cut down the guns in circulation, at least the idiots won't get 'em...

In Oz, clever criminals can always lay their hands on guns, sure...

But, because they're clever, they seldom use them in a way that will have the law screaming for their asses...

[NuclMan]

Marksmanship
- n

Not a sport

[mistermack]

Stating the obvious then: Firearms do serve legitimate purposes. Whether it be for hunting, sport shooting (i.e. target shooting), or self-defense.

Exactly. They are a toy for wankers.
Hardly a good reason for keeping them legal, just because wankers like them.

As far as self-defence goes, the argument is that I need a gun, because other people have guns.
That's not an argument for more and more guns. It's an argument for phasing them out. Surely any fool can see that?

[MrJonno]

I don't have a problem with people going to go a gun range picking up a gun and firing it and then leaving it (I did this at school), its not that different from playing darts.

It's an entirely different matter for testosterone laden nutjobs to keep them home in preparation for the end of the world, evil tyrannies like Marxist re-education camps (schools) or the postman

[orpheus]

Stating the obvious then: Firearms do serve legitimate purposes. Whether it be for hunting, sport shooting (i.e. target shooting), or self-defense.

Exactly. They are a toy for wankers.
Hardly a good reason for keeping them legal, just because wankers like them.

As far as self-defence goes, the argument is that I need a gun, because other people have guns.
That's not an argument for more and more guns. It's an argument for phasing them out. Surely any fool can see that?

You're right. And those who put more guns in circulation add to the problem. Ironically, many of those do it for self-defense - to protect them and their families. But they're protecting their immediate families by putting their descendants at greater risk. A bitter pill to swallow, but it's true. If they don't realize that, then it's short-sighted and ill-thought through. If they do realize it, then it's pretty cold-hearted. They care more about themselves than their own grand- or great-grandchildren.

[Jason]

The bitter pill, I think, is that guns are not going away. It's impossible to eradicate them. The practical approach then, to my way of thinking, is to take effective measures to ensure as few as possible make their way into the hands of those who would use them to commit atrocities. I am an advocate of gun control, but not the reactionary and ineffectual sort that lives in the popular conception. Even then, it is just a band-aid over the real issue - people who want to commit atrocities. Mitigate the symptoms, but focus on curing the cause.

[Seth]

Stating the obvious then: Firearms do serve legitimate purposes. Whether it be for hunting, sport shooting (i.e. target shooting), or self-defense.

Exactly. They are a toy for wankers.
Hardly a good reason for keeping them legal, just because wankers like them.

As far as self-defence goes, the argument is that I need a gun, because other people have guns.
That's not an argument for more and more guns. It's an argument for phasing them out. Surely any fool can see that?

Strawman. The actual argument is that I need a gun because criminals (and other vermin) have access to a variety of deadly weapons including but not limited to firearms, all of which pose a very real threat to my life and safety should I be attacked by an armed criminal...or a vicious animal, and therefore I am completely entitled as a function of my basic human rights to be armed with the most efficient and effective self defense weapons I can afford and choose to carry against such a threat.

Some thug threatens to brain me with a cricket bat, or some dog attacks me, the gun is just as necessary and effective as if the thug had a gun.

That's what you and your ilk can't seem to figure out. Handguns are the best available tool of self defense against ANY sort of physical attack that raises the threat of death or serious bodily harm.

[Seth]

The problem of disturbed people getting their hands on weapons capable of mass murder is often raised, especially in the past year. It is a moot point. If something is available to the qualified public, it is available to the unqualified public as well. At least determined and/or clever ones who are often the more dangerous kinds of disturbed people. An ugly truth, but a necessary evil of allowing firearm ownership.

Then again, these disturbed people are determined and/or clever and will, with a high individual probability, find another means to perpetrate their crimes. Which means the problem isn't guns, it's people. People who want guns - to save time.

No, the problem is bad or crazy people who GET guns. And since, as you allude to, people determined to do evil will do evil with a gun or a glass jar full of gasoline or a knife. This means that the only rational response for the non-bad and non-crazy citizen is to be prepared to defend against ANY sort of evil that might be done to them, at any time, and in any place, and firearms are the most effective method of self-defense in life-threatening attacks man has yet invented. Yes, there are other kinds of defensive weapons that may be useful and even effective in particular situations, but a handgun is overall the most effective way to prevent, thwart or terminate a deadly attack.

[NuclMan]

Stating the obvious then: Firearms do serve legitimate purposes. Whether it be for hunting, sport shooting (i.e. target shooting), or self-defense.

Exactly. They are a toy for wankers.
Hardly a good reason for keeping them legal, just because wankers like them.

As far as self-defence goes, the argument is that I need a gun, because other people have guns.
That's not an argument for more and more guns. It's an argument for phasing them out. Surely any fool can see that?

You're right. And those who put more guns in circulation add to the problem. Ironically, many of those do it for self-defense - to protect them and their families. But they're protecting their immediate families by putting their descendants at greater risk. A bitter pill to swallow, but it's true. If they don't realize that, then it's short-sighted and ill-thought through. If they do realize it, then it's pretty cold-hearted. They care more about themselves than their own grand- or great-grandchildren.

They're not even protecting their immediate families when you consider the increased suicides due to widespread availability of firearms.

[Tero]

The bitter pill, I think, is that guns are not going away. It's impossible to eradicate them. The practical approach then, to my way of thinking, is to take effective measures to ensure as few as possible make their way into the hands of those who would use them to commit atrocities. I am an advocate of gun control, but not the reactionary and ineffectual sort that lives in the popular conception. Even then, it is just a band-aid over the real issue - people who want to commit atrocities. Mitigate the symptoms, but focus on curing the cause.

Not so. Quit selling them. It may take 100 years, but a good part will be useless by then. Put ammunition sales limits. They will need to save up years to do a school shooting. You only need so many bullets to kill the number of deer you do in a season.

We could have unlimited shooting in a rifle range, but then the Gubment would need to handle all the ammunition.