Support NeoGAF

[Kabouter]

If you're a member of a minority you have lost to means to protect yourself (say as a Muslim or a Jew). I mean look what happened in France recently. I wouldn't want my daughters last images to be a guy with a ski camera recording in HD stepping on her hair and shooting her.

Non-representative incidents really are a favoured way of many these days to counter facts. It plagues politics everywhere, I would prefer it not plague GAF.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Are you saying that you'll never see the criminal coming or that you just haven't seen a criminal use a gun?

On another note statistically people shoot their family members more than criminals so that's another thing to think about.

Except that study is bunk.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Introduction
Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner's gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios "nonsensical." (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)

Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.

Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let's see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.



Refutation
First we need to understand how the ratio was derived.

Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is taken from Kellermann's paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).

Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9
As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.

Let's apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.

Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide1 50
Suicide2 347
Unknown 0
Total 397
Self-protection homicide3 4
This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides reduces to 99 to 1.

So having applied Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.

Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann's study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.

For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann's approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.

What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted.

To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a "kill" ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research. (See How often are guns used in self-defense?)

For a different approach in critique of Kellermann's study see The 43: 1 Fallacy by Dave Kopel.

For Further Reading

GunCite's critique of Kellermann's "3:1" study. More generally, see GunCite's Gun Control Research.

A criticism of Kellermann's subsequent research, and the bias of the Center for Disease Control's firearm related research: Kates, Schaffer, and Waters, Public Health Pot Shots: How the CDC Succumbed to the Gun "Epidemic", Reason Magazine, April 1997.

Scroll down to part part XV:"Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home": Kates, Schafer, et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).

Letters to the New England Journal of Medicine regarding Kellerman's paper titled: "Guns and Homicide in the Home".

Kellermann responds.

Kleck, Gary, What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.

A differing view from Kleck's: Peter Cummings; Thomas D. Koepsell, Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.

Letter to the editor and a response from Kleck, JAMA, July 14, 1999.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Non-representative incidents really are a favoured way of many these days to counter facts. It plagues politics everywhere, I would prefer it not plague GAF.

I don't view it as non-representative, you only have to be killed once. Like I said even in times of declining crime, does it feel better to be killed in a year of declining crime more so than a year of rising crime? I mean that sincerely. I feel people in those countries have lost the ability to protect themselves from the who ignore the law.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

If you're a member of a minority you have lost to means to protect yourself (say as a Muslim or a Jew). I mean look what happened in France recently. I wouldn't want my daughters last images to be a guy with a ski camera recording in HD stepping on her hair and shooting her.

Dude...you actually went there...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Dude...you actually went there...

What for me, that's a good reason. I happen to belong to a minority group hated by lots of violent garbage.

 

[Moppet13]

Except that study is bunk.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Wait, does that actually prove the study wrong? Sorry, it's 5am and I'm very tired so I could be a bit off on this.

But isn't comparing the amount of non gun related deaths just a fallacy?

From what I'm reading it sounds like the number of suicides is what really is throwing off the statistic, wouldn't it just make more sense to say that people would commit suicide with or without a gun?

Edit: I guess if you do what I say and remove the suicides it does prove it wrong. But I guess I'm arguing the logic of how they proved it wrong... I don't know what I'm saying it's 5am.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Wait, does that actually prove the study wrong? Sorry, it's 5am and I'm very tired so I could be a bit off on this.

But isn't comparing the amount of non gun related deaths just a fallacy?

From what I'm reading it sounds like the number of suicides is what really is throwing off the statistic, wouldn't it just make more sense to say that people would commit suicide with or without a gun?

Edit: I guess if you do what I say and remove the suicides it does prove it wrong. But I guess I'm arguing the logic of how they proved it wrong... I don't know what I'm saying it's 5am.

It's cool, I've always felt including suicides in gun deaths skews them heavily. I mean Japan with low guns, still has a high suicide rate, so I've never bought the people wouldn't do it without guns around reasoning.

 

[astroturfing]

Are you saying that you'll never see the criminal coming or that you just haven't seen a criminal use a gun?

On another note statistically people shoot their family members more than criminals so that's another thing to think about.

i'm saying that criminals with guns are not a huge problem in every part of the world. sure they are a problem even if one person gets robbed at gunpoint.. but it's not a big enough problem that everyone should feel the need to be armed. that would make things worse. it's not a rational course of action for citizens to start arming themselves, knowing the consequences.

and yeah about family members killing each other... the ONLY gun deaths that i'm aware of that we've had here recently have been men killing their own families out of desperation (financial or otherwise). i haven't seen any news about regular criminals shooting up anything. just men shooting their wives and children. could be just selective reporting though.

btw, what do gun-supporters feel about the recent study that showed that gun owners are more likely to imagine that others have guns too, making them substantially more likely to be paranoid, fearful of others etc? just having a gun will mess with your subconscious, whether you admit it or not. who wants a society where everyone is more paranoid than normal, and they're packing..?

 

[bomma_man]

After the 1996 gun buy-back there was a dramatic drop in gun related deaths in Australia. In the ten years between 1991 and 2001 there were 5083 deaths, but the rate of deaths per year drop by half since the reforms. There were 505 in 1991 and 261 in 2001. In the same years the homicides by firearm dropped from 84 to 47. Over 3000 of those deaths were suicides by the way. The likelihood of being killed by a gun here seems ridiculously low.

 

[scotcheggz]

As an outsider reading this thread, it is terrifying. Why are you all so paranoid? Is it actual fear of invasions/rapings/beatings on a daily basis, or is it just a justification to hold on to your weapons?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

As an outsider reading this thread, it is terrifying. Why are you all so paranoid? Is it actual fear of invasions/rapings/beatings on a daily basis, or is it just a justification to hold on to your weapons?

Peace of mind.

 

[evilromero]

Yes there are smart gun control options that I would argue make everybody happy and are also necessary if you don't want guns to have a net negative affect on society.

But my point is that even if Americans understand what needs to be done, they apparently do not understand what the lobbies want to do. That's also a huge problem. And not just because it gives us threads with weird titles.

Education will always be an issue with gun ownership. I was raised in a gun family and safety on handling and maintaining a firearm was a top priority. I know just as well as anyone else how dangerous the weapon is and take extreme care when storing or practicing. With that said I'd feel safer with looser gun control laws. Owners should be able to conceal carry without a license. As it stands right now you have to have your firearm seen at all times in public, which of course makes you standout like a soar thumb.

 

[SecretSphere]

I don't view it as non-representative, you only have to be killed once. Like I said even in times of declining crime, does it feel better to be killed in a year of declining crime more so than a year of rising crime? I mean that sincerely. I feel people in those countries have lost the ability to protect themselves from the who ignore the law.

Do you also wear a helmet everytime you go out? There are a lot of situations where wearing a helmet in public would have saved someones live, probably more than having a gun.

 

[PdotMichael]

As an outsider reading this thread, it is terrifying. Why are you all so paranoid? Is it actual fear of invasions/rapings/beatings on a daily basis, or is it just a justification to hold on to your weapons?

“If I didn’t have this gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around…You want that? Huh? DO YA?!

 

[scotcheggz]

Peace of mind.

I suppose. A society (in a first world country no less) where you need to own a deadly weapon just for peace of mind is somewhat disturbing though isn't it? The language in this thread is kind of weird too, you say piece of mind and I can see that to an extent but with posters saying things about being able to blow a rapists head off is a little further gone.

Anyway, like I said, I'm an outsider so I've no doubt in my mind I'm wonderfully uninformed, it just seems a little bit perverse to me.

 

[kevm3]

Except it doesn't work. The Canadian Long Gun Registry for example, which was finally scrapped, despite Quebec trying to keep data, was judged a massive failure that never helped solve any crimes. Also most criminals do not legally acquire their guns. The government has no reason to know what guns I own.



Except the only gun control mentioned that they support is related to Automatic weapons, which are heavily, heavily, regulated, showing that gun control desired by most is already in place.

I agree. It's not really the government's business as to what guns Americans own, unless they are extremely high powered like automatic assault rifles. All this will do is make it harder for normal Americans to get guns. Criminals don't use registered firearms for obvious reasons.

 

[Funky Papa]

I agree. It's not really the government's business as to what guns Americans own, unless they are extremely high powered like automatic assault rifles. All this will do is make it harder for normal Americans to get guns. Criminals don't use registered firearms for obvious reasons.

So where do those guns come from? Surely most of them are not smuggled from Mexico/Canada and/or Army arsenals.

 

[kevm3]

So where do those guns come from? Surely most of them are not smuggled from Mexico/Canada and/or Army arsenals.

If anything, a lot of these gangs will probably get into situations where they are robbing gun stores and reselling them on the black market or using those guns themselves.

 

[Funky Papa]

If anything, a lot of these gangs will probably get into situations where they are robbing gun stores and reselling them on the black market or using those guns themselves.

It doesn't seem to be the case. A little googling gave me this:

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.

...

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

 

[Gaborn]

The American gun culture is seriously messed up. We have one of the highest crime rates in the world, despite everyone being armed to the teeth. It's like Americans think the country is like the wild west of something, where the only law that matters is where the bullet lands.

I guess after Obama got elected, gun sales went through the roof. I wonder what happens when he wins re-election this year. The country might just go off the rails.

Actually the violent crime rate has been declining in the US for DECADES. Pretty much the primary reason it's as high as it is is because of our horrible drug laws.

In fact, violent crimes are down across the board since the 70s, and down since Obama took office.

 

[The Technomancer]

Education will always be an issue with gun ownership. I was raised in a gun family and safety on handling and maintaining a firearm was a top priority. I know just as well as anyone else how dangerous the weapon is and take extreme care when storing or practicing. With that said I'd feel safer with looser gun control laws. Owners should be able to conceal carry without a license. As it stands right now you have to have your firearm seen at all times in public, which of course makes you standout like a soar thumb.

Uh....forgive me for wanting to know if the guy sitting next to me is carrying a gun. I mean, is there an actual problem with not being able to carry concealed? What does that prevent you from doing?

 

[Bollocks]

yeah, this is what im wondering. there are places on this planet where guns are not a huge part of the culture, yet criminals are not running rampant.. so, why cant America look at these places and take some lessons?

Because they make a shit ton of money, they would be stupid to let that one go.
As if they really care for your safety, they would rather run their propaganda and make you believe you'll need a gun than to restrict access due to statistics.

 

[Zaptruder]

Oh is that what we need? Thanks for the tips, and the advance approval for when we get our act up to your standards.

It's what you'll need if you want guns to actually be more effective than harmful.

But hey, it's not my loss when you guys shoot each other up because you (as a nation) are too obstinate to reach a rational compromise on 'your right to bear arms'.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Except it doesn't work. The Canadian Long Gun Registry for example, which was finally scrapped, despite Quebec trying to keep data, was judged a massive failure that never helped solve any crimes. Also most criminals do not legally acquire their guns. The government has no reason to know what guns I own.

As I understand it, Canada has always required registration for handguns, but then the long gun registry bill expanded it to include shotguns and rifles.

Long guns do not get used in crimes though, they are not concealable. Handguns are overwhelmingly used in homicides.

And no, the government should be able to take any gun from a crime scene and immediately find out who the owner is. The logic of trying to deflect that point with a claim of keeping revenuer agents off your ass just does not help you in any way.

 

[jchap]

I have my concealed carry licence. I don't use it other when transporting my firearms but everyone who has a gun should be required to go through the safety and educational classes that you have to take to get one.

 

[Always-honest]

A lot of people buy them for home-defense but a lot of people also buy them for recreational purposes or hunting.
It isn't like everyone thinks they are in an action movie just because they want a gun.

hehe, no i know. I mean that self defense doesn't always work out like people think.
It can lead to horrible accidents like shooting a familymember or something like that.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

hehe, no i know. I mean that self defense doesn't always work out like people think.
It can lead to horrible accidents like shooting a familymember or something like that.

As a grown ass man that's a risk I chose to take. I don't need the government to tell me what's best in regards to defending myself. As a gun owner it's my responsibility to understand and follow the basic tenets of gun safety.

There are MILLIONS of guns in the US yet we don't have millions of shootings every day. So regardless of what the media might want you to believe there are millions of law abiding gun owners that don't go around killing everyone.

Don't like guns? Great, don't own one. Problem solved.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I suppose. A society (in a first world country no less) where you need to own a deadly weapon just for peace of mind is somewhat disturbing though isn't it? The language in this thread is kind of weird too, you say piece of mind and I can see that to an extent but with posters saying things about being able to blow a rapists head off is a little further gone.

Anyway, like I said, I'm an outsider so I've no doubt in my mind I'm wonderfully uninformed, it just seems a little bit perverse to me.

Respectfully, I think that's a fair bit of hyperbole. It's a personal choice that's really all it comes down to.

 

[Zaptruder]

As a grown ass man that's a risk I chose to take. I don't need the government to tell me what's best in regards to defending myself. As a gun owner it's my responsibility to understand and follow the basic tenets of gun safety.

There are MILLIONS of guns in the US yet we don't have millions of shootings every day. So regardless of what the media might want you to believe there are millions of law abiding gun owners that don't go around killing everyone.

Don't like guns? Great, don't own one. Problem solved.

What about when your right to defend yourself intrudes in the face of someone else... like an innocent family member who you're having a heated argument against?

Surely a little acknowledgement of the risks of owning a tool whose expressed purposes is to incapacitate people through wounding or killing them requires some degree of risk management on a wide scale.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

No offence to anyone in this thread, but as an outsider the American view of guns is so weird. This is all so alien to me. I can't comprehend ever having a casual conversation about my favourite type of weapon. I don't think I've ever seen one in real life that wasn't carried by a police officer.

Im an american and ive never understood it either

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

Why would you own a nuke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fih_niNID2c

 

[empty vessel]

That second pie graph is weird. The question is the least controversial of them all, yet it only garnered 60-something percent support? Every state in the country allows for the use of lethal force in self-defense, even in public. In fact, I would be astounded if every country in the world did not. Maybe the question was phrased differently from the graphic?

As an outsider reading this thread, it is terrifying. Why are you all so paranoid? Is it actual fear of invasions/rapings/beatings on a daily basis, or is it just a justification to hold on to your weapons?

Americans have massive paranoid delusions about their vulnerability to crime. Racism plays heavily into it. I'm ambivalent about gun regulation per se (mostly because such regulation will be used as a practical matter to lock up more black people), but I really take issue with the vigilante aspects of the pro-gun movement. And this has nothing to do with self-defense per se. It's preparatory in nature, vigilante in nature, and often racist in nature (I need a gun to protect me from "criminals," and when an American conjures up the image of a "criminal" in his mind, I'll give you one guess as to what that usually looks like to him). The 2d Amendment is not an endorsement of vigilantism, but that is what it has become.

 

[Always-honest]

1As a grown ass man that's a risk I chose to take. I don't need the government to tell me what's best in regards to defending myself. As a gun owner it's my responsibility to understand and follow the basic tenets of gun safety.

2There are MILLIONS of guns in the US yet we don't have millions of shootings every day. So regardless of what the media might want you to believe there are millions of law abiding gun owners that don't go around killing everyone.

3Don't like guns? Great, don't own one. Problem solved.

1 Grown ass man in terms of age or in responsibility? Sure you have the right to defend yourself within the rules available. In your case a gun is totally legal, so why not?
With so many guns in the neighbourhood being a possible threat to you and your family, what other choice do you have?

2 I'm not sure what you think the media tells me to believe?..

3 i like shooting stuff. Be it with a bow and arrow, a gun, or with a pee-gun, or even a virtual gun. Just to take aim and hit something is a nice game to play. I don't fear or dislike guns. I fear the people holding it.
I don't need a real gun in my home but I don't live in a country where every other person is a possible gun-threat to me. But i can understand in a country where every other person DOES have a gun, you feel the need to defend yourself. And you should have the right to do so (never denied you that right in the first place).

Guns are silly things though, weapons made to kill. And a mistake is easy to make. Fear can lead to suffering as Yoda always says, and who is wiser than Yoda?.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That second pie graph is weird. The question is the least controversial of them all, yet it only garnered 60-something percent support? Every state in the country allows for the use of lethal force in self-defense, even in public. In fact, I would be astounded if every country in the world did not. Maybe the question was phrased differently from the graphic?



Americans have massive paranoid delusions about their vulnerability to crime. Racism plays heavily into it. I'm ambivalent about gun regulation per se (mostly because such regulation will be used as a practical matter to lock up more black people), but I really take issue with the vigilante aspects of the pro-gun movement. And this has nothing to do with self-defense per se. It's preparatory in nature, vigilante in nature, and often racist in nature (I need a gun to protect me from "criminals," and when an American conjures up the image of a "criminal" in his mind, I'll give you one guess as to what that usually looks like to him). The 2d Amendment is not an endorsement of vigilantism, but that is what it has become.

Please racism has nothing to do with it. Now Gun Control has a history of racism with. Some of the first notable gun control laws passed after the civil war where to prevent black's from owning guns. The 2nd Amendment is a protection against racism.

 

[RELAYER]

Americans have massive paranoid delusions about their vulnerability to crime. Racism plays heavily into it. I'm ambivalent about gun regulation per se (mostly because such regulation will be used as a practical matter to lock up more black people), but I really take issue with the vigilante aspects of the pro-gun movement. And this has nothing to do with self-defense per se. It's preparatory in nature, vigilante in nature, and often racist in nature (I need a gun to protect me from "criminals," and when an American conjures up the image of a "criminal" in his mind, I'll give you one guess as to what that usually looks like to him). The 2d Amendment is not an endorsement of vigilantism, but that is what it has become.

wow.

 

[Wazzim]

It's good to live in a developed country.

 

[Mr Swine]

Honest question guys

Can an American citizen shoot poeple from their yard if they think that a stranger or family member s behaving aggressive or is threatening you? Can you do the same if you are out in the city/town?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

What about when your right to defend yourself intrudes in the face of someone else... like an innocent family member who you're having a heated argument against?

That's under the assumption that a heated argument with a family member is going to result in someone dying each and every time. Once again, there are MILLIONS of gun owners in the US. I'm sure each and every one of them has a heated argument with family at least once a year. Yet, we don't have millions of dead family members solely from gunshots from gunowners every year. I've managed to argue with my family and never blast them in the fact.

Surely a little acknowledgement of the risks of owning a tool whose expressed purposes is to incapacitate people through wounding or killing them requires some degree of risk management on a wide scale.

Of course there are risks. I never said otherwise. And I do NOT oppose reasonable gun control. But I'm sure a gun owners definition of "reasonable" and a gun opponent's definition of "reasonable" is where the problems come in.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Honest question guys

Can an American citizen shoot poeple from their yard if they think that a stranger or family member s behaving aggressive or is threatening you? Can you do the same if you are out in the city/town?

Where I live (New York) absolutely not.

 

[Zaptruder]

That's under the assumption that a heated argument with a family member is going to result in someone dying each and every time. Once again, there are MILLIONS of gun owners in the US. I'm sure each and every one of them has a heated argument with family at least once a year. Yet, we don't have millions of dead family members solely from gunshots from gunowners every year. I've managed to argue with my family and never blast them in the fact.



Of course there are risks. I never said otherwise. And I do NOT oppose reasonable gun control. But I'm sure a gun owners definition of "reasonable" and a gun opponent's definition of "reasonable" is where the problems come in.

How about...

Adequate proof of training in the use, ownership and storage of guns.
i.e. a license of gun ownership.

Seems entirely reasonable... I mean, I'd personally go so far as to say that Americans should allow themselves to become army reserve, or be drafted for national service if they want to own a gun. After military service, they're given one. It's a system that works well for Switzerland, which despite having one of the highest gun ownership proportions in the world... also has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

I attribute it to the fact that everyone owns a gun there, knows how to use it, and does so responsibly as a result of their training.

It even has positive knock on effects in terms of health and social duty. But my guess is that American's would be too vociferously against a draft or a national service. So a gun license seems like the most reasonable compromise - ensuring that those that own a gun are able to effectively manage the use of the gun and themselves.

Also, repeating the same argument that plenty of other gun owners haven't killed anyone yet doesn't really do much to strengthen a pretty specious argument.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

1 Grown ass man in terms of age or in responsibility? Sure you have the right to defend yourself within the rules available. In your case a gun is totally legal, so why not?
With so many guns in the neighbourhood being a possible threat to you and your family, what other choice do you have?

I don't own a gun because I live in fear of my law abiding neighbors weapons. The insinuation that gun ownership is perpetuated out of fear of others owning a gun legally in flawed in the context in which you're attempting to apply it. I own a gun just in case a situation arises in which I'd like to defend myself, I can. Period. I don't know if you've ever had a junkie try to kick in your door or a burglar threaten to slash your spouses throat if she makes a sound but it happens and I'd prefer to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it.

2 I'm not sure what you think the media tells me to believe?..

"One person with a serious mental conditions killed people with a gun today out of millions of gun owners....BAN ALL TEH BAD THINGS!!"

3 i like shooting stuff. Be it with a bow and arrow, a gun, or with a pee-gun, or even a virtual gun. Just to take aim and hit something is a nice game to play. I don't fear or dislike guns. I fear the people holding it.
I don't need a real gun in my home but I don't live in a country where every other person is a possible gun-threat to me. But i can understand in a country where every other person DOES have a gun, you feel the need to defend yourself. And you should have the right to do so (never denied you that right in the first place).

Again, I don't fear legal gun owners. I've had a shouting match with a few and we got in each others faces and guess what...no one pulled a gun. Eventually whatever we were arguing about is settled and we move on. My main reason for having a gun in my home is self defense. Point blank period. The fact is I shouldn't have to justify that to anyone except the people that live in the home with me. The idea that every gun owner is somehow a threat or a perceived threat is incorrect. Let's worry about the illegal gun owners such as criminals.

Guns are silly things though, weapons made to kill. And a mistake is easy to make. Fear can lead to suffering as Yoda always says, and who is wiser than Yoda?.

Guns are great tools of self preservation. They (and the adult legally authorized to wield them) protected my ass twice when I was a kid. I own one because I truly believe my safety and the safety of my family is MY responsibility. The cops have said point blank it's not their responsibility. So I did what I had to do.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I suppose. A society (in a first world country no less) where you need to own a deadly weapon just for peace of mind is somewhat disturbing though isn't it? The language in this thread is kind of weird too, you say piece of mind and I can see that to an extent but with posters saying things about being able to blow a rapists head off is a little further gone.

Anyway, like I said, I'm an outsider so I've no doubt in my mind I'm wonderfully uninformed, it just seems a little bit perverse to me.

Criminals have guns. If someone broke into your house with the intent to hurt you or your family it makes you feel better to have the odds favor you just a bit more than calling the cops and praying.

How about...

Adequate proof of training in the use, ownership and storage of guns.
i.e. a license of gun ownership.

Seems entirely reasonable... I mean, I'd personally go so far as to say that Americans should allow themselves to become army reserve, or be drafted for national service if they want to own a gun. After military service, they're given one. It's a system that works well for Switzerland, which despite having one of the highest gun ownership proportions in the world... also has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

I attribute it to the fact that everyone owns a gun there, knows how to use it, and does so responsibly as a result of their training.

It even has positive knock on effects in terms of health and social duty. But my guess is that American's would be too vociferously against a draft or a national service. So a gun license seems like the most reasonable compromise - ensuring that those that own a gun are able to effectively manage the use of the gun and themselves.

Also, repeating the same argument that plenty of other gun owners haven't killed anyone yet doesn't really do much to strengthen a pretty specious argument.

well Switzerland doesn't go to war every couple years, so that changes attitudes on a draft pretty dramatically

 

[Mammoth Jones]

How about...

Adequate proof of training in the use, ownership and storage of guns.
i.e. a license of gun ownership.

Seems entirely reasonable... I mean, I'd personally go so far as to say that Americans should allow themselves to become army reserve, or be drafted for national service if they want to own a gun. After military service, they're given one. It's a system that works well for Switzerland, which despite having one of the highest gun ownership proportions in the world... also has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

I attribute it to the fact that everyone owns a gun there, knows how to use it, and does so responsibly as a result of their training.

It even has positive knock on effects in terms of health and social duty. But my guess is that American's would be too vociferously against a draft or a national service. So a gun license seems like the most reasonable compromise - ensuring that those that own a gun are able to effectively manage the use of the gun and themselves.

I've always said I need a road test to drive a car. Seems reasonable. Cars can be dangerous. I get it. Why not a test for gun ownership. They're just as, if not more dangerous in potential. I don't disagree with your proposal. As a legal gun owner I have no problem doing a little studying to know the rules of gun ownership, storage, etc. And taking a test to demonstrate my proficiency. But keep in mind in regards to storage...I don't think there's any laws that dictate that someone MUST keep their guns locked up.

As far as military service? That's just silly. Every male of eligible age is already registered for a draft.

Also, repeating the same argument that plenty of other gun owners haven't killed anyone yet doesn't really do much to strengthen a pretty specious argument.

Sorry but the stats aren't specious. It's only specious if you subtlety insinuate that all legal gun owners will eventually kill someone. The FACT is the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners will never fire their weapons at a living, breathing person. That is a fact. It can't be argued. So what I'm advocating is a little perspective in light of that simple truth...

 

[dark_chris]

I was not up for owning a gun, until I almost had a break-in by two dudes and my friend, who was living here, big and buff guy, scared them off. Now he doesn't live here anymore.
Now, I armed myself. its always good to be ready for crazies.

 

[IceCold]

I don't own a gun because I live in fear of my law abiding neighbors weapons. The insinuation that gun ownership is perpetuated out of fear of others owning a gun legally in flawed in the context in which you're attempting to apply it. I own a gun just in case a situation arises in which I'd like to defend myself, I can. Period. I don't know if you've ever had a junkie try to kick in your door or a burglar threaten to slash your spouses throat if she makes a sound but it happens and I'd prefer to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it.



"One person with a serious mental conditions killed people with a gun today out of millions of gun owners....BAN ALL TEH BAD THINGS!!"



Again, I don't fear legal gun owners. I've had a shouting match with a few and we got in each others faces and guess what...no one pulled a gun. Eventually whatever we were arguing about is settled and we move on. My main reason for having a gun in my home is self defense. Point blank period. The fact is I shouldn't have to justify that to anyone except the people that live in the home with me. The idea that every gun owner is somehow a threat or a perceived threat is incorrect. Let's worry about the illegal gun owners such as criminals.



Guns are great tools of self preservation. They (and the adult legally authorized to wield them) protected my ass twice when I was a kid. I own one because I truly believe my safety and the safety of my family is MY responsibility. The cops have said point blank it's not their responsibility. So I did what I had to do.

Where to you live where you feel that your safety and safety of your family is so at risk that you need a gun? I could understand if you lived in some poor, war struck country but you live in a 1st world country.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Deadly force is much more granular than yes/no. Reducing it to that is BULLSHIT.

Shooting a guy who is breaking into your house in the middle of the night.

and

Shooting a suspicious guy in the street/guy breaking into a car with noone inside.

Could not be two more different situations.


As someone who had had places I live broken into TWICE, I would keep at least my grandfathers ww2 guns around even if the unrealistic conspiracy situation of all guns outlawed became reality. (once noone was home, 2nd time gf was home and sleeping and it became a physical confrontation when I came home from an insomnia fueled jog at 3 am).

I'd rather go to prison for 5-10 years on something like manslaughter than have something happen in the 1% chance to my fiance. If I ever let something happen to her like that I'd probably fucking hang myself.

 

[Orayn]

Where to you live where you feel that your safety and safety of your family is so at risk that you need a gun? I could understand if you lived in some poor, war struck country but you live in a 1st world country.

First world countries still have violent crime and home invasions, and America has more than most.

 

[LuchaShaq]

What about when your right to defend yourself intrudes in the face of someone else... like an innocent family member who you're having a heated argument against?

.

Someone like that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun in the first place because they are clearly mentally ill/challenged in some way if they pull a gun over an argument.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Where to you live where you feel that your safety and safety of your family is so at risk that you need a gun? I could understand if you lived in some poor, war struck country but you live in a 1st world country.

Yea because people in first world countries never have burglaries/armed criminals. I never said I *need* a gun. I lived just fine for years and years without owning one. I simply CHOSE to own one and I don't need to justify that to your perception of quantifiable danger.

Don't get me wrong, I don't live in abject fear of a home invasion at any minute, LMAO. It's just a "just-in-case-shit-happens" type of thing. It's not that big of a deal. Anyone that comes in my home wouldn't even know I have guns.

I live in New York.

 

[Mr Swine]

Where I live (New York) absolutely not.

Ok!