Douva's Gun Thread

[Douva 0]

I started writing this as a response to a few comments in the air rifle thread, but it eventually got long enough that I decided to start a new thread with it.



In my mind, the question of gun ownership is much larger than defending oneself against common criminals or having the ability engage in recreational hunting. Firearms are a survival tool, and to remove that tool from the hands of citizens is to handicap those citizens and impair their ability to handle situations that both they and the government may not currently envision.

We could go back and forth all day, debating who needs guns and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is that we'd be discussing it in the context of the known, not the unknown. There is a huge difference between being paranoid and being prepared, and preparing oneself for the unknown should never be casually dismissed as paranoia. By telling its citizens that they do not need and cannot own guns, a government is promising that it will always be ready, willing, and able to defend their lives, liberty, and property. I don't have enough confidence in any government to accept that promise. If tomorrow there is an earthquake or a hurricane or if, God forbid, the nuclear bombs start falling, is the government going to protect each survivor? Is it going to defend each person's food supply? Is it going to protect each citizen from looters? Is it going to defend each woman from the predators and rapists seeking to take advantage of the situation? Is it going to hunt wild game for starving families when supply lines are cut off? Is it ALWAYS going to be there when it is needed? Anyone who believes unquestioningly that their government will always be there for them, in every situation, needs to take a long, hard look at history, particularly recent history, and then they need to wake up to reality.

More than likely, I'll go through my entire life without ever pointing a gun at another human being and without ever hunting game for survival, but until my government can indisputably guarantee me that outcome, I'll be hanging onto my firearms.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[downwardspiral 0]

I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the gun control lobby is driven by fear and there is no amount of logic that can help that.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the gun control lobby is driven by fear and there is no amount of logic that can help that.

I agree with you but I will also counter that point by saying that the pro-gun lobby is also driven by fear. The conspiracy theories that pro-gun types spew out reek of paranoia. I am not bashing gun owners as I fully support the right of individuals to own firearms but both sides of the debate tend to be run by extremists.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[downwardspiral 0]

I agree every good lobby has an effective propoganda campaign. I don't agree that the pro-gun lobby is driven by fear.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the gun control lobby is driven by fear and there is no amount of logic that can help that.

That's not a fair comment. It's an old rhetorical trick to "rebut" a position either labeling the position-holders, or resorting to ad-campaign type slogans. But that doesn't advance the discussion any.

You know fully well that the US is a big country with many different sub-cultures often influenced, at least in part, by geography. To people who live in areas where gun ownership is not the norm, and who've never served in the military, and have never had firearms as part of their lives, gun ownership simply does not strike them as something all that necessary. They don't hunt or target-shoot either out of necessity or for recreation, and they may very well live and work in fairly low crime rate areas, so they don't perceive a need to have a weapon for self-protection. All they know is they turn on the TV news and hear about one inner-city gangbanger popping a cap into another one, in a bombed-out ghetto section of the city they'd never go into in a million years; and as far as they're concerned, the only people that have guns are street criminals and the police. To these folks, who have good intentions, lawful civilian gun ownership is rare and counter-intuitive.

Another group that must be considered are people who live in poor, urban areas that are like war zones where children get shot in the crossfire every day by gangbangers. The only non-human wildlife where these people live are birds and rodents. These people will never hunt for food or recreationally in a million years. All they know is that they're sick of living where the bullets are always flying, and teenagers are always dying. These folks, who have good intentions, absolutely despise guns. They don't fear them; they despise them. There's a difference.

The converse to this is people from areas of the country where civilian gun ownership, and hunting, etc. are a common and fiercely-protected part of the subculture. To these folks, who have good intentions, lawful civilian gun ownership is as normal, common and part of their culture as ownership of a car or TV.

There are also, believe it or not, a lot of people who have very mixed feelings on the issue. The Great Middle is often so un-acknowledged in any debate.

Whether one side or the other is right or wrong is aside from the particular point I'm making right now.

I find that a lot of the debate over gun ownership in the US is driven by culture, with "the issues" being more a smokescreen – used by both sides to mask the cultural debate.

[kallend 2,147]

The fact is that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.

However, there is no doubt that many, maybe the majority of gun owners exercise this right with a bogus rationalization that it actually makes the country safer. Not that they shouldn't exercise this right (and all others too), but at least they should stop kidding themselves that it makes the USA a safer place.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the gun control lobby is driven by fear and there is no amount of logic that can help that.

I agree with you but I will also counter that point by saying that the pro-gun lobby is also driven by fear. The conspiracy theories that pro-gun types spew out reek of paranoia. I am not bashing gun owners as I fully support the right of individuals to own firearms but both sides of the debate tend to be run by extremists.

I believe the difference between both sides is primarily a cultural difference. The anti-gun lobby is driven by people who grew up only knowing guns as weapons of violence. Most of the supporters of the pro-gun lobby grew up knowing guns simply as tools present in their day-to-day lives. The anti-gun lobby sees the pro-gun lobby as promoting weapons of violence, and the pro-gun lobby sees the anti-gun lobby as trying to take away one of the tools on which they rely.

Both sides are driven by fear; though, the pro-gun lobby's fear may be more founded in fact. Like many other misguided, liberty threatening movements throughout history, the anti-gun lobby is driven primarily by people who fear what they do not understand. Compared to other causes of death, both natural and unnatural, the number of gun deaths in America is relatively low. It's even lower when you count only homicides and accidental deaths, discounting suicides, which account for about 50% of all gun related deaths in America. Contrary to what much of the world, including many Americans, seem to believe, American streets are not plagued by constant shootouts. We don't see movements--at least not of this magnitude--to ban things like cigarettes and cars because those things are understood by most people and/or considered important tools. The problem is that the supporters of the anti-gun lobby don't understand guns and gun owners and don't see guns as important tools. Most people who support strict gun control have never needed or owned a gun and don't understand why anyone, outside of law enforcement and military personnel, would or should need or own a gun. They see gun ownership as a frivolous luxury that costs lives. They see guns as weapons of violence with absolutely no redeeming value. They believe that the banning of guns to save a handful of lives each year is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, they fail to see the big picture because, as stated in my previous post, they are basing this decision on the known and not the unknown.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the gun control lobby is driven by fear and there is no amount of logic that can help that.

That's not a fair comment. It's an old rhetorical trick to "rebut" a position either labeling the position-holders, or resorting to ad-campaign type slogans. But that doesn't advance the discussion any.

You know fully well that the US is a big country with many different sub-cultures often influenced, at least in part, by geography. To people who live in areas where gun ownership is not the norm, and who've never served in the military, and have never had firearms as part of their lives, gun ownership simply does not strike them as something all that necessary. They don't hunt or target-shoot either out of necessity or for recreation, and they may very well live and work in fairly low crime rate areas, so they don't perceive a need to have a weapon for self-protection. All they know is they turn on the TV news and hear about one inner-city gangbanger popping a cap into another one, in a bombed-out ghetto section of the city they'd never go into in a million years; and as far as they're concerned, the only people that have guns are street criminals and the police. To these folks, who have good intentions, lawful civilian gun ownership is rare and counter-intuitive.

Another group that must be considered are people who live in poor, urban areas that are like war zones where children get shot in the crossfire every day by gangbangers. The only non-human wildlife where these people live are birds and rodents. These people will never hunt for food or recreationally in a million years. All they know is that they're sick of living where the bullets are always flying, and teenagers are always dying. These folks, who have good intentions, absolutely despise guns. They don't fear them; they despise them. There's a difference.

The converse to this is people from areas of the country where civilian gun ownership, and hunting, etc. are a common and fiercely-protected part of the subculture. To these folks, who have good intentions, lawful civilian gun ownership is as normal, common and part of their culture as ownership of a car or TV.

There are also, believe it or not, a lot of people who have very mixed feelings on the issue. The Great Middle is often so un-acknowledged in any debate.

Whether one side or the other is right or wrong is aside from the particular point I'm making right now.

I find that a lot of the debate over gun ownership in the US is driven by culture, with "the issues" being more a smokescreen – used by both sides to mask the cultural debate.

Wow, Andy, you and I just made posts offering the exact same position on the issue. We should start a movement.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Douva 0]

Quote

The fact is that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.

However, there is no doubt that many, maybe the majority of gun owners exercise this right with a bogus rationalization that it actually makes the country safer. Not that they shouldn't exercise this right (and all others too), but at least they should stop kidding themselves that it makes the USA a safer place.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

The fact is that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.

However, there is no doubt that many, maybe the majority of gun owners exercise this right with a bogus rationalization that it actually makes the country safer. Not that they shouldn't exercise this right (and all others too), but at least they should stop kidding themselves that it makes the USA a safer place.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right.

In some, but not in all scenarios, and taking a look at homicide rates, Americans are FAR more likely to be homicide victims or gun accident victims than residents of any western country where there are strict controls on guns. So overall, the risk is higher here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The fact is that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.

However, there is no doubt that many, maybe the majority of gun owners exercise this right with a bogus rationalization that it actually makes the country safer. Not that they shouldn't exercise this right (and all others too), but at least they should stop kidding themselves that it makes the USA a safer place.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right.

In some, but not in all scenarios, and taking a look at homicide rates, Americans are FAR more likely to be homicide victims or gun accident victims than residents of any western country where there are strict controls on guns. So overall, the risk is higher here.

Thats too easy....are you setting up a logic trap or something?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The fact is that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.

However, there is no doubt that many, maybe the majority of gun owners exercise this right with a bogus rationalization that it actually makes the country safer. Not that they shouldn't exercise this right (and all others too), but at least they should stop kidding themselves that it makes the USA a safer place.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right.

In some, but not in all scenarios, and taking a look at homicide rates, Americans are FAR more likely to be homicide victims or gun accident victims than residents of any western country where there are strict controls on guns. So overall, the risk is higher here.

Because Americans will continue to own and drive cars, there will continue to be automotive accidents, but most Americans agree that the high number of automotive related deaths each year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to legally purchase and drive an automobile.

If gun ownership came without cost, there would be no debate. The benefit of legalized gun ownership is not negated by that cost. Because people can legally purchase and own guns in America, there are going to be more accidental and criminal shootings each year than in the countries where citizens aren't allowed to legally purchase and own guns. Only those people shortsighted enough to see guns as nothing more than the vehicle by which those accidental and criminal shootings are actuated will see this as a reason to band the purchase and ownership of guns in America.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The fact is that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.

However, there is no doubt that many, maybe the majority of gun owners exercise this right with a bogus rationalization that it actually makes the country safer. Not that they shouldn't exercise this right (and all others too), but at least they should stop kidding themselves that it makes the USA a safer place.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right.

In some, but not in all scenarios, and taking a look at homicide rates, Americans are FAR more likely to be homicide victims or gun accident victims than residents of any western country where there are strict controls on guns. So overall, the risk is higher here.

Because Americans will continue to own and drive cars, there will continue to be automotive accidents, but most Americans agree that the high number of automotive related deaths each year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to legally purchase and drive an automobile.

If gun ownership came without cost, there would be no debate. The benefit of legalized gun ownership is not negated by that cost. Because people can legally purchase and own guns in America, there are going to be more accidental and criminal shootings each year than in the countries where citizens aren't allowed to legally purchase and own guns. Only those people shortsighted enough to see guns as nothing more than the vehicle by which those accidental and criminal shootings are actuated will see this as a reason to band the purchase and ownership of guns in America.

I haven't argued for a ban, have I? I don't believe in banning cars or airplanes either, that is a silly strawman.

I believe in the exercise of rights. I don't believe in people deluding themselves that owning guns makes the country safer - the data show very clearly that it doesn't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Well put. Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones!

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

the data show very clearly that it doesn't.

Reference(s)?

We are all engines of karma

[shropshire 0]

Why would you need a reference?

Do people get killed by legally owned guns in The United States of America? - Yes.
Thus if THOSE guns were not around, THOSE people could not have been killed by them.
Therefore, legally owning guns can not be making the country safer.


What did I miss?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The fact is that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.

However, there is no doubt that many, maybe the majority of gun owners exercise this right with a bogus rationalization that it actually makes the country safer. Not that they shouldn't exercise this right (and all others too), but at least they should stop kidding themselves that it makes the USA a safer place.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right.

In some, but not in all scenarios, and taking a look at homicide rates, Americans are FAR more likely to be homicide victims or gun accident victims than residents of any western country where there are strict controls on guns. So overall, the risk is higher here.

Because Americans will continue to own and drive cars, there will continue to be automotive accidents, but most Americans agree that the high number of automotive related deaths each year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to legally purchase and drive an automobile.

If gun ownership came without cost, there would be no debate. The benefit of legalized gun ownership is not negated by that cost. Because people can legally purchase and own guns in America, there are going to be more accidental and criminal shootings each year than in the countries where citizens aren't allowed to legally purchase and own guns. Only those people shortsighted enough to see guns as nothing more than the vehicle by which those accidental and criminal shootings are actuated will see this as a reason to band the purchase and ownership of guns in America.

I haven't argued for a ban, have I? I don't believe in banning cars or airplanes either, that is a silly strawman.

I believe in the exercise of rights. I don't believe in people deluding themselves that owning guns makes the country safer - the data show very clearly that it doesn't.

Did I say you argued for a ban on guns or cars? My previous post simply explained why the benefits of legalized gun ownership outweigh the costs, and it did a damn good job of it.

By the way, you're not using the term "straw man" correctly. If my argument suggested you actually supported a ban on both guns and cars, and then I went on to defend automobile ownership, instead of gun ownership, THAT would be a straw man argument.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Why would you need a reference?

Do people get killed by legally owned guns in The United States of America? - Yes.
Thus if THOSE guns were not around, THOSE people could not have been killed by them.
Therefore, legally owning guns can not be making the country safer.


What did I miss?

Well, for starters, you're assuming that nobody in the U.S. ever uses legally owned guns for self-defense. Some statistics suggest that legally owned firearms are brandished and/or fired in self defense, by American civilians, approximately two-million times each year. Also, you're still basing your assumptions on the known, while completely discounting the unknown. By being armed, there are certain catastrophic scenarios for which Americans are most likely much better prepared than citizens of countries that don't allow gun ownership.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Why would you need a reference?

Do people get killed by legally owned guns in The United States of America? - Yes. Thus if THOSE guns were not around, THOSE people could not have been killed by them. Therefore, legally owning guns can not be making the country safer. What did I miss?

What you missed is the whole other side of the equation: the number of lives saved by guns each year. Guns are used up to 2.5 million times per year in self-defense (Not all of these would have resulted in saved lives, but many do.) There's also the number of women not raped, the number of citizens not assaulted, and so on.

Gee, how could you have missed all that? Do you dislike guns so intensely that you couldn't even conceive of a positive use for them in society, even though we've been talking about it all over the place?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

the data show very clearly that it doesn't.

Reference(s)?

FBI UCR, and equivalent reports from other nations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the data show very clearly that it doesn't.

Reference(s)?

FBI UCR, and equivalent reports from other nations.

See the two posts that preceded yours.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Why would you need a reference?

Do people get killed by legally owned guns in The United States of America? - Yes. Thus if THOSE guns were not around, THOSE people could not have been killed by them. Therefore, legally owning guns can not be making the country safer. What did I miss?

What you missed is the whole other side of the equation: the number of lives saved by guns each year. Guns are used up to 2.5 million times per year in self-defense (Not all of these would have resulted in saved lives, but many do.) There's also the number of women not raped, the number of citizens not assaulted, and so on.

Gee, how could you have missed all that? Do you dislike guns so intensely that you couldn't even conceive of a positive use for them in society, even though we've been talking about it all over the place?

If, on balance guns are saving lives, why are the homicide stats SO MUCH higher in the US than in other western nations?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

You're preaching to the choir!

I agree!

• Quote

[warpedskydiver 0]

If, on balance guns are saving lives, why are the homicide stats SO MUCH higher in the US than in other western nations?

[craddock 0]

Quote

What did I miss?

The defensive uses that firearms are used each year. That number ranges form 100,000 from anti-gun studies to 2.5 by pro gun studies. Most other studies put the number closer to the middle of the two extremes. You missed that for starters.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.