Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

False Sense of Security?

  1. Jul 2, 2008 #1
    The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.

    Any burglar with a 1/4 brain will rob your house while you are not there. If a burglar does break in he might bring his own firearm and maybe a friend in case of trouble.

    No. Your handgun will not hit that F-22 flying 20,000ft above you when you decide to rebel against the Government.

    Yes, you might be able to fend off a criminal on the street but chances are said criminal will come from behind you.

    Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

    Finally, I can only imagine the following scenario: "S***! Some students came in today with guns and started shooting people" "Alright, enyone outside this classroom is fair target."

    Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?



    Jordan Joab.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 3, 2008 #2
    This question is hardly worth answering so I'll respond with an equally absurd question.

    If I'm about to be mugged how would NOT having a gun make me safer?
     
  4. Jul 3, 2008 #3
    Here's a better question:

    If I'm mugged how would a gun make me safer?

    If you think you can pull out your gun and shoot the bad guy when he's already pulled a gun or knife on you, then you watch too many movies.
     
  5. Jul 3, 2008 #4
    Here you go, http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

    Just enter a state in the search engine.

    Thousands of accounts of people defending themselves with guns in all sorts of situations. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Hypothetical situation arguments a waste of time.
     
  6. Jul 3, 2008 #5
    Allow me to clarify my position where it comes to firearms.

    I believe Americans have the right to have a rifle, shotgun, longgun, carbine, etc at home to protect themselves and their property (still a false sense of security). However, when it comes to handguns, I believe only law enforcement should be allowed to carry them.

    I'm not comfortable with the idea of an increased number of handguns out on the street. It is dangerous. It is ridiculous to think that having more people armed with handguns will create a safer, more secure society. If the previous was truly the case, why not give every country on Earth nuclear weapons? I'm sure wars will cease to exist!:biggrin:



    Jordan.
     
  7. Jul 3, 2008 #6
    Concern for our society starts with concern for the individual. It does not make sense that individual should have to carry a rifle for personal defense. Though a more visual deterent against personal attack. (I've never heard of someone carrying a rifle getting mugged :smile:). It's not very practical. A handgun, like I carry myself, is adequate.

    It's the same old tired argument. Create laws that restrict the law abiding citizen from having guns (handguns or otherwise), then only the criminals will have them rendering the law abiding citizen to a legal and lethal disadvantage.
     
  8. Jul 3, 2008 #7
    That's a logical fallacy, because you aren't showing the other side. The people that die while trying to protect themselves instead of just giving up their wallet, and the people who get shot with their own guns.
     
  9. Jul 3, 2008 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, when it comes to nuclear bombs, mutually assured destruction did work. The real threats here are the people who either want the world to end, or people who are too stupid to realize that using a nuke will absolutely lead to their own destruction. But when you point your gun at someone, they know that they are about to die, so unless they want to die at that particular moment, you have the advantage.

    As for handguns, they are much easier to store and to use in a pinch: Rifles and shotguns require the use of two hands. Hand guns can be operated with one hand. Handguns can be stored in drawer by the bed or kept in an easily accessable, secret location, whereas long-barrel guns are generally more difficult to hide or store. Most handguns have a clip that can be switched in a few seconds. Rifles and shotguns require that each shell be loaded individually when needed. Also many States require that all shotguns be plugged so that they can only hold three rounds.

    Do you really think that laws will stop crooks from carrying guns when by definition they don't follow the law? Also, it is easy to make a gun. Laws will do nothing but create a black market for illegally produced guns.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2008
  10. Jul 3, 2008 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
     
  11. Jul 3, 2008 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A website like this is too silly to even be considered.

    You realize that this has no meaning because there is nothing to measure against, right?

    Shall we start a website listing people that had their own guns turned on them or that injured themselves or other innocent bystanders with their own guns, what, no one is going to brag about that?

    Just last month there was a guy on the news because he tried to pull a gun on an intruder in his home and the intruder wrestled with the homeowner and the homeowner suffered broken ribs, a broken arm, and was shot in the shoulder with his own gun before the intruder got away, apparently unharmed. :rofl: They were making fun of the gun owner on the morning news, a reporter stopped him as he was returning home and asked him how he was, he said "I was shot". Ok, it wasn't funny that they repeated that sound clip a hundred times.

    If you pull a gun on someone and you wait to see what they'll do, you've put yourself at risk. Ask yourself, do you intend to kill the first person you come across with that gun?
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2008
  12. Jul 3, 2008 #11
    But who honestly believes that an increase in the number of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns will deter or reduce violent crimes? Ridiculous.

    I can see the following scenarios taking place:

    A) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Criminals realize the risk is higher and get even more violent.

    B) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Criminals target areas where handgun ownership is lower or non-existent. More pressure to re-direct law enforcement services to those areas.

    C) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Increased number of legal handguns might increase the number of illegal weapons.

    D) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. These citizens feel empowered to resolve matters or disputes out of their area of responsibility. i.e disputes at work, on the street, on the bus, on the subway, home, etc.



    Jordan Joab.
     
  13. Jul 3, 2008 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I just posted evidence to that effect.

    Frankly, what is silly is thinking that having a weapon does not make one safer; provided that they know how to use it properly. And as for those who are reckless with guns, even a single match costs many lives if used carelessly. Should we make matches illegal? How about cars? A car can be a much more lethal weapon than a gun.
     
  14. Jul 3, 2008 #13
    It should certainly be up to the indidual who is being robbed to make the determination as to either hand over his wallet or to risk a shootout (possibly shooting himself :rolleyes:). If someone has the drop on me, I may hand my wallet over, though he may take it and shoot me anyway but anything can happen in a particular situation. It's my call as to what to do if someone is pointing a gun, waving a knife, a bat, or is in some other way is threatening my life.
     
  15. Jul 3, 2008 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are times when a having a gun is useless and only a fool would try to use it. There are other times when a few seconds of warning means the difference between life and death. And if the guy walking up behind the guy mugging you has a gun, then you still have a potential advantage through the actions of others.

    Speaking generally, you can't take my guns just because some people are idiots.
     
  16. Jul 3, 2008 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ivan, how many people intend to set fire to people? Or run over someone with a car in the bedroom? Many household items can be lethal, but they serve real purposes other than killing or harming people.

    Hand guns are made to kill people.Too many people buy guns out of fear and are afraid to use them or don't know how to use them. An intruder in your home with a gun won't hesitate to use it on you if he sees you have a gun. Where a typical homeowner with a gun will just stand there like a deer in headlights.
     
  17. Jul 3, 2008 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How many fires are set intentionally? I would guess a very large number of them.

    I am thinking more of someone driving onto a campus and running down students, as opposed to using a gun, as we have seen recently. Do you really think that someone that sick won't find some other mode of operation? Are you suggesting that the mentally ill are only dangerous because they have guns?

    How many?

    An intruder comes into my home and he is likely dead.
     
  18. Jul 3, 2008 #17
    *slaps forehead*

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_re_us/officer_shot

    Please tell me you were just joking and really understood what I was coming at.

    Murder vs. mugging carries totally different sentencing.
     
  19. Jul 3, 2008 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can also say that a couple of times I have gone for my gun. Luckily I have never had to use one to shoot a person, but I was SURE glad to have them when I thought that I may need them.

    There was NO hesitation.
     
  20. Jul 3, 2008 #19
    Before this gets to page 1-billion, Id like to point out this glaring error Jordan Joab.

    The point of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect yourself on the streets. The right to own a gun is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

    This entire handguns this, protecting yourself in a crime that, is nothing more than BLA BLA BLA..... It misses the point.

    Could we possibly, for once, argue about what the 2nd amendment is really about?

    .........Jeeeeeeeeeezus.
     
  21. Jul 3, 2008 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not in comparison to the number of matches sold, it would almost be too tiny to measure. My point is, matches are not normally purchased with the intent of using them as a weapon.

    And what percentage of the car owning population is this? Like I said just about anythong can be used to kill somone, a piano string, pantyhose, a plastic dry cleaning bag, the point is that they are not "intended' as lethal weapons.

    I'd say look at the number of handguns that are owned and the number of owners that are proficient at shooting ranges with those guns would be a good measurement. I'd say the average person that buys a hand gun to keep at home for protection would not be able to shoot someone. That's a HUGE mistake. If you buy something made to kill people, you'd better be ready to kill the first person you aim it at. Most people don't even think that far ahead.

    That's the "only" attitude you should have if you buy a handgun. Kill first, think later. And just hope you didn't shoot the wrong person.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: False Sense of Security?
  1. Social Security (Replies: 15)

  2. Social Security (Replies: 16)

  3. Homeland Security? (Replies: 11)

Loading...