News How can teaching gun safety in schools help prevent gun violence?

[Gokul43201]

This has to be taken into context from the time. What was the meaning of "arms" when the Constitution was written? Clearly they could not speak to the existence of nuclear weapons, or tasers, or machine guns for that matter. Nor did they exclude any existing weapon of the time. So it is clear that they meant firearms.

Why should it be taken in the context of what the framers had at their time rather than all the things that the framers would expect us to have in our time? Does the First Amendment grant the freedom of press only so long as it is limited to newspapers? Can Scientology be banned because it didn't because it didn't exist in the 18th Century? No we expect the framers had the intelligence to foresee that technology and society would change over time and their words would need to be interpreted in the context of our times, not in the context of theirs.

 

[sketchtrack]

Why should it be taken in the context of what the framers had at their time rather than all the things that the framers would expect us to have in our time? Does the First Amendment grant the freedom of press only so long as it is limited to newspapers? Can Scientology be banned because it didn't because it didn't exist in the 18th Century? No we expect the framers had the intelligence to foresee that technology and society would change over time and their words would need to be interpreted in the context of our times, not in the context of theirs.

They have laws, and then they have the Bill of Rights. Laws are intended to be written according to new context, if and only if they are within the boundaries of the constitution.

The founding fathers knew that if there was no bill of rights, then your rights could be stripped at any means so long as a court rules it so. The bill of rights is what makes you free. Name another country that has a bill of rights for individuals.

The idea of throwing it out by means of popular demand goes against the very core concept of the country which is only such a great country because we have those rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why should it be taken in the context of what the framers had at their time rather than all the things that the framers would expect us to have in our time? Does the First Amendment grant the freedom of press only so long as it is limited to newspapers? Can Scientology be banned because it didn't because it didn't exist in the 18th Century? No we expect the framers had the intelligence to foresee that technology and society would change over time and their words would need to be interpreted in the context of our times, not in the context of theirs.

How could the framers possibly anticipate something like a nuclear weapon? I don't understand the logic here. There have always been many religious beliefs, but a nuclear bomb was a whole new concept.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To me, it is most important that law abiding citizens are effectively a militia. So it becomes a question of what weapons are needed in order to ensure that a corrupt government can be overthrown.

Don't many Swiss keep automatic weapons in their homes? What is the crime rate in Switzerland/

 

[humanino]

Don't many Swiss keep automatic weapons in their homes?

Gun politics in Switzerland (wiki)

The gun policy in Switzerland is unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.

What is the crime rate in Switzerland/

Gun crime (wiki)

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop. (Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000)
Switzerland : 0.56
Unites States :2.97

Disclaimer
"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."

My guess : a factor more than 5 cannot be washed out anyway.

edit
Cyrus claimed to be swiss once if I remember !

 

[Gokul43201]

How could the framers possibly anticipate something like a nuclear weapon? I don't understand the logic here. There have always been many religious beliefs, but a nuclear bomb was a whole new concept.

Is the internet a whole new concept? Can we restrict freedom of press or expression if it's on TV or the internet, just because the framers would never have foreseen it? (That was rhetorical - I know how the court ruled on Reno v. ACLU)

But never mind nuclear tipped missiles. We happily allow bans on machine guns. And, to my knowledge, the states (CA< NY< NJ< etc.) haven't been taken to the courts for this ban. So what gives?

 

[Cyrus]

Gun politics in Switzerland (wiki)


Gun crime (wiki)

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop. (Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000)
Switzerland : 0.56
Unites States :2.97

Disclaimer
"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."

My guess : a factor more than 5 cannot be washed out anyway.

edit
Cyrus claimed to be swiss once if I remember !

Good memory! My grandfather is swiss-german.

 

[Gear300]

If we didn't have the right to bear arms, then I think there might be an imbalance between domestic security and people. Government institutions on local levels would also have to withdraw arms (and if we leave arms to state and federal institutions, the imbalance becomes relatively severe). Not to mention, its not that hard to smuggle in guns. I also doubt guns have a highly influential effect on crime (it is influential, but not severely influential). To bear arms seems alright to me.

I do not think guns would make people feel safer, but neither would the withdrawal of guns. Whether one feels safe or not depends on the level of paranoia (I guess)...its psychological (after all, there is always something to fear).

 

[sketchtrack]

Say you live in the woods, and a rabid raccoon is coming right at you. Say a mountain lion has a persons face in there mouth. Perhaps a bear is charging you. Just because some people live in the inner city doesn't mean that the constitution should cater to their wants. If guns were banned, then it would no longer be safe to go into Alaska.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is the internet a whole new concept? Can we restrict freedom of press or expression if it's on TV or the internet, just because the framers would never have foreseen it? (That was rhetorical - I know how the court ruled on Reno v. ACLU)

The internet is merely another means of conveying speech. There is no explicit and immediate threat to the common good.

But never mind nuclear tipped missiles. We happily allow bans on machine guns. And, to my knowledge, the states (CA< NY< NJ< etc.) haven't been taken to the courts for this ban. So what gives?

I agree, this is inconsistent and should be corrected.

IMO, this is the belief that lies at the core of the objections to personal weapons: We don't need them anymore.

This is the false sense of security: The fairytale that we are now so civilized that have no need for citizens to be well armed. In fact, when you think about it, the violence that motivates laws against gun ownership is proof that we still need a well-armed, law abiding population.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Good memory! My grandfather is swiss-german.

So was mine! For some reason the German culture is more pronounced in my family, so I tend to think of myself as being German [along with many other countries of origin] but Grandpa was in fact Suissedeutch.

 

[sketchtrack]

Kind of weird because my grandpa was Swiss as well. Not German though, my other Grandpa was German. One grandma was Scottish, and one was english.

 

[wildman]

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.

The short answer is they don’t make you safer. They are like a stuffed animal hugged by a child. They make you feel safer, but they don’t make you safer. The reason is that if a gun is left out (say under your pillow), the chances of an accident (or someone using against you) is far greater than the chances of you using it for defense. And if you don’t leave it out, it is worthless for defense.
I'm not against people owning guns (I am an expert shot with a target rifle) but people need to face reality and reality is not what is written in “American Rifleman” (the NRA pub). Everyone thinks that they will never make a mistake. However the stats for both auto accidents and gun accidents show that isn’t true.

 

[Cyrus]

IMO, this is the belief that lies at the core of the objections to personal weapons: We don't need them anymore.

This is the false sense of security: The fairytale that we are now so civilized that have no need for citizens to be well armed. In fact, when you think about it, the violence that motivates laws against gun ownership is proof that we still need a well-armed, law abiding population.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I don't think anyone is making that claim. If they are, then I don't agree with that statement even though I am not for using guns as presonal protection. Actually, I should be clear. I stated that everyone should be allowed to have guns as stated in the constutution, for overthrowing the government.

Someone made the statement about needing a gun in alaska. I have no problems with special permits for people that need guns for this situation. I.e., farmers and hunters.

I also have no problem with people having special permits to carry concealed weapons provided they pass very stringent tests.

I do take issue with people that buy guns and keep them in their house for 'that day' when some 'robber' comes into tie up and kill their entire family. I don't think those people should be allowed to use the gun in their house for any reason other than overthrowing the government. The only way I'd let them use a gun for personal protection in the house is if they also go through a very stringent training course and have periodic tests. I think there are people who have this false idea that keeping a gun in drawers around the house for quick access is going to really protect them.

 

[drankin]

I think there are people who have this false idea that keeping a gun in drawers around the house for quick access is going to really protect them.

Don't tell us, tell these people: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx"

Just type in "burglar" and see all the documented cases of people and their "false" sense of security for having their gun available when someone breaks into their home.

 

[lisab]

Don't tell us, tell these people: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx"

Just type in "burglar" and see all the documented cases of people and their "false" sense of security for having their gun available when someone breaks into their home.

If people could post from the beyond (as if it exists), you could type in "suicide" or "accidental shooting victims" and get the other point of view.

 

[WarPhalange]

Suicide wouldn't matter, they'd just use something else.

But gun accidents + people who get shot with their own guns + people who shoot due to road rage or domestic violence, etc. That would be a nice statistic to have. Too bad the anti-gun side doesn't put as much value into propaganda as the NRA side.

 

[LowlyPion]

... Actually, I should be clear. I stated that everyone should be allowed to have guns as stated in the constutution, for overthrowing the government.

I think you have drawn an unusual interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The prefatory clause doesn't specifically limit the right merely for the single "militia" purposes. There are legitimate causes to own a gun outside of the purpose of forming a militia. The Second Amendment merely recounts a sufficient reason why Government might not "infringe" on personal ownership.

... I have no problems with special permits for people that need guns for this situation. I.e., farmers and hunters.

I have a problem with that. On my property what I bear is my business, no one else's. Whatever gun a farmer has should require no regulation on his own land. I think such permits are none of government's business. In some cases it may be part of maintaining his livelihood in supplementing his family's diet or controlling pest species. Surely you can't demand permitting and oh by the way require a fee for that permit from these people? Requiring registration of all guns would seem to me to be an infringement.

On the other hand I do think that permitting to carry in public - for a purpose - is not a bad thing. Some balance needs to be made for public order. But indiscriminate permitting of every gun - granting specific exemptions as you suggest cannot be the right balance to observe the Second Amendment.

As for protecting from home invasion, without looking for any statistics, I would reckon/guess that through the years more kids have accidentally been killed through negligence, than families saved from home attacks. (And yes, I freely admit that is not a provable assertion and just my opinion.) In that sense my feeling is that security from outsiders is not such a good reason. That such ownership carries high risk. I wouldn't regulate it though, because I also think there is no preventing natural selection.

 

[Cyrus]

Don't tell us, tell these people: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx"

Just type in "burglar" and see all the documented cases of people and their "false" sense of security for having their gun available when someone breaks into their home.

I don't care about people that actually killed a burglar. I am talking about incidents that happened because people thought they were safe, but in the end were not.

 

[Cyrus]

I think you have drawn an unusual interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The prefatory clause doesn't specifically limit the right merely for the single "militia" purposes. There are legitimate causes to own a gun outside of the purpose of forming a militia. The Second Amendment merely recounts a sufficient reason why Government might not "infringe" on personal ownership.

I think it clearly states that the purpose of having a gun is for a regulated militia.

I have a problem with that. On my property what I bear is my business, no one else's. Whatever gun a farmer has should require no regulation on his own land. I think such permits are none of government's business. In some cases it may be part of maintaining his livelihood in supplementing his family's diet or controlling pest species. Surely you can't demand permitting and oh by the way require a fee for that permit from these people? Requiring registration of all guns would seem to me to be an infringement.

Why is that 'no one else's business?' Thats a rather funny and paranoid conclusion. Why should a farmer require no regulation on the gun he has on his land? This is such BS. He has lots and lots of regulatons on his land. His car can't have leaded gasoline, his house has to be to code. He has health standards on his livestock. He can't dump his waste chemicals into the rivers and streams. Oh, but he can run around and do whatever he wants with whatever gun he wants...mmmmmmm, no.

Who said anything about a fee? I think its really absurd that you have a problem with guns being registered. I mean, wow...lets take away all accountability of people who buy guns and want to use them for purposes outside of the 2nd amendment.

On the other hand I do think that permitting to carry in public - for a purpose - is not a bad thing. Some balance needs to be made for public order. But indiscriminate permitting of every gun - granting specific exemptions as you suggest cannot be the right balance to observe the Second Amendment.

No, this is simply wrong. Lots of societies don't have guns in public and there is no problem with 'balance for public order'. Sorry, that claim is going to need some sort of proof. It does not stand on its own - not by a long shot. Also, what do you mean by 'indiscriminate permitting'? What is indiscriminate about what I said? I was very very clear in what needs a permit and what does not -sheesh.

Let me reiterrate what I said since you did not seem to catch on. You can buy a gun and not be registered. Thats fine. But then that gun is limited in its use for overthrowing the government. Thats it. Period. Finito. I hope this is crystal clear to you now. No where did I mention fees, nor 'indescriminate permitting', nor any other such nonsense.

NOW, if you want to use that gun for OTHER purposes, you have to get a PERMIT. This is very simple.

As for protecting from home invasion, without looking for any statistics, I would reckon/guess that through the years more kids have accidentally been killed through negligence, than families saved from home attacks. (And yes, I freely admit that is not a provable assertion and just my opinion.) In that sense my feeling is that security from outsiders is not such a good reason. That such ownership carries high risk. I wouldn't regulate it though, because I also think there is no preventing natural selection.

....okay?...... I guess a child who gets killed with a gun should get the darwin award. Come on, seriously...?

 

[lisab]

Suicide wouldn't matter, they'd just use something else.

I don't think so. When I was a teenager I volunteered at a suicide prevention hotline. We (the teens that worked there) talked to other teens who would call in. (Full disclosure: I didn't last long - wow, what a depressing job!)

In my training I learned that suicides tended to happen as a result of an acute crisis. If you can get the person through the crisis, chances are they would live to see the next day.

I went looking for specific articles about this, but all I could find was this abstract (article is available for purchase )

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5S-4FV9MM3-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=95968ba83290f01b56bb33e16abaf909

At the individual level, studies tend to indicate that many persons have a preference for a given means, which would limit the possibility of substitution or displacement towards another method. Similarly, the fact that suicidal crisis are very often short-lived (and, what is more, influenced by ambivalence or impulsiveness) suggests that an individual with restricted access to a given means would not put off his plans to later or turn to alternative methods

This matches what I was taught at the crisis center - that people, for whatever reason, fixate on how they're going to do it. Keep them from the means and you have a better chance of getting them through the crisis.

 

[drankin]

Yes, a gun is an effective means of committing suicide. But why should an everyday citizen not be permitted to protect his/her home/self because others chose to shoot themselves?

It's not a good argument. Mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms anyway. Even the NRA agrees with that.

I'm not being insensitive to those who suffer from depression and/or are suicidal. It's not something I care to share to the public but my own little brother ended his life in this way several year ago. As much as I loved my brother and wish he were still here I would not chose that everyone else should not be able to have a firearm to protect themselves and their families.

 

[WarPhalange]

(Full disclosure: I didn't last long - wow, what a depressing job!)

Was it like this?

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=504#comic

 

[sketchtrack]

You could kill yourself with a car too, or you could use a toaster, or you could jump out of a building, or off a bridge, you could swim out into the ocean and take a sleeping pill. There are many ways to kill yourself and many things you could use. We cannot start stripping rights and regulating peoples lives in fear they will harm themselves. Guns don't kill people, people do.

As for people accidentally killing themselves or others, that may be considered a risk. I haven't seen any evidence of that being a common thing though. Your probably more likely to get hit by a car crossing the street, maybe get struck by lightning for all I know, but this is something that can be completely avoided if you don't leave firearms laying around next to an unsupervised kid.

 

[Cyrus]

You could kill yourself with a car too, or you could use a toaster, or you could jump out of a building, or off a bridge, you could swim out into the ocean and take a sleeping pill. There are many ways to kill yourself and many things you could use. We cannot start stripping rights and regulating peoples lives in fear they will harm themselves. Guns don't kill people, people do.

As for people accidentally killing themselves or others, that may be considered a risk. I haven't seen any evidence of that being a common thing though. Your probably more likely to get hit by a car crossing the street, maybe get struck by lightning for all I know, but this is something that can be completely avoided if you don't leave firearms laying around next to an unsupervised kid.

Errr, what's this got to do with anything?

 

[WarPhalange]

I've never had my toaster do that to me.

 

[sketchtrack]

Darwin Award

 

[Gear300]

(essentially what sketchtrack said): people kill...not so much guns. If someone intends to kill someone, regardless of having the gun, he/she's aim is to kill. Guns probably do not make things safer, but neither do they do the opposite. If you're implying that people using guns can accidentally kill others...so can people using cars. Safety is more of a state of mind that varies from person to person.

 

[sketchtrack]

I've never had my toaster do that to me.

You sure that wasn't staged to scare the kids? It seams too strange he would shoot himself right as he says "I'm the only one in this room professional enough to know how to carry this Glock 40, blast" I bet it was a stunt using a blank.

 

[WarPhalange]

You sure that wasn't staged to scare the kids? It seams to strange he would should himself right as he says "I'm the only one in this room professional enough to know how to carry this Glock 40, blast" I bet it was a stunt using a blank.

Yeah, you're probably right. He wanted to build trust with the kids by showing his incompetence. It's not likely that it was an ironically hilarious coincidence and hence why it's on Youtube.

http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/guy-shoots-himself-at-raising-canes/8471/

 

[sketchtrack]

I saw on the news the other day, that a school pulled a stunt on kids by setting up a fake car crash scene with student who played dean or injured with fake blood, and crunched cars. They had the fire department in on it, the police. Then at some point they admitted to the students it was all a fake.

Do we really need to scare people to prove a point. Isn't this manipulative and dishonest to fake people out to teach them. If anything it probably makes kids feel like they can't trust people.

 

[WarPhalange]

I'm sorry, I completely lost your point. Setting up a fake car crash with a student to see students' reactions is different than having a cop say "only I can use this because I know how to do it" and then shoot himself with it. That just tells kids that cops don't know anything.

Ergo the video is more likely to be real, the car crash example is something totally different.

 

[drankin]

That vid with the guy shooting himself in the leg is real. I saw an article on it several years ago. That "professional" lost his job and even tried to sue to get it back (I don't think he won). It has actually happened to a few cops over the years, just not so publicly. Guns are dangerous and accidents will happen.

There isn't a dangerous man-made device in existence that hasn't had an "accident" due to human error. I wonder if those guys testing nukes way back when had "accidents" we never heard about. Covered up and called "testing", ..."those scientists went on vacation, haven't heard from them since".

Just remember a few rules (regarding handguns), keep it in a holster at all times (holster covers the trigger guard), assume it is always chambered, when handling never allow the muzzle to point towards anything you do not want to destroy, and keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.

When you are actually ready to fire, ensure safe travel in front of and behind your target.

Your common modern semi-automatic pistol is designed to be dropped, thrown, smashed, run over, pretty much anything short of pulling the trigger and is mechanically incapable of firing.

Safety, safety, safety, practice, practice, practice. For all else, jail time and Darwin awards.

 

[sketchtrack]

I'm sorry, I completely lost your point. Setting up a fake car crash with a student to see students' reactions is different than having a cop say "only I can use this because I know how to do it" and then shoot himself with it. That just tells kids that cops don't know anything.

Ergo the video is more likely to be real, the car crash example is something totally different.

Whoever hired that guy either failed to remember to give him a drug test or a mental evaluation, one or the other? The person who chose him to give speeches to kids should be fired.

A gun like that needs to be cocked. Loading a bullet into the chamber cannot happen accidentally. It seams pretty dumb to me that someone handed him a gun cocked and ready to go with no safety.

 

[sketchtrack]

Maybe instead of kids getting don't play with guns speeches, they should give speeches about gun safety. You would think they would show the kids how to unload a gun and check to make sure it isn't loaded. Maybe they could teach about the safety, to always keep the safety on, and to never leave bullets in the chamber.

I think the problem there was that someone hired a crackhead to be a cop.

 

[turbo]

Whoever hired that guy either failed to remember to give him a drug test or a mental evaluation, one or the other? The person who chose him to give speeches to kids should be fired.

A gun like that needs to be cocked. Loading a bullet into the chamber cannot happen accidentally. It seams pretty dumb to me that someone handed him a gun cocked and ready to go with no safety.

First off, law enforcement types generally carry Glocks with a round in the chamber - you don't want to waste time chambering a round if you need the gun on short notice. You are unfamiliar with the safeties on Glocks. Glocks have several safety features, but every one of them is overridden by pulling the trigger. There is a lever built into the trigger that prevents the trigger from being squeezed unless the lever in depressed. There is a firing-pin block that prevents the gun from going off if it is accidentally dropped. The block retracts only when the trigger is squeezed (past the point allowed by the lever). The last safety feature is that the firing pin is not cocked against its spring (and then released) until the trigger is fully depressed.

Glocks are very safe unless you squeeze the trigger, at which time you disable all three safety features in progression. Glocks have a fairly long trigger pull for this reason, and take a bit of getting used to. The guy pulled the trigger or the gun would not have discharged.

 

[Gokul43201]

(essentially what sketchtrack said): people kill...not so much guns. If someone intends to kill someone, regardless of having the gun, he/she's aim is to kill. Guns probably do not make things safer, but neither do they do the opposite.

Dana Loomis, Stephen W. Marshall and Myduc L. Ta, Amer. Jour. Publ. Health, 95, 830 (2005) [link]

Abstract:
This population-based case–control study of North Carolina workplaces evaluated the hypothesis that employers’ policies allowing firearms in the workplace may increase workers’ risk of homicide. Workplaces where guns were permitted were about 5 times as likely to experience a homicide as those where all weapons were prohibited (adjusted odds ratio=4.81; 95% confidence interval=1.70, 13.65). The association remained after adjustment for other risk factors. The findings suggest that policies allowing guns in the workplace might increase workers’ risk of homicide.

 

[LowlyPion]

Let me reiterrate what I said since you did not seem to catch on. You can buy a gun and not be registered. Thats fine. But then that gun is limited in its use for overthrowing the government. Thats it. Period. Finito. I hope this is crystal clear to you now. No where did I mention fees, nor 'indescriminate permitting', nor any other such nonsense.

NOW, if you want to use that gun for OTHER purposes, you have to get a PERMIT. This is very simple.

While your comments apparently represent a strong Federalist perspective insofar as the government would have the right to legislate just about anything, I think the Bill of Rights is there precisely to create a balance between individual rights and the authority of the many to exercise their tyranny over the few.

Now as to your understanding of the Second Amendment I can only say again that it is not only at odds with my humble view but also apparently at odds with the interpretation placed on it by the US Supreme Court. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the opportunity to read the Heller ruling in a little greater detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I think you will find that it is in agreement with my original observation that the initial clause of the amendment, sets out a sufficient reason why Congress may not infringe - and infringe is an important word in this context, because it means that they shall not make any laws that would abridge the right - apparently seen as a pre-existing right - to personal gun ownership.

As to you thinking you are not talking about indiscriminate permitting by requiring ANY other use of a gun besides overthrowing the government - (sadly a use for which government clearly has other remedies like disarming you should you stand against it) I'd say that pretty much is what indiscriminate means. The idea that you would require a farmer to get a permit to shoot a rabbit eating his crop on his land - that tests the bounds of indiscriminate.

 

[seycyrus]

Those who postulate that guns are not useful in self-defense situations due to various illusionary factors (he'll get you from behind, you won't have enough time etc.) have fully resigned themselves and others to the status of "victim".

Open your eyes, pay attention to your surroundings. Take responsibility for your own protection!

You don't have to kill someone with a handgun to defend yourself.

 

[turbo]

Those who postulate that guns are not useful in self-defense situations due to various illusionary factors (he'll get you from behind, you won't have enough time etc.) have fully resigned themselves and others to the status of "victim".

Open your eyes, pay attention to your surroundings. Take responsibility for your own protection!

You don't have to kill someone with a handgun to defend yourself.

Indeed, the mere possibility that a homeowner might be armed is itself a deterrent to all but the most suicidal crooks. That is a deterrent that could easily be lost if the gun-control folks get their way. My wife and I live in a very rural setting, about 15 minutes (at high speed) from the nearest Sheriff's office or State Police barracks. 15 minutes is a very long time to wait for help if someone is determined to harm you. I don't ever expect to have to defend myself and my wife against a home-invasion-type incident, but I have the means to do so, if the worst should happen.

 

[WarPhalange]

Those who postulate that guns are not useful in self-defense situations due to various illusionary factors (he'll get you from behind, you won't have enough time etc.) have fully resigned themselves and others to the status of "victim".

Open your eyes, pay attention to your surroundings. Take responsibility for your own protection!

You don't have to kill someone with a handgun to defend yourself.

Pulling a gun on someone who already has one pointed at you is suicide. Likewise someone who has a knife and is 5ft or closer to you.

Yes, open your eyes, pay attention to your surroundings. Don't walk dark alleys at night and you'll probably never be mugged.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Indeed, the mere possibility that a homeowner might be armed is itself a deterrent to all but the most suicidal crooks. That is a deterrent that could easily be lost if the gun-control folks get their way. My wife and I live in a very rural setting, about 15 minutes (at high speed) from the nearest Sheriff's office or State Police barracks. 15 minutes is a very long time to wait for help if someone is determined to harm you. I don't ever expect to have to defend myself and my wife against a home-invasion-type incident, but I have the means to do so, if the worst should happen.

Situational. If more than 2 people decide to invade your house it's game over. Truth is, any criminal with a half-brain will attack you when you are most vulnerable; more experienced criminals may even put you in a "comfort zone.' I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen? We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.

A Rottweiller or Pitbull is more effective at protecting your home than your Glock 17.



Jordan.

 

[seycyrus]

Pulling a gun on someone who already has one pointed at you is suicide.

Assuming that a criminal already has a bead on you is a bit presumptuous. There's a whole lot of space-time available before it comes to that.

If the criminal already has deadly intent in mind, then pulling a gun is your most likely chance of survival. There is no reason why one should assume that a criminal that threatens you doesn't really mean you any harm.

Likewise someone who has a knife and is 5ft or closer to you.

Actually, the tuller drill shows that the threat distance is greater than that.

But then again, why would you assume that the criminal will only be goaded towards hostile intent *if* you draw your gun?

It is quite reasonable to assume that a criminal will be disuaded by an armed victim.

 

[seycyrus]

Situational. If more than 2 people decide to invade your house it's game over.

Not even close to being true, if the homeowner is armed with a gun.

Truth is, any criminal with a half-brain will attack you when you are most vulnerable;

They will try to attack you when they *think* you are most vulnerable. Surprise, you have a gun!

more experienced criminals may even put you in a "comfort zone.'

Where are you getting this psychoanalysis of the common criminal?

I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen?

Very often, when the victim is armed.

We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.

The reason you don't see it is because it's not a big sell for the news channels.

A Rottweiller or Pitbull is more effective at protecting your home than your Glock 17.

Breed doesn't have half as much to do with it as the ability to wake up the homeowner due to barking etc. A little yap dog can do that just as well. If it's a smart homeowner, she has a gun.

 

[drankin]

Guns are cleaner and a lot cheaper to feed than rottweillers. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[drankin]

I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen? We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.


Jordan.

Jordan, this is the third time I've posted this link: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx" People successfully defend themselves all the time. Just type "burglar" in the search engine.

 

[turbo]

Situational. If more than 2 people decide to invade your house it's game over. Truth is, any criminal with a half-brain will attack you when you are most vulnerable; more experienced criminals may even put you in a "comfort zone.' I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen? We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.

A Rottweiller or Pitbull is more effective at protecting your home than your Glock 17.



Jordan.

I don't think you read my post very carefully. I'm saying that I (and the vast majority of us, by extension) will most likely never ever have to defend ourselves from a home-invasion criminal, BUT the fact that we have an individual right to own weapons with which to defend ourselves should make most criminals consider if they should break in and risk getting killed. The right to own arms is a deterrent because the criminal likely doesn't know who is armed and who is not.

That said, I practice with my pistols, and I am confident that I could hold off a group of people until the cops could get here. If you let a Rottweiler out to attack armed intruders, the likely short-term result is a dead dog. I'll keep my guns thanks.

 

[Jordan Joab]

I think the handgun owners are correct. Crime decreased the minute more people started buying guns. Every tax-paying American should be armed; by 2010 crime rates will be near 0%.

I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. You keep your guns, I'll keep my dog. I greatly appreciate and respect your opinions. Close the thread.



Jordan.

 

[drankin]

That's all we are saying, Jordan. Let those law abiding folks keep their guns, "safely". And those who are not comfortable with them certainly don't have to own them. Us gun folks just don't want those who wouldn't own one to tell us that we shouldn't. The fact that burglars don't know who is armed and who isn't is a deterent that keeps them out of your house (if you didn't have a dog). I agree, a dog is a good deterent as well. Better in the fact that they will be barking at that window the burglar is attempting to breach causing him to look elsewhere for his meth money.

 

[WarPhalange]

Assuming that a criminal already has a bead on you is a bit presumptuous. There's a whole lot of space-time available before it comes to that.

If you're dealing with a mugger that doesn't make sure his weapon is ready before he tries to mug you, then you can probably just walk away while he tries to figure out how to walk and breathe at the same time.

What "space-time" are you talking about exactly?

If the criminal already has deadly intent in mind, then pulling a gun is your most likely chance of survival. There is no reason why one should assume that a criminal that threatens you doesn't really mean you any harm.

Compare the amount of muggings vs. the number of people still alive after them and then tell me that again. Not all thieves are cold-blooded killers. It sucks to lose your wallet, but thinking you'll pull a John Wayne and shoot the guy before he can react is stupid. This isn't a kung fu movie, either. You won't spin kick the weapon out of his hand. There's a much bigger chance of pushing him over the edge to make him kill you than to just

Actually, the tuller drill shows that the threat distance is greater than that.

Yup, about 20 if I recall.

But then again, why would you assume that the criminal will only be goaded towards hostile intent *if* you draw your gun?

It's reasonable to assume that someone who just wants a quick buck won't go through the trouble of killing you. I don't know who told you that all petty thieves are also mass murderers. It's no different than pot smokers not necessarily being crack addicts.

Theft and mugging carry shorter sentences than murder and you don't have as many cops involved when it's just theft, meaning lower chance of getting caught.

It is quite reasonable to assume that a criminal will be disuaded by an armed victim.

If he can tell that the would-be victim is armed ahead of time, sure. He wouldn't want to go through the trouble or take the risk. But do you honestly think he's just going to let you pull out your gun? Especially if he has a weapon of his own already drawn? That's just fantasy at that point.