Gun violence close to home

[Hixter]

I just wish you and other gun advocates acknowledged more honestly other parts of my argument.

Think of how many lives would be lost if the United States were to repeal the Second Amendment and forcibly confiscate Americans' guns. It would be a bloodbath.

[lost highway]

As far as I'm concerned, that kind of condescending blather has no place on a friendly forum where people gather to discuss a band that they enjoy.

 

So you don't really want to answer the question is what you're saying.

[Hixter]

So you don't really want to answer the question is what you're saying.

No, I'm saying that I've explained myself ad infinitum and you're just casting aspersions.

[Tweedling]

Basically Hixter is owning you guys.

 

Rocket launchers, burglars that won't hurt you as long as you just give them what you want, dreaming of the United States ever being like a small European country.... Geez. If nothing else I am enjoying the show.

 

 

[lost highway]

No, I'm saying that I've explained myself ad infinitum and you're just casting aspersions.

 

I don't know if you've imagined your life without guns.  It's not an offensive question.

 

I could tell you about my life as I imagine it without my car, or my guitar, or without my house.

 

What I'm saying is there has been more energy attacking the particulars of gun criticism but not a very convincing defense of guns.  If you are claiming defense of family is the primary factor, than keep your loved ones out of an automobile.  That popular method of transportation kills more loved ones in a year than any hypothetical armed assailant breaking and entering your house.  The best way to avoid them (the statistical anomaly that they are) is a burglar alarm, or a medium sized dog with a sturdy bark.

[uncool2pillow]

Tweedling, I am not dreaming of being a small European country, if I am the target of that particular charge.  I just want to point out that it is clear that we pay a hefty cost for wanting to protect our right to own guns.

 

You know the saying "Freedom isn't free"?  It doesn't apply only to those brave souls who have paid the ultimate price in defense of our country.  It also includes every innocent victim of gun violence because we have, as a country, determined that the right to bear arms is worth the cost of the gun violence we put up with in this country.

 

The rocket launcher question is completely legitimate.  It points out the absurdity of the argument that the right to bear arms is absolute.  It is clearly not.  There are limits.  Just like there are limits to every right.  I cannot expect to be guaranteed the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. 

 

I do agree with Hixter and you about the whole give into burglars argument.  It's exceptionally silly and, like I previously pointed out, the U.K.'s experience with gun bans to show that we are safer from burglars than them.

[Hixter]

If you are claiming defense of family is the primary factor, than keep your loved ones out of an automobile.  That popular method of transportation kills more loved ones in a year than any hypothetical armed assailant breaking and entering your house.  The best way to avoid them (the statistical anomaly that they are) is a burglar alarm, or a medium sized dog with a sturdy bark.

Sorry, but I require an automobile to make it to my office, earn a living and buy my food. I have a burglar alarm and a barking dog, but I am not going to count on them when 2 guys kick down my doors. I won't be able to count on the police to save me either, so I can only hope that some buckshot to the chest will save me from death at the hands of criminals.

[lost highway]

Like an action movie where you are the star.  What about the movie where you aren't home but your guns are?

[Hixter]

Like an action movie where you are the star.  What about the movie where you aren't home but your guns are?

They're locked up and nobody is hurt. 

 

P.S. I am licensed to carry a gun so I am seldom far from one.

[uncool2pillow]

As I read Lost Highway's post, all I think is that everyone -- myself included, I suppose -- is more interested in scoring points in some debate we're having rather than having an honest search to solutions of gun violence.  Tweedling says Hixter is "owning" his opponents.  Lost Highway says if you're really trying to protect your family, you wouldn't own a car.

 

Cars suck.  They pollute, they're dangerous, they're fucking expensive to buy and maintain, yet most of us own them because they conveniently and quickly move us from point A to point B.

 

Guns suck too, unless you happen to have one and know how to use it -- which I doubt I ever will because of my own personal life experiences, though I have fired a handgun -- when someone else is pointing one at you.

 

I hope my interest in this discussion is more about trying to figure out what hell we can reasonably expect to do about gun violence given the realities in the USA in 2013 and less about scoring points or making anyone here look stupid.

[uncool2pillow]

Also, all this discussion and a moderate case of insomnia just brought this album to mind.  Haven't listened to it in quite a while.  I'll have to give it a spin soon.

 

http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-minus-5-mw0000357117

 

Good night, I hope.

[Hixter]

I hope my interest in this discussion is more about trying to figure out what hell we can reasonably expect to do about gun violence given the realities in the USA in 2013 and less about scoring points or making anyone here look stupid.

I wholeheartedly agree. My firearms will sit safely tucked away unless I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to use them to defend my life. All I wish for is the chance to be able to defend myself legally and forcefully if the need arises.

[Ghost of Electricity]

 

 

 

3) Most importantly, your scenarios seem to place equal importance on injuries and deaths for both the victim and the criminal. The only thing that counts is the safety of the victim, anything that happens to the intruder is a result of his criminal actions. Our laws don't consider the victim's actions to be a crime.

 

 

 

Incorrect.   There are two axes that this hinges on --you having or not having a gun, and the intruder having or not having a gun.  Let's consider your safety.  If neither you nor the intruder are armed, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be hurt or killed by gunfire.  There could be a random shot froma a domestic dispute at a neighbour's which comes through your window and hits you, but the odds of this are obviously infintesimally small. If you are armed and the intruder isn't, the likelihood of you being injured by gunfire goes up.  The intruder could wrestle the gun from you and use it on you, or the gun could backfire.  Neither is likely, but either one is more likely than being hit by a random shot through the window, and of course those infintesimal odds are still present.  So, when the intruder is not armed, you are more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by gunfire.

 

Now let's consider the situation of an armed intruder.  If this is the case unquestionably your odds of being injured or killed by gunfire have increased.  But the question is, are you more or less likely to be injured if you have a gun than if you don't.  If the intruder enters with intent to harm, you are likely to he injured or killed either way.  He has the element of surprise.  Odds are not good for you.  If the intruder has entered without intent to harm- say to burgle or because he's strung out looking to raid your medicine cabinet or he's a bored kid looking for kicks or whatever- your having a gun increases the chance that the situation will escalate into one where you are injured or killed.  He (or she) sees that you have a gun, panics, and uses the weapon that he (or she) didn't really intend to use.

 

Finally let's consider that the intruder is armed and you are not (the situation you are most afraid of).  If he enters with intent to harm, your chances are not good.  But remember they weren't good when you were armed either.  As he is already holding his weapon and has the element of surprise,I would put your likelihood of being injured or killed by gunfire at about equal whether you have gun or not.  If the intruder enters without intent to harm he is less likely to use his weapon if you are unarmed than if you are armed, and you are less likely to be injured or killed by gunfire.

 

So if we are considering your safety, we can see that if you are armed the likelihood of your being injured or killed by gunfire in all situations is either equal or greater.  

 

 

I hope my interest in this discussion is more about trying to figure out what hell we can reasonably expect to do about gun violence given the realities in the USA in 2013 and less about scoring points or making anyone here look stupid.

 

Yes, absolutely.  Remember we're trying to solve a problem here.  Let's put all possible solutions on the table.  Mine is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Hixter doesn't like this idea, and is on the defensive.  (We're trying to take away something which is dear to him after all). He has nixed gun control arguments (on grounds that do not hold for me personally) but hasn't proposed solutions of his own. Like I said earlier, I'm a good listener.  How do you propose to reduce, or even better effectively eliminate, the problem of gun violence in America?

 

But another thing I said earlier was that I'm aware that gun owners' minds won't be changed on this issue.  Again, I urge people who think along the same lines as myself (whether or not they go so far as to call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment) to write their elected officials and speak their conscience.

[Ghost of Electricity]

 

I say the right of an individual to defend himself is the fundamental right of all mankind.

 

 

So you do in fact believe that the rights of an individual trump the rights of the community?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I say the right of an individual to defend himself is the fundamental right of all mankind.

 

 

So you believe that societies like Japan and the UK deny their citizens the most fundamental human right?

[lost highway]

So you do in fact believe that the rights of an individual trump the rights of the community?

 

 

This is the fundamental question, and it's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of what the value of guns rights actually are.  I haven't heard a good sell yet.

 

I'm not trying to 'own' anyone in an argument.  If anything Hixter has been a good sport to spar with a community who I'm thinking falls more often on the other side of the debate.

 

I think what I'm poking at here is the idea that laws infringe on certain freedoms in exchange for the greater health of the community, like how you can't drive as fast as you want on the street no matter what your competence is as a driver.  It's something we all agree upon to benefit all of us.  I'm back to a car analogy, and my advice was not that everyone stop driving.  It was pointing out the actual logic, not the emotion, or the fantasy of imagined danger vs. legitimate danger.  Incidentally, the response to even an analogous suggestion to reduced auto use in the name of safety shows a fascinating lack of objectivity on that particular issue.  Is it so absurd an idea?

 

The stats for people being shot in their own homes aren't easy to pull but they are easily a small fragment of the amount of drivers who are killed on the motorway.  It's merely an exercise in contrast when the fundamental reason for gun rights given is a 'what if'.  There are more probable what ifs.  Perceived danger is a tricky rhetorical device in this country.  It has convinced the public to allow multiple unnecessary wars.  It is also manipulated masterfully by the NRA.  It is used just as frequently by people who wish to reduce the availability, quantity and power of guns in our country.

 

What I'm getting in return for a very legitimate question of "why do you absolutely need firearms, and why would you protect that right?" is two answers:

-An implied "I think they're cool"

-And an outspoken "I'm afraid"

[JUDE]

I always find these debates humorous, like anyone is going to convince others of an opposing viewpoint to change their minds. I guess I would fall on the pro-gun side but I will admit that people who should not have firearms are getting them and using them to commit horrendous acts.

 

What I don’t understand is why if it is agreed that universal background checks to reduce straw purchases and help regulate person to person sales could have the most positive outcome on this problem, that isn’t the main focus of these bills? Why is it that whenever there is a tragedy to exploit the clamor is to ban and eliminate when the focus should be on keeping these weapons out of the hands of those who should not have access and not on the type weapon they may or may not use.

 

 I don’t think these bills trying to eliminate a myriad of firearms is doing the cause of reducing gun crimes/violence any service, more so polarizing the opposite sides.

 

Also could someone explain to me how the argument that “if the second amendment allows me to own a gun so why not a rocket launcher/tank/nuclear missile” is any different than the “if we allow gays to marry what’s to stop people from marring their dog”. I don’t see the relevance

[Ghost of Electricity]

Think of how many lives would be lost if the United States were to repeal the Second Amendment and forcibly confiscate Americans' guns. It would be a bloodbath.

No, if the ammunition is unavailable the weapons become irrelevant.

 

I always find these debates humorous, like anyone is going to convince others of an opposing viewpoint to change their minds..

 

 

 

 

My own reason for engaging in the debate is not to convert the other side, who are (broadly speaking at least) dogmatically entrenched in theor views.  My hope is that, by showing the inherent weakness and illogicality of the pro-gun stance, and pointing out that this same line of thinking dictates the current gun laws, people who agree with me in a passive sense are encouraged to become more active.  If I can "convert" someone along the way, that's just a bonus.

 

I'll say it again: write your elected officials and tell them what you think.

 

 

Also could someone explain to me how the argument that “if the second amendment allows me to own a gun so why not a rocket launcher/tank/nuclear missile” is any different than the “if we allow gays to marry what’s to stop people from marring their dog”. I don’t see the relevance

I'd rather you married your dog than shot him.

[Hixter]

If neither you nor the intruder are armed, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be hurt or killed by gunfire.  

So, when the intruder is not armed, you are more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by gunfire.

So if we are considering your safety, we can see that if you are armed the likelihood of your being injured or killed by gunfire in all situations is either equal or greater.  

You're completely ignoring my comments about other weapons (knives, bare hands, etc.) and trying to boil it all down to statistics which only include injury by firearm. Only one thing matters: my safety. I don't care if the intruder is armed, unarmed, a raving murderer or the teenager down the street: I am going to protect my safety and a gun will be my method of protecting myself and stopping the threat to my safety.

 

And since when do guns "backfire"?

[Hixter]

He has nixed gun control arguments (on grounds that do not hold for me personally) but hasn't proposed solutions of his own.

Here's my solution for the umpteenth time: enforce current laws. They cover every possibility already, so why do we need more that only serve to infringe on the rights of the good guys while not affecting the bad guys in the slightest.

[Hixter]

So you do in fact believe that the rights of an individual trump the rights of the community?

I don't break laws. I don't hurt people. All I want to do is be able to protect myself. 

 

Communities need and deserve protection and protection begins with the individual with a second layer of defense coming from guys in uniform. Until I have a 24/7 squad of bodyguards (like our elected officials enjoy) I would like to carry on protecting myself the way I see fit, while letting the guys in uniform go after the bad guys. As it stands, there are too many bad guys on the street with guns in their waistbands.

 

As for nations like the UK that have essentially banned guns:

 

[Hixter]

What I'm getting in return for a very legitimate question of "why do you absolutely need firearms, and why would you protect that right?" is two answers:

-An implied "I think they're cool"

-And an outspoken "I'm afraid"

"I think they're useful tools and they are fun to shoot."

"I'm not afraid, I want to be prepared."

[Lammycat]

 A gun is not a weapon. It's a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or a shark.

[Hixter]

What I don’t understand is why if it is agreed that universal background checks to reduce straw purchases

The proposed legislation will do nothing to stop straw purchasers. A straw purchaser is able to pass a background check or he wouldn't be of much use. Straw purchases account for most of the guns on the street and in every case they have passed a background check and passed the gun to a bad guy. How will new legislation prevent this, it's already illegal.

 

No, if the ammunition is unavailable the weapons become irrelevant.

Have you looked at the shelves in your local sporting goods store, Walmart or gun shop lately? There's no ammo on the shelves and when new supplies trickle in the stores limit customers to a single box. Americans have stockpiled tens of billions of rounds of ammunition over the last few years.

 

 

I'll say it again: write your elected officials and tell them what you think.

I already have. I live in Texas so it's pretty much like preaching to the choir, however.

[Winston Legthigh]

The proposed legislation will do nothing to stop straw purchasers. A straw purchaser is able to pass a background check or he wouldn't be of much use. Straw purchases account for most of the guns on the street and in every case they have passed a background check and passed the gun to a bad guy. How will new legislation prevent this, it's already illegal.

 

Seems that legislation aimed towards ownership documentation/tracking would aid law enforcement.

 

Currently, it's very easy to track ownership history of an automobile. It's very difficult to track ownership history of a firearm (or so law enforcement agents say it is - I'll take their word for it).

[Hixter]

Seems that legislation aimed towards ownership documentation/tracking would aid law enforcement.

Such info is already obtained at the first legal sale of a firearm. You're assuming that Joe Thug would decide to pop down for a background check when he buys a street gun from Charles Gangbanger. Not gonna happen.

 

It would also aid in the confiscation of firearms if the government ever decides to go that route.