Do we really need guns?

[DrPizza]

We don't need guns for personal use, no. The primary arguments for them are self defense and to overthrow the government or some such nonsense.

Studies show that guns don't make their owners more safe, so the first argument is unconvincing. The second argument of a citizen insurgency against the government I find laughable on its face.

I wish gun rights advocates would stop trying to invent reasons why we NEED guns and just admit that they WANT guns. Wanting guns is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

We have a farm. Rabid coyote on Wednesday showed up in the neighborhood. It's been dispatched. Are the anti-gun people suggesting I run out and hit the coyote on the head with a rock, or poke it with a big sharp pointy stick?

"Studies show" - when the statistics are taken without any context it's pretty easy to show anything you want. If you exclude, "safer from themselves," e.g., suicides, then do they still show the same thing? Mxylplyx also points out that children of responsible gun owners get accidentally shot. I disagree. Responsible gun owners do not have guns that are accessible to young children. Gun safes, trigger locks, etc. Another poster (I'm not going to call him out) said that he had loaded and chambered guns all over the house. Unless he lives alone and doesn't have company, I wouldn't consider him a responsible gun owner. If he does live alone, then perhaps he is a responsible gun owner. Personally, I don't keep my loaded magazines stored with my guns. I can unlock and have a gun in my hands in just a couple seconds. Loading the "hidden" unlocked magazine and chambering takes 2 seconds. I used to store my rifles with the bolt removed as well, but that means that my wife, who doesn't use them as regularly as I do, would have too much difficulty at a time when the gun was needed to protect livestock.

I'll also take exception to an earlier statement in the thread about the deadliness of gun vs. bow to most large game animals (boars excepted). Both guns and bows are capable of causing an animal to suffer when the animal has been shot by a person who hasn't sufficiently practiced. To a whitetail, a well placed arrow is equally as lethal. Though not as quick of a kill as a higher energy rifle, I don't think that necessarily means suffering. I have plenty of friends who have reported shooting a deer with an arrow that just continued to browse until it fell over dead.

I think a worthy goal is the elimination of all guns, with the exception of maybe long barreled rifles for hunting and sport, from civil society. This includes regular police. See England or Australia for an example.

Since you don't know the difference between a long barreled rifle and a shotgun which is more commonly used for sport, it's hard to take many of your other posts seriously, many of which have also included similarly serious flaws.

Most people want it this way. I'll take a 1% chance of dying by gunfire every day if it came along with a guarantee that I won't be robbed, assaulted, kidnapped, imprisoned, or raped over a 0% chance of dying by gunfire every day but no recourse against the above aggressions.

And as it stands, by daily chance of dying by gunfire is less than 1%. And I'm extraordinarily unlikely to be the victim of a violent crime while my Glock 33 is inside my waistband. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

I understand the sentiment of your post, but your number sense seems pretty poor. With a 1% chance of dying each day, you'd have a little more than a 50% chance of being dead after 10 weeks. You'd only have a 2.55% chance of surviving for a year.

 

[waggy]

Cougar after your livestock?

You do know for a good portion of the US that does happen right? That people with livestock do have to protect against wild animals?

shit a few years ago i had my duck flock taken out by something.




either way i'm in the country. to call 911 would take close to 20 minutes unless i'm lucky.

i'm also not in the shape i was 20 years ago. I'm not about to go hand to hand with ANYONE. If i feel my home, kids, person is threatened damn right i want a gun.

You don't like it? I don't give a fuck.

 

[waggy]

We have a farm. Rabid coyote on Wednesday showed up in the neighborhood. It's been dispatched. Are the anti-gun people suggesting I run out and hit the coyote on the head with a rock, or poke it with a big sharp pointy stick?

I'll also take exception to an earlier statement in the thread about the deadliness of gun vs. bow to most large game animals (boars excepted). Both guns and bows are capable of causing an animal to suffer when the animal has been shot by a person who hasn't sufficiently practiced. To a whitetail, a well placed arrow is equally as lethal. Though not as quick of a kill as a higher energy rifle, I don't think that necessarily means suffering. I have plenty of friends who have reported shooting a deer with an arrow that just continued to browse until it fell over dead.

I have been bow hunting for a long time. I have also used a rifle. it's far easier to hit a killing shot with a rifle then a bow. But in both if you get a good side shot the deer will just drop.

I have seen more "bad" shots with a bow over the years. One where the hunter hit the deer then have to track it because it was a off shot. the deer travels miles with an arrow in them or it missed the vital organs.

 

[MetalMat]

I am pro gun rights and believe that people do have the right the bear arms. However I also believe in the choice and I do not own a gun because I feel the chances of me doing something wrong is much more realistic. Personally I don't like guns and I will never have one in my household but people ( of course law abiding people) should have the choice to protect themselves with firearms if they want to.

 

[Venix]

Don't forget to mention the percentage of Americans owning guns has also steadily declined.

I'm not aware of any studies or surveys that estimate personal gun ownership. The surveys I've seen have covered household ownership, which doesn't necessarily correlate with personal ownership due to significant changes in the composition of households over the past four decades. The number of households has doubled since 1970, but the population has only grown 50%.

The household gun ownership survey results differ significantly: the General Social Survey shows a decrease from 50% in 1970 to 34% today, but Gallup shows around 50% then and now. I wouldn't be surprised if gun ownership is less popular today--especially given the huge increase in the Hispanic population, who generally don't own guns--but I don't think the data is clear enough to state it as fact. There are also many people who shouldn't own guns (or drive, for that matter), so a decrease in the number of gun owners isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In any case, none of the data suggests that the rate of gun ownership was related to the crime increase in the 80's and 90's or the decrease from the mid-90's to today. There simply isn't a correlation.

Crime in general has declined during that period however if we look at gun related crime over a longer period of time you'll see that the overall trend is flat (with it peaking in the mid 90's and dropping after the assault weapons ban). Gun regulations during either time period have been all over the place. It would be pretty hard to conclude one way or another if more or less regulations was the cause of the decline.

The assault weapons ban had no discernible effect on violent crime, and violent crime continued to drop after it expired, so that seems like an odd point to mention. Also consider that "assault weapons" are almost never used to commit crimes, so even if the ban were perfectly effective it wouldn't have had much of an impact on overall crime rates.

Anyway, I agree that we can't conclude what effect gun regulations have had on crime. The seems to suggest that the regulations were ineffective; effective laws would be expected to immediately and significantly decrease crime rates. Yet there are no cases of even a correlation between gun laws and lower crime, let alone proof of causation. Most simply have no obvious effect on crime rates, and in a few cases there has been a correlation with an increase in crime (but again, no proof of causation).

 

[werepossum]

We have a farm. Rabid coyote on Wednesday showed up in the neighborhood. It's been dispatched. Are the anti-gun people suggesting I run out and hit the coyote on the head with a rock, or poke it with a big sharp pointy stick?

"Studies show" - when the statistics are taken without any context it's pretty easy to show anything you want. If you exclude, "safer from themselves," e.g., suicides, then do they still show the same thing? Mxylplyx also points out that children of responsible gun owners get accidentally shot. I disagree. Responsible gun owners do not have guns that are accessible to young children. Gun safes, trigger locks, etc. Another poster (I'm not going to call him out) said that he had loaded and chambered guns all over the house. Unless he lives alone and doesn't have company, I wouldn't consider him a responsible gun owner. If he does live alone, then perhaps he is a responsible gun owner. Personally, I don't keep my loaded magazines stored with my guns. I can unlock and have a gun in my hands in just a couple seconds. Loading the "hidden" unlocked magazine and chambering takes 2 seconds. I used to store my rifles with the bolt removed as well, but that means that my wife, who doesn't use them as regularly as I do, would have too much difficulty at a time when the gun was needed to protect livestock.

I'll also take exception to an earlier statement in the thread about the deadliness of gun vs. bow to most large game animals (boars excepted). Both guns and bows are capable of causing an animal to suffer when the animal has been shot by a person who hasn't sufficiently practiced. To a whitetail, a well placed arrow is equally as lethal. Though not as quick of a kill as a higher energy rifle, I don't think that necessarily means suffering. I have plenty of friends who have reported shooting a deer with an arrow that just continued to browse until it fell over dead.

Since you don't know the difference between a long barreled rifle and a shotgun which is more commonly used for sport, it's hard to take many of your other posts seriously, many of which have also included similarly serious flaws.

I understand the sentiment of your post, but your number sense seems pretty poor. With a 1% chance of dying each day, you'd have a little more than a 50% chance of being dead after 10 weeks. You'd only have a 2.55% chance of surviving for a year.

In the brave new world, your choices are two. You can wait for someone from the government to show up - which is odd since many of the people demanding this also decry cops as thuggish murderers more likely to kill you. Or you can push over the coyote and take his, um, teeth. It's all the rage and apparently quite simple and foolproof.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not aware of any studies or surveys that estimate personal gun ownership. The surveys I've seen have covered household ownership, which doesn't necessarily correlate with personal ownership due to significant changes in the composition of households over the past four decades. The number of households has doubled since 1970, but the population has only grown 50%.

The household gun ownership survey results differ significantly: the General Social Survey shows a decrease from 50% in 1970 to 34% today, but Gallup shows around 50% then and now. I wouldn't be surprised if gun ownership is less popular today--especially given the huge increase in the Hispanic population, who generally don't own guns--but I don't think the data is clear enough to state it as fact. There are also many people who shouldn't own guns (or drive, for that matter), so a decrease in the number of gun owners isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In any case, none of the data suggests that the rate of gun ownership was related to the crime increase in the 80's and 90's or the decrease from the mid-90's to today. There simply isn't a correlation.



The assault weapons ban had no discernible effect on violent crime, and violent crime continued to drop after it expired, so that seems like an odd point to mention. Also consider that "assault weapons" are almost never used to commit crimes, so even if the ban were perfectly effective it wouldn't have had much of an impact on overall crime rates.

Anyway, I agree that we can't conclude what effect gun regulations have had on crime. The seems to suggest that the regulations were ineffective; effective laws would be expected to immediately and significantly decrease crime rates. Yet there are no cases of even a correlation between gun laws and lower crime, let alone proof of causation. Most simply have no obvious effect on crime rates, and in a few cases there has been a correlation with an increase in crime (but again, no proof of causation).

The AWB was just a counter claim to the other posters claim that regulations have weakened. My point, which I believe is the same as yours, is that the data to say one way or another about the affects of regulations is inconclusive. That is, you can't claim regulations are ineffective nor can you claim they had an impact on gun violence.

 

[ivwshane]

In the brave new world, your choices are two. You can wait for someone from the government to show up - which is odd since many of the people demanding this also decry cops as thuggish murderers more likely to kill you. Or you can push over the coyote and take his, um, teeth. It's all the rage and apparently quite simple and foolproof.

It's about as simple and foolproof thinking that because you have a gun that you will automatically be safer but we don't hear you making that argument do we?

 

[Nebor]

I understand the sentiment of your post, but your number sense seems pretty poor. With a 1% chance of dying each day, you'd have a little more than a 50% chance of being dead after 10 weeks. You'd only have a 2.55% chance of surviving for a year.

Better to die free than live a slave!

 

[ivwshane]

Better to die free than live a slave!

Better to have a creative slogan than to actually make a valid point!

/s

 

[Darwin333]

It's about simple and foolproof of thinking that because you have a gun that you will automatically safer but we don't hear you making that argument do we?

It isn't that you are automatically safer because you aren't. It's about having a fighting chance should the need arise and if said need arises you don't get a time out to prepare yourself and the police are by very nature reactionary. That means when you really really need them they will be there just in time to draw a chalk outline around your body.

Personally I am responsible enough to keep and carry firearms without fucking up. If you don't believe yourself to be so then you should not have a firearm. Luckily if I personally see you in eminent life threatening danger I will be more than happy to use my firearm to save your life. If at the time you'd rather deal with the guy trying to kill you instead of accepting my help just yell in a very clear voice that you do not desire my assistance and I will leave you be with your attacker. I'll even call 911 for you and in 5-45 minutes they will be right there to assist.

 

[MongGrel]

Do we need guns? No but that's never been the issue nor has it ever been a prerequisite to owning a gun.

I do find it funny though that the gun nuts can't even answer a simple question without flying off the handle. Trying to have a discussion with a gun nutter is like talking to a religious nut about SSM, totally pointless.

I can show a need for abortions, can you show a need for a gun? When it's a tool it makes doing certain jobs easier but it's not necessary.

Did you even bother reading my original post you dipshit? Of course you didn't because you saw the word no and then proved my point about gun nutters being irrational and pointless to talk to.

Well, everything you've posted so far has the words nutters, dipshit etc in it with no provocation, so I doubt you're going to be rational about anything to begin with.

 

[MongGrel]

No you don't need a gun to defend yourself, are you saying no one has ever defended themselves without a gun? Of course you aren't and as I already stated, having the gun would be an easier way to defend yourself but that doesn't mean it's necessary.

But that's all besides the point because you stupid fucks didn't even bother to get past the word "no" before you went full retard.

I'll say it again, let's see if it penetrates your thick fucking skulls:

Guns have never been an issue about necessity nor has necessity been a requirement in order to have a gun.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You do know for a good portion of the US that does happen right? That people with livestock do have to protect against wild animals?

Ya, we have 2 farms and a big piece of land up north in bear country where we raise dogs

shit a few years ago i had my duck flock taken out by something.

Sorry about that

 

[MongGrel]

The VAST majority of crimes prevented with guns by civilians and police alike are done without firing a shot. Most civilians are happy enough to leave the area and see little point in filing a police report.

You see the badguys don't want to die anymore than you do. Simply brandishing a firearm generally makes them flee and frankly it makes perfect sense. Why in the world would a badguy want to tussle with an armed person or try to rape an armed woman when there are plenty of unarmed people they can mess with and not have to worry about getting ventilated in the process.

During the weeks following Hurricane Katrina you were either armed or you were a victim. I personally know people who were robbed of not only property but precious supplies that could not be replaced at the time. I know a guy who was forced at gunpoint to watch two men rape his wife. OTOH I was never personally accosted during the entire ordeal, there were a few times that a group of assholes were coming my way but when they saw the shotgun slung over my shoulder and the holstered pistol on my side they changed directions very quickly. The gun saved my ass and I never once fired a shot in anger. Of course those incidents don't go into any stats because I never filed a police report, hell there wasn't a police to file a report with at the time.

If I had to guess my guns saved my ass dozens of times just in those few weeks and to date my guns have not shot or hurt a single person which obviously includes myself and my family. That's a real life stat and not some made up bullshit stat so thank you but I'll be keeping my guns. I also support your right to not own any guns and even put a big ole sign in your front yard saying that you are not a gun owner.

+1

 

[Orignal Earl]

I have been bow hunting for a long time. I have also used a rifle. it's far easier to hit a killing shot with a rifle then a bow. But in both if you get a good side shot the deer will just drop.

I have seen more "bad" shots with a bow over the years. One where the hunter hit the deer then have to track it because it was a off shot. the deer travels miles with an arrow in them or it missed the vital organs.

pics?

 

[mu11et]

The VAST majority of crimes prevented with guns by civilians and police alike are done without firing a shot. Most civilians are happy enough to leave the area and see little point in filing a police report.

You see the badguys don't want to die anymore than you do. Simply brandishing a firearm generally makes them flee and frankly it makes perfect sense. Why in the world would a badguy want to tussle with an armed person or try to rape an armed woman when there are plenty of unarmed people they can mess with and not have to worry about getting ventilated in the process.

During the weeks following Hurricane Katrina you were either armed or you were a victim. I personally know people who were robbed of not only property but precious supplies that could not be replaced at the time. I know a guy who was forced at gunpoint to watch two men rape his wife. OTOH I was never personally accosted during the entire ordeal, there were a few times that a group of assholes were coming my way but when they saw the shotgun slung over my shoulder and the holstered pistol on my side they changed directions very quickly. The gun saved my ass and I never once fired a shot in anger. Of course those incidents don't go into any stats because I never filed a police report, hell there wasn't a police to file a report with at the time.

If I had to guess my guns saved my ass dozens of times just in those few weeks and to date my guns have not shot or hurt a single person which obviously includes myself and my family. That's a real life stat and not some made up bullshit stat so thank you but I'll be keeping my guns. I also support your right to not own any guns and even put a big ole sign in your front yard saying that you are not a gun owner.

Many many anti gun folks changed their minds during Katrina. I've been in a ton of hurricanes and I can tell you it doesn't take people long without food and water to resort back to the cave man days. Some folks just don't understand till they go through it.

 

[MongGrel]

How do you propose someone without a gun defends themselves from someone with a gun?

Use the Schwartz perhaps ?

()

 

[Darwin333]

Many many anti gun folks changed their minds during Katrina. I've been in a ton of hurricanes and I can tell you it doesn't take people long without food and water to resort back to the cave man days. Some folks just don't understand till they go through it.

Even crazier was the New Orleans Police Department (the ones that didn't steal caddies and cowardly flee the city) were confiscating any and all guns from law abiding citizens when they needed them the most. Luckily I live in Jefferson Parish and while our PD has it's own issues they were happy to see armed men at both entrances to our neighborhood the one time they drove by in over two weeks. It was one less area they had to really worry about.

I guarantee that every last one of these anti-gun folk would change their attitude in a heartbeat had they been by my side during the chaos. It would have only made things worse if everyone was unarmed because the badguys roam like a pack of wolves. I can't beat a pack of wolves hand to hand but I can damn sure make it not worth the cost of entry with my 12 gauge and my .40 cal.

I was there. Being visibly armed all by itself deterred people who intended me harm from even approaching me. Hell out of all the incidents I only had to raise my gun once and the moment I did that the two assholes went scurrying. I consider that the greatest outcome possible, no one hurt, no one dead, no one robbed or beaten, etc..

But it doesn't go in the stats so according to a few in this thread my gun is a bigger threat to me than all the badguys I encountered who intended to do me harm. I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree and although I was prepared to I never once had to pull the trigger to get the desired effect. As far as I am concerned my guns have saved far more lives than they have taken.

 

[waggy]

Ya, we have 2 farms and a big piece of land up north in bear country where we raise dogs




Sorry about that

lol we were raising them as a 4H project. unless you climbed int he pen and tore them up i don't think it was you. Yes we had plans on eating the fuckers ourselves.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Even crazier was the New Orleans Police Department (the ones that didn't steal caddies and cowardly flee the city) were confiscating any and all guns from law abiding citizens when they needed them the most. Luckily I live in Jefferson Parish and while our PD has it's own issues they were happy to see armed men at both entrances to our neighborhood the one time they drove by in over two weeks. It was one less area they had to really worry about.

I guarantee that every last one of these anti-gun folk would change their attitude in a heartbeat had they been by my side during the chaos. It would have only made things worse if everyone was unarmed because the badguys roam like a pack of wolves. I can't beat a pack of wolves hand to hand but I can damn sure make it not worth the cost of entry with my 12 gauge and my .40 cal.

I was there. Being visibly armed all by itself deterred people who intended me harm from even approaching me. Hell out of all the incidents I only had to raise my gun once and the moment I did that the two assholes went scurrying. I consider that the greatest outcome possible, no one hurt, no one dead, no one robbed or beaten, etc..

But it doesn't go in the stats so according to a few in this thread my gun is a bigger threat to me than all the badguys I encountered who intended to do me harm. I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree and although I was prepared to I never once had to pull the trigger to get the desired effect. As far as I am concerned my guns have saved far more lives than they have taken.

It seems people need to be armed in the US to defend against each other

Even during natural disasters when people usually come together, Americans have to worry more about each other

 

[Orignal Earl]

Yes we had plans on eating the fuckers ourselves.

We use ours mostly for training the dogs

 

[ivwshane]

Well, everything you've posted so far has the words nutters, dipshit etc in it with no provocation, so I doubt you're going to be rational about anything to begin with.

Well then I guess that means you've already got your deflector shields up! No need address any points made! Congrats, your bubble is still intact!

 

[ivwshane]

You apparently don't understand the point of this thread nor do you appear to be capable of understanding my position.

Face palm indeed!

 

[bozack]

It seems people need to be armed in the US to defend against each other

Even during natural disasters when people usually come together, Americans have to worry more about each other

highly doubt this is limited to just the US given the situation....human nature, survival of the fittest etc....while its nice to think that everyone will come together in a disaster the fact is that typically this is not the case and instead it is more of an everyone for themselves situation.