in one sentence describe why you are for or against gun ownership

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Not a whole lot to catch up on. Standard fare here... neckbeard posts his view point but without having much logic behind it, and a few of the local gun enthusiasts jumped down his throat acting like he's a troll. I don't know what it is about his posting style that boils the blood so much, but he does get a lot of backlash for simply sticking to his beliefs. He may apply them blindly without enough experience/evidence, but I could say that about the other side to a point. Until you live for a good chunk of time in an area that has incredibly strict gun control and then one that has less strict control then really it's hard to say which is better.

The US is big enough to where there are huge differences in gun laws in each state, but not that many people have experienced both sides to know what difference it makes. I don't think any part of England has different gun laws than the rest, so I doubt HAL has lived in an area with private gun ownership. That doesn't mean he should be attacked like this though, as the people doing the attacking don't know what England is like much outside of stats and news stories... just like HAL doesn't know what the US is like much outside of stats and news stories. Little vacations don't really count.

Pretty much this, except: The Isle of Man has gun ownership, including hand guns, and I spent 3 months in the US of A last year. Aside from that I agree with most of this.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
neckbeard is aggravating to some because he doesn't back up his opinions with logic.
No one likes to hear opposing views, because it makes them look ignorant or wrong.

My blood starts to boil when I hear anti-gunners talk too... but they compromise a large part of our population and must be heard.

Well I have to disagree, there is logic with all of my arguments, some people just don't agree with them.
 

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,739
452
126
neckbeard is aggravating to some because he doesn't back up his opinions with logic.
No one likes to hear opposing views, because it makes them look ignorant or wrong.

My blood starts to boil when I hear anti-gunners talk too... but they compromise a large part of our population and must be heard.

IMO it's kind of the opposite, he ONLY applies logic with stats and such which leaves him with a generic picture of the world and US as a whole when there's a lot of varying factors. He says the US has a higher death rate and has a gun ownership rate, which is true... HOWEVER when you look at the parts that have the most guns (the south) there's less deaths than places with less guns (Chicago and NYC).

The problem comes when generic statistics are applied to an incredibly diverse country and you simply can't average it out with overarching statistical logic. The US has some pretty distinct problem areas where citizens truly need guns. The majority of the country doesn't really NEED them, but there are areas that do which he seems to not understand (or ignores).

But at the same time there's some folks here that won't admit they live in a pretty safe part of the country and they don't NEED their gun. Yes shit can go down anywhere and any time and it's always good to be prepared... but you only need a single gun to be prepared for such things. Everything else is just for lols.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
IMO it's kind of the opposite, he ONLY applies logic with stats and such which leaves him with a generic picture of the world and US as a whole when there's a lot of varying factors. He says the US has a higher death rate and has a gun ownership rate, which is true... HOWEVER when you look at the parts that have the most guns (the south) there's less deaths than places with less guns (Chicago and NYC).

The problem comes when generic statistics are applied to an incredibly diverse country and you simply can't average it out with overarching statistical logic. The US has some pretty distinct problem areas where citizens truly need guns. The majority of the country doesn't really NEED them, but there are areas that do which he seems to not understand (or ignores).

But at the same time there's some folks here that won't admit they live in a pretty safe part of the country and they don't NEED their gun. Yes shit can go down anywhere and any time and it's always good to be prepared... but you only need a single gun to be prepared for such things. Everything else is just for lols.

Yes. Yes. Only applying logic is what I'm going for, thank you for getting me.
 

zoiks

Lifer
Jan 13, 2000
11,787
3
81
We're back to the point about CARS being involved in astronomically more deaths than guns. And those deaths were predominantly caused by people "qualified" to drive a car, HAL.


Sigh. I hate people using "guns kill people" in these arguments because the same people won't acknowledge that vehicles are more dangerous, more readily available to those who misuse them, and should be much more regulated.

Sorry but that's a fact. Unless you can refute that fact, you have no solid rebuttal.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I am for gun ownership because I like the ability to defend myself against criminals who are more vicious than myself, because I like the ability to hunt my own food instead of relying on mega farms, and because I like to target shoot.

I don't mean to troll, but I think bear mace would probably work better for personal defense. It sprays wider than a machine gun, inhaling it or getting it in the eyes will stop a person immediately, there's less red tape when you actually use it on someone, and it's not as big of a deal when you hit innocent people or someone's car.

Guns are more useful for things like bears (how ironic).
 

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
I don't trust mace as defense. The propellant goes bad over time and it can easily incapacitate the aggressor AND myself.
I agree though, it is much less likely to get the police involved and wouldn't harm bystanders.
What do you do after the burglar is rubbing his eyes, flailing his weapon or firing his gun? Run and hide? Wait for police?
I would feel better if the assailant has a bullet hole in him while I wait for police.

Also, a huge benefit of a gun is that it is a deterrent.
If a criminal sees a gun pointed at him, he is much more likely to run away.
If he sees you holding mace, he will probably try to attack you.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
What do you do after the burglar is rubbing his eyes, flailing his weapon or firing his gun? Run and hide? Wait for police?
Basically yes that is what you do, but that's what you would do anyway. Shoot him in the chest and wait for the police while he's on the ground still holding his knife vs spray him in the face and wait for the police while he's on the ground still holding his knife.


One of these days I'll catch one of my kids sneaking out and I'll bear mace his ass. "sorry son, I thought you were a burglar!" :biggrin:
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
I don't mean to troll, but I think bear mace would probably work better for personal defense. It sprays wider than a machine gun, inhaling it or getting it in the eyes will stop a person immediately, there's less red tape when you actually use it on someone, and it's not as big of a deal when you hit innocent people or someone's car.

Guns are more useful for things like bears (how ironic).

good lord I would rather discharge a firearm than hose my house down with bear mace



and you better call the cops if you mace someone, you want to file that report about them so you dont get sued in civil court, and potentitalyl charged for battery(?) for pepper srapying them 'without cause'
 
Last edited:

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
spray him in the face and wait for the police while he's on the ground still holding his knife.
You mean flailing his knife around while he is pissed that you maced him.
What if he has a gun? He would be randomly firing at you.

I live in the country. It would take police a MINIMUM of 10min. to get to the criminal (includes call time, processing, travel time, getting into the house, etc.)

I do not want a maced criminal flopping around for 10min.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I do not want a maced criminal flopping around for 10min.

Well what's the alternative? If you fire a few more bullets into him to make him stop flopping then you'll get in a lot of trouble. Even castle doctrine states don't let you finish him off :p


good lord I would rather discharge a firearm than hose my house down with bear mace
It's just hot sauce. Buy some pita bread and tequila and you have a party.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
I don't trust mace as defense. The propellant goes bad over time and it can easily incapacitate the aggressor AND myself.
I agree though, it is much less likely to get the police involved and wouldn't harm bystanders.
What do you do after the burglar is rubbing his eyes, flailing his weapon or firing his gun? Run and hide? Wait for police?
I would feel better if the assailant has a bullet hole in him while I wait for police.

Also, a huge benefit of a gun is that it is a deterrent.
If a criminal sees a gun pointed at him, he is much more likely to run away.
If he sees you holding mace, he will probably try to attack you.

Neither mace or pepper spray were ever designed for personal protection. They are tools for police to avoid using deadly force when they are trying to subdue an assailant. Some asshole thought it would be a good idea to market them to the general public as an alternative to firearms and its been causing problems ever since.
For preserving my own life I would only trust a gun. Never a knife, spray, or taser. They dont work as deterrents and they arent powerful enough when I'm being seriously threatened.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
So what you're saying is you'd rather kill the guy than get bear mace on your furniture...?

Killing burglars is never a problem. Dealing with the police and lawyers is a problem. I think you're also required to disclose that people have died in the house when you try to sell it, and that can drive the value of the house down. Some people think the ghost will rise up and haunt you or something silly like that
scary%20ghost.gif
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Killing burglars is never a problem. Dealing with the police and lawyers is a problem. I think you're also required to disclose that people have died in the house when you try to sell it, and that can drive the value of the house down. Some people think the ghost will rise up and haunt you or something silly like that
scary%20ghost.gif

Killing burglars might not be a functional problem, it is definitely a moral one.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
For preserving my own life I would only trust a gun. Never a knife, spray, or taser. They dont work as deterrents and they arent powerful enough when I'm being seriously threatened.

Dude, life is not a movie. Bullets don't make you stop immediately. Lots of soldiers have been shot with AK-47 bullets and they still survive. You're talking about shooting someone with your little dinky hand gun that is maybe 1/10th as powerful as an AK if you round up several time. Unless you blow a full clip into his chest, he's not going to stop immediately.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Killing burglars might not be a functional problem, it is definitely a moral one.
:confused:
I've heard of people having post traumatic stress disorder (shell shock) after being robbed or being raped, but I don't think I've heard of people regretting killing someone. It's the American Dream to kill bad people. Society as a whole is strengthened when bad people die, people are safe, and people feel safe because all of the bad people are dead.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
Killing burglars is never a problem. Dealing with the police and lawyers is a problem. I think you're also required to disclose that people have died in the house when you try to sell it, and that can drive the value of the house down. Some people think the ghost will rise up and haunt you or something silly like that
animated&

um what? pretty sure I have NEVER seen that disclosed on a house o_O


I would certainly rather shoot to kill an intruder that may hav ea weapon rather than piss him off.

So what you're saying is you'd rather kill the guy than get bear mace on your furniture...?

how can you see me? Im supposed to be ignored??? :whiste:

You mean flailing his knife around while he is pissed that you maced him.
What if he has a gun? He would be randomly firing at you.

I live in the country. It would take police a MINIMUM of 10min. to get to the criminal (includes call time, processing, travel time, getting into the house, etc.)

I do not want a maced criminal flopping around for 10min.

heh, more like 20. if you are unluck to 2 closer deputys on yoru beat are already busy and you got someone coming from 20 miles away.

it takes a good 5-10 minutes for calls in town, atleast where I live


Killing burglars might not be a functional problem, it is definitely a moral one.

my morals tell me that if someone is in my house in that situation, that I should shoot, to protect me and my family. the intruder earned that devaluation by endangering me. me and mine first.

will that actually happen if I get broken into and I am home? who knows. my hope is me yelling and chambering a round + my dog barking will do the trick.
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
Dude, life is not a movie. Bullets don't make you stop immediately. Lots of soldiers have been shot with AK-47 bullets and they still survive. You're talking about shooting someone with your little dinky hand gun that is maybe 1/10th as powerful as an AK if you round up several time. Unless you blow a full clip into his chest, he's not going to stop immediately.

Magazine.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
:confused:
I've heard of people having post traumatic stress disorder (shell shock) after being robbed or being raped, but I don't think I've heard of people regretting killing someone. It's the American Dream to kill bad people. Society as a whole is strengthened when bad people die, people are safe, and people feel safe because all of the bad people are dead.

I disagree with 85% of what you've put here.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,794
84
91
Dude, life is not a movie. Bullets don't make you stop immediately. Lots of soldiers have been shot with AK-47 bullets and they still survive. You're talking about shooting someone with your little dinky hand gun that is maybe 1/10th as powerful as an AK if you round up several time. Unless you blow a full clip into his chest, he's not going to stop immediately.

A 9mm has between 1/4 and 1/3 of the kinetic energy of a 7.62x39mm.

Also,

clip_magazine.jpg


:p