WTF is it with all the gun threads lately?

[SparkyJJO]

I would file this under "good reasons" - if someone is travelling to an area where about the only decent defence against the local fauna is a firearm, that would seem prudent. I'm failing to see the connection between this and the average person living in most locations in the US, and people here are talking about defending themselves from other people. These two scenarios are extremely different, justifying one does not automatically justify the other.

There was a news article here just yesterday where someone broke into a guy's house and threatened him with a shotgun. The owner shot and killed the perp with a handgun he had nearby. This wasn't inner city or the crime slums either. It was in a quiet, small town. Perfect example of a location where you wouldn't expect an issue, where the owner had the firearm handy not because he expected to need it but just in case that rare instance may come that he needs it. He needed it. Thankfully it was the perp that died and not the homeowner.

By the way, the homeowner was also paraplegic.

Try again?

 

[Phoenix86]

Welcome to reality, and please keep your hands and feet inside the capsule while traveling through it.

There's a CAPSULE?

That's close enough to a bubble for me. :awe:

 

[BladeVenom]

I was thinking of buying either a Glock 17 or Glock 19, thoughts?

I think the Glock 19 is more popular amongst civilians since it's easier to carry concealed. It's still big enough to easily shoot accurately.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

a gun is an inanimate object. the gun does what the PERSON holding it makes it do.

I have never killed or shot at a another human being.
I have hunted animals for food with one. I don't hunt very often though.
99.9% of the time I shoot a gun, I am shooting at paper.

It's all about the PERSON using the tool.

A knife is a tool. It can be used as a weapon or it can be used as a tool.
A hammer is a tool. It can be used as a weapon or it can be used as tool.

You have to worry about the PERSON using the tool, not the tool.

Banning something doesn't work anyway. As already stated, drugs are banned, prostitution is banned - but people are still using/selling/getting/etc.

There are things out there that kill more people than guns do anyway, but it's still legal. Cigarettes and alchohol and cars kill millions of people a year. No one is out there crying for them to be banned like they are for guns.

Cars are probably one of the most regulated objects we have today with registrations, tests, and we have so much stuff going for safety on these things, and billions of signs telling us how to drive, but there's still an ungodly amount of deaths by car each year. Whats the deal here?



here's an example you might understand (but probably not):

Should we ban computers or the internet? I mean, a few people use it to do bad stuff - hacking, theft, pedophilia, etc. I mean, that's a rel problem right? All our problems would be solved if we just got rid of and banned computers!

Oh wait, you mean the computer isn't an evil being controlling our minds making us do these things? you mean it's the person behind it doing these things?
but wait, if we ban the computers, they can't do that any more! wait, you mean this kind of stuff was going on BEFORE the computer was even invented? OMG! NO WAI! I don't believe you!

Like I said, none of those objects you listed: knife, hammer, computer, car, Internet are designed with the purpose of killing. The knife can be questionable, but it clearly serves as another tool in the kitchen and in a machine shop.

Once agian I've never said guns should be banned. I'm saying that any comparisons with these other objects is absolutely ABSURD.

The reason people die in car accidents is negligence or stupidity or whatever. I feel like if you want to compare guns to cars, then maybe if people were actively using cars to ram people and mow people down, that would be an issue. But even then, there is the necessity of the car to transport people and to keep this country running.

Thus you're never going to see cars banned in the near future.

Imagine if cars vanished. All our cars vanish. What happens? I can bet you this economy goes to shit and maybe 10% of the people can show up to work tomorrow.

Imagine if all our private citizens' guns disappeared. Would suck. Maybe a few people might die. But I can assure you it's not our guns preventing this country from collapsing. It's the fact we have a military, a police, laws, and reasonable people in what we call a nation state that's strong enough to defend itself and provide for its people. We could turn into Europe if our guns disappeared. Once again I'm NOT advocating this, but if it did happen, the Europeans are alive, I don't see this country imploding.

Anyway, my point was made. Cars and guns are totally different things. If you took them away two very different things would happen. Their purposes are different. So I don't really get WHY you even compare these things?

If we want to talk about cars killing people in accidents, then we should be only focused on accidental gun deaths.

Why don't you go replace every word you said about guns with nuclear weapons. So would we be ok putting a suitcase nuke in everyone's hands? After all nukes don't kill. It's people.

I do agree that guns alone don't kill and it's the people, but because the sole purpose is to kill, we need to keep our eyes peeled more--maybe not outright bans, but certainly some regulation is necessary, and when gun violence goes out of control, something needs to be done (again there's many solutions to this), but to compare to cars is being disingeneous.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

@DLeRium

Guns are an equalizer though. It allows granny to fend off 2 drunk men (which has happened!)

Times and opinions just change. During the great depression my great grandma used to defend the farm from desperate unemployed people stealing their food with a revolver in her waistband while my great grandad looked for work. That was only 83 years ago.

Its easy to vilify guns paradoxically when there is very little violence or desperation but its foolish to pretend something like the great depression could never happen again as long as the country exists. Would you rather the rule of strength determine crime? Most violent crime is done by adult males anwyay. I think it shows a lack of acknowledgement that crime, or desperate, or crazy people exist.

Say you were in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina and couldn't get out. As people got desperate gangs of guys some with guns, some without were going around looting and taking whatever they damn well pleased and doing whatever they wanted. Would you rather have a gun at home locked in a safe that you could take out in an event like that or not? What are you going to do against a group of 8 guys? I guess it just could never happen to you eh? I see the risk of a mass murder event as moot whereas you see the risk of needing to defend yourself as moot.

I'm not against guns, nor am I in favor of banning them. I don't doubt there are a lot of uses for guns.

I'm just merely pointing out that if people want to debate gun control, comparing gun deaths to car deaths is absolutely absurd.

We look at the far left's knee jerk reactions in banning "assault weapons" and the "deadly pistol grips" and other absurd things, but at the same time the right is comparing cars and guns. Any move on guns, and they say that we need to ban cars too. Then they compare to alcohol. It's just as illogical and stupid. If we think the far left is retarded, then personally I think every car argument here is retarded too.

Somehow the pro gun guys tend to have some fantasies or something (this was brought up in P&N already). Somethings about foreign invasions, government squashing everyone, cars being worse than guns, etc. It's absolutely idiotic. The reason for guns is the examples you posted above. If you're stocking guns because you think you plan to use them in urban warfare when the Chinese invade, you're probably as crazy as the guys who had nuclear silos built for Y2K. And the same thing goes if the government really wanted to steamroll you with an organized military, M1A2s, helicopters, F-22s, how will your AK-47 stand up against that? It's not even a matter of firepower, it's the fact that at best we're just a band of citizens. Furthermore, if it came down to that, I'd move my ass out of this country and move my money overseas if this country was tearing itself apart.

I just find some of these arguments completely absurd and a complete exaggeration of why we need guns.

 

[pontifex]

Like I said, none of those objects you listed: knife, hammer, computer, car, Internet are designed with the purpose of killing. The knife can be questionable, but it clearly serves as another tool in the kitchen and in a machine shop.

Once agian I've never said guns should be banned. I'm saying that any comparisons with these other objects is absolutely ABSURD.

The reason people die in car accidents is negligence or stupidity or whatever. I feel like if you want to compare guns to cars, then maybe if people were actively using cars to ram people and mow people down, that would be an issue. But even then, there is the necessity of the car to transport people and to keep this country running.

Thus you're never going to see cars banned in the near future.

Imagine if cars vanished. All our cars vanish. What happens? I can bet you this economy goes to shit and maybe 10% of the people can show up to work tomorrow.

Imagine if all our private citizens' guns disappeared. Would suck. Maybe a few people might die. But I can assure you it's not our guns preventing this country from collapsing. It's the fact we have a military, a police, laws, and reasonable people in what we call a nation state that's strong enough to defend itself and provide for its people. We could turn into Europe if our guns disappeared. Once again I'm NOT advocating this, but if it did happen, the Europeans are alive, I don't see this country imploding.

Anyway, my point was made. Cars and guns are totally different things. If you took them away two very different things would happen. Their purposes are different. So I don't really get WHY you even compare these things?

If we want to talk about cars killing people in accidents, then we should be only focused on accidental gun deaths.

Why don't you go replace every word you said about guns with nuclear weapons. So would we be ok putting a suitcase nuke in everyone's hands? After all nukes don't kill. It's people.

I do agree that guns alone don't kill and it's the people, but because the sole purpose is to kill, we need to keep our eyes peeled more--maybe not outright bans, but certainly some regulation is necessary, and when gun violence goes out of control, something needs to be done (again there's many solutions to this), but to compare to cars is being disingeneous.

THERE IS REGULATION! You have to fill out paperwork and go through a background check to buy a gun. You can't be a felon and you can't be insane (paraphrasing).

Some states even have more stringent rules.

You can't buy fully automatic weapons without going through an extensive background check and shelling out a ton of money. The money part already hold the majority of people from owning fully automatic weapons. There's also various other laws regarding guns and their configurations.

What more do we need? if someone is going to break the existing laws, you know, like murdering people, what makes you think they'll follow smaller laws? seriosuly, i don't get it.

 

[IEC]

You know what is sickening that there are some ATOTS who own weapons of mass murder like that used in Colorado, 30+ round killing rifles. Weapons who sole purpose to murder and maim as many people as possible.

Now you trolling...

100% of (non-military/police) ATOT with AR-pattern rifles use it for TARGET shooting or hunting, because they are accurate, ergonomic, and user-friendly rifles that can be built into almost any configuration you desire.

I just competed in a rifle shooting competition with my AR over the weekend. 100% of shots hit steel targets at varying distances from 100yd-300yd. No living creatures were harmed. Your post is objectively false.

0 out of 100 pts. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[rudeguy]

Now you trolling...

100% of (non-military/police) ATOT with AR-pattern rifles use it for TARGET shooting or hunting, because they are accurate, ergonomic, and user-friendly rifles that can be built into almost any configuration you desire.

I just competed in a rifle shooting competition with my AR over the weekend. 100% of shots hit steel targets at varying distances from 100yd-300yd. No living creatures were harmed. Your post is objectively false.

0 out of 100 pts. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

hey now....don't bring facts and logic into this

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

THERE IS REGULATION! You have to fill out paperwork and go through a background check to buy a gun. You can't be a felon and you can't be insane (paraphrasing).

Some states even have more stringent rules.

You can't buy fully automatic weapons without going through an extensive background check and shelling out a ton of money. The money part already hold the majority of people from owning fully automatic weapons. There's also various other laws regarding guns and their configurations.

What more do we need? if someone is going to break the existing laws, you know, like murdering people, what makes you think they'll follow smaller laws? seriosuly, i don't get it.

I don't doubt there is regulation. I'm not saying there isn't enough. I'm saying in general there needs to be regulation. Whether we have enough or not enough I don't care. *some* form of regulation deserves to be in place for dangerous items such as guns which are designed to kill.

I'm just trying to address the ludicrous arguments comparing guns and cars. Both have regulations but they're two entirely different objects, and unless people use cars the same way as guns, and unless thousands are being mowed down by cars by people who intended on using them as murder weapons, I don't think you can compare them. You bet your ass there will be stricter controls on cars if people start driving them through schools and killing people.

The point is regulation, enforcement, and controversy will always follow whichever tool is being used primarily as a killing machine. So until people start going on GTA2 style mass killings in their cars, let's not compare cars and guns. I'll be open to talking about car control once cars become the murder weapon of choice.

 

[mikeymikec]

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2012/07/23/usa-to-become-a-people-free-gun-reserve/

 

[clamum]

I don't doubt there is regulation. I'm not saying there isn't enough. I'm saying in general there needs to be regulation. Whether we have enough or not enough I don't care. *some* form of regulation deserves to be in place for dangerous items such as guns which are designed to kill.

I'm just trying to address the ludicrous arguments comparing guns and cars. Both have regulations but they're two entirely different objects, and unless people use cars the same way as guns, and unless thousands are being mowed down by cars by people who intended on using them as murder weapons, I don't think you can compare them. You bet your ass there will be stricter controls on cars if people start driving them through schools and killing people.

The point is regulation, enforcement, and controversy will always follow whichever tool is being used primarily as a killing machine. So until people start going on GTA2 style mass killings in their cars, let's not compare cars and guns. I'll be open to talking about car control once cars become the murder weapon of choice.

You said you don't doubt there is regulation (lulz, you admit you don't know shit about guns right there). Then you say "in general there needs to be regulation". Uh... THERE IS (you just stated it). What the fuck are you babbling about?

Ok, so the cars/guns argument is stupid. I actually agree with you there, mostly.

 

[classy]

ATOT used to be a place where you posted goofy news stories, asked odd-ball questions, and got bad advice about women. Now it's like walking into an NRA meeting. Every other post is "Check out my new gun" and "what's the best gun to keep on me so I can be a Clint-Eastwood-Hero if there's a robbery at a carry out?"

Is this the typical ATOT'er now?

Thats is the typical ATOT, weak physically as hell, but strong with the trigger finger, lol

 

[jlee]

And the same thing goes if the government really wanted to steamroll you with an organized military, M1A2s, helicopters, F-22s, how will your AK-47 stand up against that? It's not even a matter of firepower, it's the fact that at best we're just a band of citizens.

Yep, that's why we were totally in and out of Iraq/Afghanistan in a couple of weeks. :hmm:

 

[SViper]

Geez...

I'm getting a headache reading this (and other) gun threads. There is so much misinformation and opinions based on fallacy it makes my head spin.

This should be a required reading for anyone posting in one of these threads: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

It's a paper published at Harvard Law called

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?

A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

Edit:

So many gems in the article, including:

In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a
complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns.
Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those
owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.
Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffective‐
ness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so in‐
creased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent
crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.
19

During these two decades, while Britain and
the Commonwealth were making lawful firearm ownership
increasingly difficult, more than 25 states in the United States
passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed
handguns. There are now 40 states where qualified citizens can
obtain such a handgun permit.
28
As a result, the number of U.S.
citizens allowed to carry concealed handguns in shopping
malls, on the street, and in their cars has grown to 3.5 million
men and women.
29
Economists John Lott and David Mustard
have suggested that these new laws contributed to the drop in
homicide and violent crime rates. Based on 25 years of corre‐
lated statistics from all of the more than 3,000 American coun‐
ties, Lott and Mustard conclude that adoption of these statutes
has deterred criminals from confrontation crime and caused
murder and violent crime to fall faster in states that adopted
this policy than in states that did not.
30

And my favorite:

On the other hand, in nations that have ex‐
perienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reac‐
tion has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.
This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citi‐
zenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce vio‐
lence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns
to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun
laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not signifi‐
cantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

 

[lokiju]

I'm a gun owner and sometimes enthusiast and I've even thought that perhaps it's time to have a dedicated gun section with the amount of threads.

But I hesitate to bring the topic up to the mods as I'm not a fan of having such a breakdown of topics that we have nowadays. I feel it possibly contributed to the decrease in traffic after being changed to this layout.

 

[jlee]

I'm a gun owner and sometimes enthusiast and I've even thought that perhaps it's time to have a dedicated gun section with the amount of threads.

But I hesitate to bring the topic up to the mods as I'm not a fan of having such a breakdown of topics that we have nowadays. I feel it possibly contributed to the decrease in traffic after being changed to this layout.

Hmm, I'm not sure...having a dedicated garage section was definitely a good idea. I don't spend much time in health & fitness or L&R, but I'm also glad that P&N is by itself. Might not be a bad idea.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Geez...

I'm getting a headache reading this (and other) gun threads. There is so much misinformation and opinions based on fallacy it makes my head spin.

This should be a required reading for anyone posting in one of these threads: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

It's a paper published at Harvard Law called

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?

A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

Logic isn't permitted in here!

 

[jpeyton]

I was thinking of buying either a Glock 17 or Glock 19, thoughts?

If it's for concealed carry, try the Glock 19, Glock 26 (and cross-shop them with the M&P Shield).

The Glock 17 is a great all around full-size duty gun. The Glock 34 is a better option if you're going to use it primarily for target or competition shooting.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Geez...

I'm getting a headache reading this (and other) gun threads. There is so much misinformation and opinions based on fallacy it makes my head spin.

This should be a required reading for anyone posting in one of these threads: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

It's a paper published at Harvard Law called

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?

A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

Edit:

So many gems in the article, including:





And my favorite:

Facts, too good for emotional cowards.

 

[mikeymikec]

Geez...

I'm getting a headache reading this (and other) gun threads. There is so much misinformation and opinions based on fallacy it makes my head spin.

This should be a required reading for anyone posting in one of these threads: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I had stopped contributing to this thread because the pro-gun arguments had gone full circle and ignored previous posts on the thread, but as this looks more interesting, I'll respond to it.

The first quote (starting with 'In the late 1990s') assumes that the gun ban resulted in a rise in crime. It doesn't mention how many firearms were confiscated, except 'hundreds of thousands', which is a wonderfully vague term. As I've never heard of anyone owning a firearm in the UK who basically wasn't a farmer, for the sake of argument I'm going to assume the figure 200,000. Divide that by the approx. population of the UK, 55,000,000 (this may be an under-estimate), and you have a percentage of 0.003%. Yes, I totally bet that the criminals thought "ooh, no more firearms, it's hunting season!" and got tooled up, because with a percentage chance like that, I think you've got more chance of being caught by someone dressed as Batman.

I think one might have a case if the figures supported a significant increase in crime involving firearms very soon after the gun ban, but one has to look for as many possible alternative reasons because correlation is not causation.

As for the violent crime figures, it would be stupid to suggest that any time there's an increase in crime in the US that it must be down to people having guns, or a decrease in crime in the UK because of the 'clever politicians banning firearms' (which was a political stunt, IMO), or vice versa.

I tried reading up on crime figures in the UK and came across what appears to be quite a detailed (international) report, but trying to read the data in PDF format and the fact that it kept switching between regions and countries in the most inconvenient places made it quite difficult. Apparently the assault rate is quite high in the UK. I wonder how much of that is through binge drinking (which apparently is a problem here), but then that might be the sort of crap that sensationalist press outlets like to serve up.

The problem with comparing crime statistics is that unless they're broken down to an insanely detailed degree, rather than lumping a load of different categories into 'violent crime' (example - rape could easily get classed as a violent crime, but incidents involving a date-rape drug and raping someone incapacitated can hardly be a helpful statistic when talking about gun crime). I found some figures on intentional homocides here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/oct/10/unitednations-development-data

But of course that isn't going to paint a particularly helpful or complete picture either.

The PDF I was reading was from here:

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Considering the enormous leap of logic made about the UK's gun ban and crime statistics, I would definitely question the validity of the claims made by Economists John Lott and David Mustard.

@ Pray_To_Jesus

If you can't participate in a discussion without insulting people with an opposing argument, please take some time to grow up and learn to communicate in a civilised manner.

 

[rudeguy]

You said you don't doubt there is regulation (lulz, you admit you don't know shit about guns right there). Then you say "in general there needs to be regulation". Uh... THERE IS (you just stated it). What the fuck are you babbling about?

Ok, so the cars/guns argument is stupid. I actually agree with you there, mostly.

the problem with debating gun rights immediately after a shooting is there are too many emotions involved. Both those for and against guns are going to be speaking from the heart and not about facts. Its understandable. Its also great because in the end it all comes down to how each individual feels.

I am a gun guy and I believe that every American has the right to own and carry a firearm. The problem currently is that there are more criminals carrying guns than honest folks. There are only two solutions to this problem: 1) take away everyone's guns (this would trigger a civil war) or 2) get more honest folks to carry guns.

If criminals knew that there was a greater chance of their victim being armed than unarmed, the crime rates would take a big dive. Of course that isn't going to happen since so many people are afraid of guns or completely unwilling to defend themselves.

 

[pontifex]

I don't doubt there is regulation. I'm not saying there isn't enough. I'm saying in general there needs to be regulation. Whether we have enough or not enough I don't care. *some* form of regulation deserves to be in place for dangerous items such as guns which are designed to kill.

I'm just trying to address the ludicrous arguments comparing guns and cars. Both have regulations but they're two entirely different objects, and unless people use cars the same way as guns, and unless thousands are being mowed down by cars by people who intended on using them as murder weapons, I don't think you can compare them. You bet your ass there will be stricter controls on cars if people start driving them through schools and killing people.

The point is regulation, enforcement, and controversy will always follow whichever tool is being used primarily as a killing machine. So until people start going on GTA2 style mass killings in their cars, let's not compare cars and guns. I'll be open to talking about car control once cars become the murder weapon of choice.

english, motherfucker, do you speak it?

seriously? WTF? I have no idea wtf you are trying to say.

 

[rudeguy]

english, motherfucker, do you speak it?

seriously? WTF? I have no idea wtf you are trying to say.

he sells a decoder ring on his website for $19.99

 

[sigurros81]

english, motherfucker, do you speak it?

seriously? WTF? I have no idea wtf you are trying to say.

What, you don't get what he's trying to say? Here, let me explain, he's saying that he doesn't care if there are regulations or not, but he feel like that there should be some form of regulations while at the same time not. And something about guns are designed to kill. Sheesh, get a clue.

 

[slag]

If it's for concealed carry, try the Glock 19, Glock 26 (and cross-shop them with the M&P Shield).

The Glock 17 is a great all around full-size duty gun. The Glock 34 is a better option if you're going to use it primarily for target or competition shooting.

For a first time or newer owner, I'd suggest the 19 over the 26. While the 26 comes with an extended magazine with the pinky grip, the 19 felt better in my hand and was still small enough to conceal and carry. I'd like to get a 26 also but will wait till I get my CC permit.

Couldn't find any shields local to me to try out.