WTF is it with all the gun threads lately?

[jlee]

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.

Check the the archives links on the right as well.

 

[mikeymikec]

Check the the archives links on the right as well.

Why? Is it somehow relevant to whether the average joe in the US should legally be able to acquire a firearm if they wish?

 

[jlee]

Why? Is it somehow relevant to why the average joe in the US can legally acquire a firearm if they wish?

Because protecting myself and my family falls under "good reasons."

 

[mikeymikec]

Because protecting myself and my family falls under "good reasons."

Aaaaaand we've gone full circle. I've made valid points already to counter this (start at page 1), and your counter-logic is "well, I want a gun to protect myself". Forgive me if I don't stagger in defeat in the face of your oh-so-solid logic.

 

[jlee]

Aaaaaand we've gone full circle. I've made valid points already to counter this (start at page 1), and your logic is "well, I want a gun to protect myself".

This whole thread is one page. Tell your "valid points" to every person who protected themselves with a firearm and see what they think.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

I own one. It just sits in my gun safe, I haven't touched it in years... maybe even a decade.

If they banned them tomorrow it wouldn't bother me in the least.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Wasn't there an incident where an armed guy came into a church and one of the church-goers had a concealed handgun and took the guy out?

I get an NRA magazine every month and it has a section of at least 10 incidents where people defended themselves with firearms. Interestingly enough, a lot of the defenders are elderly people who wouldn't be able to defend themselves otherwise.

why are you so fucking scared of guns? A gun can do nothing without a person on the other end. The people are the ones you should be afraid of, not the tool.

Wasn't there also an incident where a church goer was showing his gun to another man in the church and he accidentally shot and killed someone else in another room?

 

[glenn1]

Actually, if you read what I wrote, you would have noticed I said "an extremely good reason" (to own a firearm).

<snip>

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.

I understand your POV and don't think you hold it for nefarious reasons, I just think that your suggestion is just as, or even more impractical than the status quo. Sure, you might (big might) prevent a handful of lunatics from having a firearm slightly more accessible, but only via a contrived system with lots of exceptions even you would agree to. IMHO, the costs and efforts of administering such a policy don't seem to justify the payoff; you'd be better off expending those resources on identifying and potential lunatics and trying to prevent them from causing mayhem generally. Otherwise you may prevent them from shooting someone, merely to have them change tactics to blowing people up using an ANFO fertilizer bomb instead (or whatever other horrific method you can think up).

 

[mikeymikec]

I understand your POV and don't think you hold it for nefarious reasons, I just think that your suggestion is just as, or even more impractical than the status quo. Sure, you might (big might) prevent a handful of lunatics from having a firearm slightly more accessible, but only via a contrived system with lots of exceptions even you would agree to. IMHO, the costs and efforts of administering such a policy don't seem to justify the payoff; you'd be better off expending those resources on identifying and potential lunatics and trying to prevent them from causing mayhem generally. Otherwise you may prevent them from shooting someone, merely to have them change tactics to blowing people up using an ANFO fertilizer bomb instead (or whatever other horrific method you can think up).

I largely agree with what you've said here in the context of the US, as I said on the first page, it would take a huge change (overwhelming positive public opinion and expense) to alter the situation in the US, but that aside, other countries manage it well enough. I'd be surprised if 0.01% of the UK (or another developed country) would be in favour of allowing the average person to own a firearm.

I just don't get what I perceive to be the typical American opinion on this topic. It's like "that's the way we've got it, that's the way we like it, we've got every right to, everything would be so much better if everyone owned one, and what are you some sort of FREAK/liberal/commie/scaredycat/hippie if you disagree". I think most people in most developed countries think "WTF?" in response to this perceived attitude, because it doesn't seem to have a positive effect on American society; if crime levels in America were significantly lower than most other developed countries, there might be some sound logic in the idea.

 

[slsmnaz]

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.

that is not their sole purpose. Just because scary looking guns frighten you doesn't mean everyone is as ignorant

 

[jlee]

I largely agree with what you've said here in the context of the US, as I said on the first page, it would take a huge change (overwhelming positive public opinion and expense) to alter the situation in the US, but that aside, other countries manage it well enough. I'd be surprised if 0.01% of the UK (or another developed country) would be in favour of allowing the average person to own a firearm.

I just don't get what I perceive to be the typical American opinion on this topic. It's like "that's the way we've got it, that's the way we like it, we've got every right to, everything would be so much better if everyone owned one, and what are you some sort of FREAK/liberal/commie/scaredycat/hippie if you disagree". I think most people in most developed countries think "WTF?" in response to this perceived attitude, because it doesn't seem to have a positive effect on American society; if crime levels in America were significantly lower than most other developed countries, there might be some sound logic in the idea.

If you want to refer to a specific post, try to avoid using page numbers as a reference because not everyone uses default settings. This thread is still one page.

Is your "typical American opinion" derived solely from forum posts?

 

[mikeymikec]

If you want to refer to a specific post, try to avoid using page numbers as a reference because not everyone uses default settings. This thread is still one page.

I wasn't really looking to quote myself, but there's my first post:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33724095#post33724095

Is your "typical American opinion" derived solely from forum posts?

I've been to America once but I can't form much of an opinion on this topic from that - I think it would be like taking a holiday to Ireland and picking a random person to argue about the IRA (in a known-pro-IRA village) with

Mostly forum posts, but I was talking to one of my customers who has an American relation-in-law and on this topic the in-law called him a lovely human for his (similar to mine) opinion on this topic.

 

[jlee]

I wasn't really looking to quote myself, but there's my first post:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33724095#post33724095

I've been to America once but I can't form much of an opinion on this topic from that - I think it would be like taking a holiday to Ireland and picking a random person to argue about the IRA (in a known-pro-IRA village) with

Mostly forum posts, but I was talking to one of my customers who has an American relation-in-law and on this topic the in-law called him a lovely human for his (similar to mine) opinion on this topic.

Ahhh...that explains it. Your perspective has been decidedly narrow, as the internet tends to bring out the vocal people on each side. Those who don't care so much don't bother. You should spend some time with ordinary American people, and you'll find that your stereotypes do not hold true for all.

 

[OverVolt]

Aren't there still mass murder tragedies in other countries, they just don't involve guns?

All the "but what use would you have for a kitchen knife... oh wait" or "No one would ever need to use gasoline unless they were a murderer my logic is infallible" arguments begin to dry up though.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

that is not their sole purpose. Just because scary looking guns frighten you doesn't mean everyone is as ignorant

What is the purpose of a gun? To kill/harm. Maybe it wasn't to kill humans, but animals to hunt or whatever, but it's still to kill.

To deter crime you say? How? Because the consequence of pulling a gun is such that someone gets hurt. So it's still because there's the fear of getting harmed.

No matter how you look at it, the gun is meant to harm.

To compare guns to cars, alcohol, etc. is foolish.

 

[slsmnaz]

What is the purpose of a gun? To kill/harm. Maybe it wasn't to kill humans, but animals to hunt or whatever, but it's still to kill.

To deter crime you say? How? Because the consequence of pulling a gun is such that someone gets hurt. So it's still because there's the fear of getting harmed.

No matter how you look at it, the gun is meant to harm.

To compare guns to cars, alcohol, etc. is foolish.

I was replying to his statement

Weapons who sole purpose to murder and maim as many people as possible.

I own quite a few guns and amazingly they have never harmed a human. There's a huge difference in using a gun for hunting or recreational shooting and using it against a person right?

However there are people out there that want to use them in that manner so I will have mine ready in case that happens. If guns are taken away then I will not have that option

 

[mikeymikec]

Aren't there still mass murder tragedies in other countries, they just don't involve guns?

Sure (they involve guns), they just happen a lot less often.

Take Raoul Moat, or the Oslo attacks, for example.

Browse by country on Wikipedia (at the bottom of the page):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States

Of the developed countries I've been picking from the list, most seem to average at one per decade or less, and some developed countries haven't had any in centuries.

Compare some developed countries' number of incidents for the 21st Century.

 

[OverVolt]

@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.

 

[pontifex]

I own one. It just sits in my gun safe, I haven't touched it in years... maybe even a decade.

If they banned them tomorrow it wouldn't bother me in the least.

this is sad. reminds me of this:



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.



They take away my gun rights, eh, who cares?
What? they now want to take away my free speech rights?
And now they want to search me and my house and take whatever they want?


where does it end?

 

[torpid]

ATOT has been pretty gun heavy for years. Nothing new as far as I can tell. What I've noticed, however, is that there are fewer police bashing threads of late.

 

[pontifex]

Wasn't there also an incident where a church goer was showing his gun to another man in the church and he accidentally shot and killed someone else in another room?

yeah, but how does that apply to this question?

Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard of a situation where a would-be serial gunman was shot by a member of the public thereby stopping the imminent wave of carnage? I suppose it must have happened, and of course I don't live in the US but I regard myself to be fairly well-tuned into international current events.

 

[AMDZen]

Well this latest shooting spree has now pushed me to get my CC. What you think of that?

I totally feel you on that

 

[sigurros81]

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

 

[pontifex]

What is the purpose of a gun? To kill/harm. Maybe it wasn't to kill humans, but animals to hunt or whatever, but it's still to kill.

To deter crime you say? How? Because the consequence of pulling a gun is such that someone gets hurt. So it's still because there's the fear of getting harmed.

No matter how you look at it, the gun is meant to harm.

To compare guns to cars, alcohol, etc. is foolish.

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!

 

[pontifex]

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

glock 17 is a full size pistol
glock 19 is a compact pistol

depends on what you want it for.