Gun control, which side wins?

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

"Canada’s government is to legislate for a national freeze on handgun ownership that would prevent people buying and selling them anywhere in the country."

“The day this legislation goes into effect it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns in Canada,” said the prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/31/handgun-freeze-in-canada-and-five-round-limit-on-magazines

--------

To score political points, Trudeau is removing the right to self defense from practically the entire Canadian population.  I guess the logic is if someone is violently attacked and can't defend him/her self it's that person's own responsibility.

“Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives,” Trudeau said.

What an utterly absurd and ignorant statement.

The ignorance is all yours. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Other than using firearms for sport shooting, hunting, and training for any upcoming insurrections, there is no reason anyone in America should need any more guns than their neighbours have in their everyday lives.

Edited June 1, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Alex_Krycek]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The ignorance is all yours. 

I believe the right to self defense is inalienable.  If someone is attacked, they should have the means to defend their life (and by extension their liberty and happiness).

The UK has a different view: you believe that a person does not have the right to self defense.  This can be shown quite simply by your laws even against mace / pepper spray. 

Consequently, vulnerable populations are left undefended in the UK.   For example, the amount of sexual violence against women in the UK is staggeringly high, and women in the UK can do little to nothing about it.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/statistics-sexual-violence/

But remain on your high horse, all to preserve the myth that the UK is somehow a safer country for the vulnerable.

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Other than using firearms for sport shooting, hunting, and training for any upcoming insurrections, there is no reason anyone in America should need any more guns than their neighbours have in their everyday lives.

Corollary 1. When doing the math, count the ones your neighbour uses for sport shooting, hunting, and training for insurrections, but don't count them for yourself.

[Alex_Krycek]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Other than using firearms for sport shooting, hunting, and training for any upcoming insurrections, there is no reason anyone in America should need any more guns than their neighbours have in their everyday lives.

Yes, there is a very legitimate reason: self defense.  We have a right to protect our homes, family, and property from criminals.  Why would you want to disarm citizens and make them vulnerable to harm?

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. 

Do you think it helps your argument to conflate self defense with gun ownership? They’re quite obviously different things, so suggesting otherwise taints what could otherwise be considered to be a legitimate stance, IMO. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yes, there is a very legitimate reason: self defense.  We have a right to protect our homes, family, and property from criminals.  Why would you want to disarm citizens and make them vulnerable to harm?

I understand the sentiment. If you can't trust your neighbours you need to match, or exceed, any potential force you suspect they might have.

Quite the dilemma. Seek to build more trust or more and better weapons.

14 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 Why would you want to disarm citizens and make them vulnerable to harm?

Statistically, is it not true that the more guns you own the more you are likely to be killed by one?

[Alex_Krycek]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Do you think it helps your argument to conflate self defense with gun ownership? They’re quite obviously different things, so suggesting otherwise taints what could otherwise be considered to be a legitimate stance, IMO. 

I don't see it as a conflation.  When someone is attacked, many times that person is at a physical disadvantage.  They are older, weaker, smaller in stature, etc.  Despite how many Aikido videos you watch of an old woman flipping a 250 assailant, the reality is that the assailant prevails in that situation 9 times out of 10.  

Bigger, stronger, more violent people typically win the fight, unless the defender is particularly adept in martial arts, which most people are not.

Thus it becomes entirely logical to level the playing field, to equip the weaker defender with a tool that can be wielded to render superior force against the stronger attacker: the firearm.  In matters of exigent life and death when someone is under attack,  this is the only way to give them a fighting chance.

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I understand the sentiment. If you can't trust your neighbours you need to match, or exceed, any potential force you suspect they might have.

Quite the dilemma. Seek to build more trust or more and better weapons.

A splendid approach if you live in the suburbs. 

Don't know if you've been to America recently: it's tough to build trust with a meth addict who wants to break into your home.  Unfortunately not everyone can come round for tea and biscuits for a good natured chat.

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

A splendid approach if you live in the suburbs. 

Don't know if you've been to America recently: it's tough to build trust with a meth addict who wants to break into your home.  Unfortunately not everyone can come round for tea and biscuits for a good natured chat.

Right. As I said I understand the sentiment. Tea and biscuits can't be taken for granted.

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Thus it becomes entirely logical to level the playing field, to equip the weaker defender with a tool that can be wielded to render superior force against the stronger attacker: the firearm.  In matters of exigent life and death when someone is under attack,  this is the only way to give them a fighting chance.

In a vacuum this makes complete sense. I should be able to defend myself. No question.

Looking at the bigger picture though this is a much more complex issue. Guns in America is not simply a matter of self defense. It is also a matter of aggression, suicide, accident, etc. It is not reasonable to only address one side of the issue in isolation.

I should have the right to self defense, but I should also have the right to not die at the grocery store because some nut job is allowed to have firepower more appropriate to a war zone than defending themselves against sexual assault.

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

When someone is attacked, many times that person is at a physical disadvantage.  They are older, weaker, smaller in stature, etc.  Despite how many Aikido videos you watch of an old woman flipping a 250 assailant, the reality is that the assailant prevails in that situation 9 times out of 10.  

Bigger, stronger, more violent people typically win the fight, unless the defender is particularly adept in martial arts, which most people are not.

Thus it becomes entirely logical to level the playing field, to equip the weaker defender with a tool that can be wielded to render superior force against the stronger attacker: the firearm. 

And does this require an AR-15, or would a handgun suffice?

[StringJunky]

Having an easily accessible, loaded firearm in the home for personal protection... what can go wrong?

[MigL]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And does this require an AR-15, or would a handgun suffice?

Doesn't require either, as both contribute to the problem, and will get you shot, either by the assailant, or the cops.
Most of the time people who arm themselves for protection, don't have quick access, or knowhow to use; the gun is taken away and used on them.

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Doesn't require either

I can agree with you about this, but Alex surely would not. So instead I asked him a question to see where HE may be able to agree on a compromise. He shared his position and shared why he felt that way. His starting point was different, thus so was mine. 

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

And does this require an AR-15, or would a handgun suffice?

The AR-15 is just a dressed up prop for the gun nerds. It's just a standard semi-automatic rifle with relatively low power compared to something like an M1 Garand or the new MCX Spear which is now commercially available.  Nothing special about the AR except the marketing and how common it is.

To answer your question IMO a handgun with stopping power (.45 calibre or greater) or a shotgun is the best for home defense.  Rifles aren't practical in close quarters.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The AR-15 is just a dressed up prop for the gun nerds. It's just a standard semi-automatic rifle with relatively low power compared to something like an M1 Garand or the new MCX Spear which is now commercially available.  Nothing special about the AR except the marketing and how common it is.

To answer your question IMO a handgun with stopping power (.45 calibre or greater) or a shotgun is the best for home defense.  Rifles aren't practical in close quarters.  

Are these still along the lines of what the second amendment was written to protect ownership of?

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The AR-15 is just a dressed up prop for the gun nerds. It's just a standard semi-automatic rifle with relatively low power compared to something like an M1 Garand or the new MCX Spear which is now commercially available.  Nothing special about the AR except the marketing and how common it is.

To answer your question IMO a handgun with stopping power (.45 calibre or greater) or a shotgun is the best for home defense.  Rifles aren't practical in close quarters.  

Thank you for the response. I’m clear on the modular nature of the AR-15 as a platform allowing customization depending on preferred usage, but its utility and effectiveness are part of the reason it’s become the go-to for shooters in nearly all mass murder events. 

We agree that a handgun or shotgun are better for self-defense, which is why I asked. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by iNow

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

To answer your question IMO a handgun with stopping power (.45 calibre or greater) or a shotgun is the best for home defense.  Rifles aren't practical in close quarters. 

The thing about stopping power is, it kills people that didn't need to be stopped; the best form of defense is to make the attacker stop, because they fear the consequences, even a large stick would suffice for most people.

Most people, including me, don't want to die in order to live; it's the same argument for carrying a knife; it's scary out there and I don't want to die, so I threaten you with your death in order to stop you; then one day I meet up with me, and I have no choice.

[iNow]

Unilateral disarmament is unlikely to achieve the outcome you desire, Dim. Personal choice is great, but this problem is systemic and needs a regulatory change to address, IMO.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unilateral disarmament is unlikely to achieve the outcome you desire, Dim.

I just don't want to be shot or stabed... Do whatsoever you like; if you tell me to stop eating marmite with a big stick, I'll miss the taste...

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yes, there is a very legitimate reason: self defense.  We have a right to protect our homes, family, and property from criminals.  Why would you want to disarm citizens and make them vulnerable to harm?

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

From 2007-2011, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly .9% of crimes. This shows that you only have a slight chance to do something right with your gun, as opposed to the astronomically increased chances of doing something wrong. How do you justify the heavy risks of constant carry for the benefit of having a gun in the rare instance you might need it? 

[MigL]

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unilateral disarmament is unlikely to achieve the outcome you desire

Sure it does.
If you diarm the other side, I don't need a gun to protect myself.

In Canada, someone breaks into my house , I reach for the 5iron in my golf bag.
In the US, you reach for your shotgun, because chances are, he's armed.

Which is more likely to have unintended consequences for your son coming home inebriated at 4:00 in the morning without his keys ?

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

In Canada, someone breaks into my house , I reach for the 5iron in my golf bag.
In the US, you reach for your shotgun, because chances are, he's armed.

Which still leaves you with functioning putters, drivers, and wedges, which is all you really need.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Which is more likely to have unintended consequences for your son coming home inebriated at 4:00 in the morning without his keys ?

Even more ominous is the fact that far more in-home firearms are used to threaten people who live there than are used in defending the home. Those who think they'd never do that are supporting those who do it on a regular basis.

 

[Bufofrog]

I think that handguns and semiautomatic guns should be banned.  I know that is unfair for all of the responsible people who have a hobby of collecting and shooting guns, but life isn't particularly fair.  The realization that in many states in the USA if you are in a bar having a drink there are probably several people in that bar that are armed with hand guns is unsettling.

[TheVat]

I would like to have dynamite be legal for me to buy, so I can use it legitimately to blow up a big tree stump.  All the good people who want to use dynamite are being punished because of a few bad apples.  So now only people with mining or demolition licenses can buy it.  Aiiee!

Legitimate use doesn't trump public safety.  We understand this with explosives, many deadly poisons, fireworks, and other things where the misuse is clearly understood and there is not some hot button issue of patriotism and freedom.  We accept limits on how we can clean aquariums or remove stumps, because it protects people.  We can have rational conversations about regulating those dangerous things.  But raise the same issues with guns and you would think it was about proposed legal castration, the way some people react.