Why no resurge in gun control advocacy?

[Pangloss]

If you remove the right to carry the gun, but not the right to own one, then this places the criminal in a disadvantaged position. The criminal would still like to have a gun but now runs an additional risk of being arrested for carrying one. The house holder runs no such risk, the house holder owns a gun which is at home.

 

You're talking about the status quo in the US, not a change.

[SkepticLance]

JohnF said :

 

If you remove the right to carry the gun, but not the right to own one, then this places the criminal in a disadvantaged position.

 

Congratulations JohnF. This is the most downright sensible thing any of my debate opponents have said. It is not a measure that goes far enough, but would be a damn sight better than the current situation.

 

Let me tell you other gun loving macho aspiring wannabes a little story.

 

It is the death of Sir Peter Blake. This guy was a real hero to all New Zealanders. Six foot four tall. Strong and fit. Courageous. A real man's man. He made his name as a blue water competitive yachtsman, winning several round the world races. He was also prominent in marine conservation, and was chosen by Jacques Cousteau to lead the ongoing Cousteau expeditions after the great man's death.

 

Peter Blake and his crew were exploring and filming the wilderness of the Amazon. They anchored for the night. A bunch of evil bastards from a nearby village decided to raid them. They loaded with small arms and took a small boat out, to board the Blake expedition boat. The rest of the crew threw their hands in the air, when faced with guns. Not Peter Blake, the real man. He dived below and grabbed a rifle. He charged up with gun ready to fire, and promptly received a bullet in his heart.

 

Not one other person aboard the boat was hurt. The raiders grabbed whatever goods they wanted, and departed. Within two weeks, the local Brazilian authorities had caught all of the pirates. Today, they all languish in prison.

 

Peter Blake did what most of you macho gun lovers seem to want to do. It did absolutely no good at all, resulting only in his own death.

 

All you guys who talk about using guns to protect your families are simply risking the same. Most of the time, gun wielding criminals who hold up ordinary people will not shoot. Ask your local police who are experts at this. What do you do if faced by a gun wielding criminal? The answer is to get real subservient really quickly. Anything else is just idiotic.

 

The best weapon against those thugs is a portable siren, which is readily available. When the burglars or home invaders are detected, set off the siren. Most of the time, the nasty buggers will just leave.

[Dak]

actually, on a boat, in the middle of the wilderness, is exactly where i'd want a gun. i wouldn't want to let them board, as then it'd be up to their (possibly non-existant) mercy to not kill me. i'd rather fire upon them before they boarded.

 

'course, i'd be mighty unhappy travelling with other armed people if they hadn't had training, and would get some training myself first. and without knowing more of the situation i don't know if i'd have fought or surrendered in that case, but i'd have liked both options.

 

in a city, it's different. killing you in your home is more trouble than it's worth, as it turns a burglary into a murder. in the middle of no-where, you could get away with it. so i don't think your example is that good, tbh.

 

in fact, in a city, if you want the police to spend less effort on your case, not murdering someone is the way to go. in the middle of nowhere, murdering someone is probably the best option, as it leaves no witnesses.

[SkepticLance]

Dak

I think you missed the point, which is that opposing armed invaders with a gun is a sure way to make sure someone, probably you yourself, ends up with a bullet inside them.

 

If you can, set off a very loud alarm. Your demeanour to the invadors, however, must be non-threatening if you want yourself and your family to survive.

[Haezed]

As a non-American, the gun control thing affects me, because I have twice visited the USA, and will probably visit again more than once. I would like to know that if I walk the streets of an American town, I will not be shot.

 

We are happy to have you here but you'll just have to deal with our laws.

 

As I have said before, the crux of the whole thing is the simple fact that the USA, with relatively lax gun laws, has a murder rate much higher than any other OECD country.

 

Maybe Pangloss' "stop snitching" thread illustrates other dynamics in play. I heard one talking head say on CNN that in some neighborhoods the "clear" rate on homicides is in single didgets in many of these neighborhoods where cooperation with police is minimal.

 

If those gun laws were tightened up, including raids by police on criminal hang-outs, to confiscate any illegal weapons, we can expect with a high degree of surety, that the murder rate wil go down.

 

A mere assertion, nothing more.

 

In other words, tight gun laws save lives.

 

Nice bumper sticker slogan but not much else.

[Haezed]

I'm not sure if it's a leap or not, but I feel it too. I think they're seeing a corrollation between our approach to war and gun ownership. We seem like a bunch of trigger happy rednecks that dress up in camo and go to war to play with our testosterone toys, I suspect.

 

I see this as a form of close minded bigotry.

 

Of course, when you see some of our soldiers and you hear them talk, tell their story or whatever, you see a completely different picture. These are some impressive folks. Maybe they're just playing to the cameras, or putting on a good front, but they come across quite professional to me. Courteous and intelligent.

 

How many of our Eurpoean friends ever see that picture, I wonder.

[Haezed]

you realise the distinction is an artificial one? if you agreed with the IRAs struggle, then they'd be a bunch of civillians mass-resisting. if not, then they're a bunch of terrorists.

 

Exactly, which makes my point.

[JohnF]

I think assuming that people only own or carry guns because of some macho inclination is probably false. I would expect that most people that own guns don't normally carry them around with them. If I'm wrong here then I assume someone will correct me.

 

Assuming I am right and most gun owners don't carry them around then gun ownership is for reasons other than feeling more powerful. It is more likely that people choose to own guns because it gives them an increased feeling of security. If people perceive themselves to be threatened then they will want to do something to reduce that perceived threat. Having a gun in the house is one of the options they have open to them. It is more cost effective and convenient to buy a gun than to fit surveillance equipment and have bars at the windows. A gun will also give them a last line of defence protection once all other defences have been breached.

 

Having said that though, if it is true that most gun owners don't actually carry their guns on a day to day basis then if there were severe restrictions placed on gun ownership that made it illegal to carry guns, rather than transport them, such a change is going to have no impact on the majority of citizens. The major impact is going to be felt by people who do carry guns regularly. In this group there is more likely to be a greater number of people that carry guns because it gives them a feeling of power; like criminals and younger gang members.

[John Cuthber]

"you realise the distinction is an artificial one? if you agreed with the IRAs struggle, then they'd be a bunch of civillians mass-resisting. if not, then they're a bunch of terrorists.

Exactly, which makes my point."

I thought the difference was that, if the majority took part in the mass resistance it was legitimate and if it was some small self-interested group then it's terrorism.

 

The talk of the IRA is largely irrelevent; the gun laws in the UK (and N Ireland) are so tight that many of their attacks were with bombs and most were with baseball bats.

 

"in the middle of no-where, you could get away with it. so i don't think your example is that good, tbh."

Err? in his example they didn't get away with it; the cops got them. Peter Blake is still dead and he's still dead because he tried to act the hero (of course, if he were trained and well practiced it might have been different, but there would still have been dead people).

[waitforufo]

SkepticLance,

 

Do you really want to live in a world without those like Peter Blake? There are times when passivity is prudent and even heroic. For example Gandhi and Martin Luther King are examples of heroic passivity. More often however, history shows that passivity leads to enslavement to the wicked. Should no one resist the wicked?

 

In hindsight it may have been a more prudent for Mr. Blake to give in to the “evil bastards.” I for one am glad that there are those in this world who will not surrender there liberty and property evil bastards. Perhaps Mr. Blake would be alive today had he not made his defense. Would he have been the same person afterward? I do not condemn him for remaining true to himself. I celebrate him.

 

Let’s say you hear a woman outside your home screaming for her life in the dead of night. Yes, it would be foolish not to first call the police. Would you not however go to her aid? If she were raped and murdered as you listened would you really be able to say you did all you could by just calling the police? Would you really condemn a person that went to help and then also became a victim?

 

Mr. Blake tried to protect those on his craft. His death left there fate completely in the hands of “evil bastards.” The fact that these evil bastards only stole properly after murdering Mr. Blake was merely fortunate on there part. How do you know that they would not have murdered someone regardless, just to set the proper tone for there piracy?

 

I think you, SkepticLance, should be ashamed.

[Haezed]

The talk of the IRA is largely irrelevent; the gun laws in the UK (and N Ireland) are so tight that many of their attacks were with bombs and most were with baseball bats.

 

John, the IRA example was brought up as a counterexample to my example of how the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto put up a good fight with fascism. I agree it is largely irrelevent.

[Dak]

"in the middle of no-where, you could get away with it. so i don't think your example is that good, tbh."

 

i was talking about killing the whole crew, which is easier to get away with outside of civilisation than it is withing. eg, most burglars won't kill an entire household to cover their crime.

[SkepticLance]

JohnF said :

 

I think assuming that people only own or carry guns because of some macho inclination is probably false.

 

Obviously we can over-generalise. I suggested earlier that there would be some women who carry guns out of fear. There will be some men who carry or own guns for motives other than macho. However, even though I may be wrong, I believe I have detected a major macho element runnning right through the US gun culture. It is as if millions of men want to emulate Clint Eastwood as some kind of Dirty Harry number two.

 

waitforufo said :

 

Do you really want to live in a world without those like Peter Blake?

 

Some years ago I was privileged to meet Sir Peter Blake. I was at a dinner meeting, where he was guest of honour, and he ended up sitting at my table. I was able to spend some time chatting with him. He was a major hero in person as well as reputation - a really impressive guy. I admire him immensely.

 

However, that just makes his death even more tragic and stupid. Great guy that he was, he was not immune to error. He allowed his courage and heroism to lead him into a stupid and fatal action.

 

And no, I have no reason to feel ashamed.

 

A lot of the arguments I have heard from pro-gun types has been the what-if type of argument. Anything can, of course, happen. And there will be rare occasions when a gun might help. However, any rational person plays the numbers - lives by the statistics. I am a keen scuba diver. I am often asked about sharks. I know that the chances of me killing myself in a car accident driving to where I scuba dive is 1000 times greater than the chances of dying in a shark attack. To permit myself to be influenced by the tiny chances of shark attack is stupid.

 

In the same way, you should play the numbers in the gun question. Your chances of dying with a bullet inside you because you pull a gun are far greater than your chances of copping the blast if you do not.

 

And yes. If a women is being raped near me, I will take action. I know this because I have already done so. Some years ago, when I was living in the city, I heard the sounds of a woman screaming. Rushed to the spot, where a rather nasty individual was trying to do the dirty deed. It did not take much to see him off. I did not need a gun. In fact, all it took were words. I suspect that, in most similar cases, all it will take is the appropriate words. Most of the time, drawing a gun will just make the situation worse.

[Pangloss]

JohnF said :

 

Let me tell you other gun loving macho aspiring wannabes a little story.

 

 

You're not actually going to use a single example to try and prove that having a gun could never possibly do anyone any good are you?

 

I mean, you're not actually going to do that, on a science board, no less, while posting under the name "SkepticLance".... are you?

 

Really?

[Sisyphus]

Your argument, which is a reasonable one, tells me why it's almost never a good idea to bring a gun into a situation. I'm having a hard time seeing what that has to do with banning guns, though.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss said :

 

You're not actually going to use a single example to try and prove that having a gun could never possibly do anyone any good are you?

 

As I said before, its a numbers game. Case histories show that fewer people get killed if 'defenders' do not use guns.

 

If you do not believe me, go to your local police station and ask the experts.

 

Imagine the following scenario.

 

You are at home with your family, having a quiet night. Your home is invaded by a bunch of evil bastards with guns. I offer three options.

 

Option One.

 

You grab your gun - make sure its loaded and the safety off and bravely march forth to confront the EB's.

 

Option Two

 

You show yourself - acting totally subserviently - and give them everything they want.

 

Option Three

 

You set off a really loud alarm - potent enough to be heard for two city blocks, and painful to the ears of anyone in the house. You try to stay back, but if caught, act totally subserviently.

 

Now print off these options, take them to your local cops and ask their opinion.

 

My favourite is option 3, and I am sure the police would agree. In that situation, the EB's will probably leave quickly. Option 1 carries the greatest risk of death or serious physical harm.

 

Sisyphus said :

 

Your argument, which is a reasonable one, tells me why it's almost never a good idea to bring a gun into a situation. I'm having a hard time seeing what that has to do with banning guns, though.

 

We pass lots of laws to prevent idiots from doing idiotic things. Drunk driving for example. This is no different.

[Sisyphus]

But we don't outlaw cars or alcohol. We just have laws against using them in ways inherently and excessively dangerous to others. Is merely owning a gun an "idiotic thing?"

[Haezed]

I offer three options.

 

Option One.

 

You grab your gun - make sure its loaded and the safety off and bravely march forth to confront the EB's.

 

First, I wouldn't march. I would try to call 911 and/or set off an alarm IF I could. It depends on the situation. The first house I bought was configured so that we were all downstairs and I could likely attempt gather my family into one room, train the muzzle of the shotgun at the door and wait for the guy to make a move. My current house has the kids upstairs. Where do I hear the sound? If it is upstairs with the kids, I might act very different than if it is in my kitchen. From that point, I could train a shotgun to keep him from getting upstairs while my wife made the call and set off our alarm.

 

There are an infinite other possible ways this may play out but its MY FAMILY and you have no right to tell me the best way to defend MY home. Nor do the police.

 

Option Two

 

You show yourself - acting totally subserviently - and give them everything they want.

 

Statistically, this might be the best bet in many cases but, again, I'll defer to the choice of the individual involved in an impossible situation. Does he sense the perp is on crank? Has there been a history of progressive incidents to indicate someone is targetting them? There are a number of facters which might go into whether I act this way or take other actions.

 

Option Three

 

You set off a really loud alarm - potent enough to be heard for two city blocks, and painful to the ears of anyone in the house. You try to stay back, but if caught, act totally subserviently.

 

These options are not mutually exclusive. For example, You could combine 1 and 3. Set off the alarm and use your gun to wait for the perp to show himself.

 

Now print off these options, take them to your local cops and ask their opinion.

 

I would rather not embarrass myself because the police know that there are an infinite number of ways something like this can go down.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss said :

 

You're not actually going to use a single example to try and prove that having a gun could never possibly do anyone any good are you?

 

As I said before, its a numbers game. Case histories show that fewer people get killed if 'defenders' do not use guns.

 

If you do not believe me, go to your local police station and ask the experts.

 

I agree. I just have a problem with some of the generalizations that you've extrapolated from those statistics.

 

That's the problem with statistics. People use them to draw sweeping conclusions about what's best for every case, when in fact majority statistics mean only what's best for most cases.

 

 

We pass lots of laws to prevent idiots from doing idiotic things. Drunk driving for example. This is no different.

 

And that's also a reasonable argument. But it also has reasonable counterpoint.

 

That's why (drum roll please) we have laws affecting gun ownership in this country.

[Saryctos]

Out of the millions of possible situations that can arise, if having a fire arm in so much as one of them would benefit me , it is worth the investment if I can afford it...which I could, and thus I own a springfield XD.

[SkepticLance]

Sisyphus

Cars and alcohol are somewhat different. Cars because they are necessary to our life style. Alcohol because making it illegal has been tried, and the overwhelming evidence is that such laws do more harm than good.

 

Guns are not normally outlawed as such. However, in most OECD nations, they are restricted by law, and only limited use permitted. For most OECD nations, this has been shown to work - not 100% - but sufficiently to demonstrate the value of such restrictions, as shown by reduced murder rates.

[SkepticLance]

Haezed said :

 

I wouldn't march. I would try to call 911 and/or set off an alarm IF I could.

 

Congratulations. That is sensible. However, the numbers still show that fewer people are hurt or killed if guns are not presented.

 

you have no right to tell me the best way to defend MY home. Nor do the police.

 

No. But this is just a debate. Governments everywhere, however, do claim that right. It's called law and order.

[Haezed]

Haezed said :

 

I wouldn't march. I would try to call 911 and/or set off an alarm IF I could.

 

Congratulations. That is sensible. However, the numbers still show that fewer people are hurt or killed if guns are not presented.

 

You missed the part where I said I would then get a gun if available and, depending on the situation, defend my family from a safe a place as possible.

 

you have no right to tell me the best way to defend MY home. Nor do the police.

 

No. But this is just a debate. Governments everywhere, however, do claim that right. It's called law and order.

 

I understood you were arguing policy, not trying to say what I personally should do. However, as a matter of policy, I would defer to the individual in how to defend his own home. It is for similar reasons that I defer to a woman's right to choose to get an abortion in early stages. Where a question is difficult and is also a matter of life and death, I tend to let individuals decide what to do instead of the US government mandating a one size fits all decision from on high.

[SkepticLance]

Haezed said :

 

You missed the part where I said I would then get a gun if available and, depending on the situation, defend my family from a safe a place as possible.

 

As we discussed, nothing I say can force you to act in any particular way. I am expressing an opinion. My opinion in this case is that any use of a gun in this situation is unwise.

 

The first rule of dealing with home invasions (or bank robberies etc) is do not get the evil bastards pissed off with you.

 

If you decide to use a gun from a 'safe' spot, you can either yell out and tell the EB's what you are doing, or shoot from surprise. I suspect that the latter would not go down well in a court of law. If you do the former, you are gonna piss them off.

 

I can think of at least three ways a pissed off EB can kill you in that situation. So I regard that approach as unwise.

 

1. Open fire blind with their bullets going straight through the door, or walls. This could also kill members of your family. They might even do this out of pure spite, not caring who gets hit.

 

2. Find a window to shoot through.

 

3. Use a distraction to draw your fire as they open the door and shoot you. Without both serious training and experience, the average person is wide open vulnerable to this tactic.

[ParanoiA]

I can think of at least three ways a pissed off EB can kill you in that situation. So I regard that approach as unwise.

 

1. Open fire blind with their bullets going straight through the door' date=' or walls. This could also kill members of your family. They might even do this out of pure spite, not caring who gets hit.

 

2. Find a window to shoot through.

 

3. Use a distraction to draw your fire as they open the door and shoot you. Without both serious training and experience, the average person is wide open vulnerable to this tactic.[/quote']

 

None of which is realistic in the least. This isn't a TV shoot out show. Intruders don't want to mess with an armed person. They want absolute control. They're not going to risk any of their lives trying to figure out how to "get you" when you're holed up with a gun. They're going to say, "screw this" and leave. Their guns are only effective when you don't have one. When you pump a shotgun it is distinctive and loud and they don't stay around.