Thoughts on gun control?

[Camul]

Perhaps but you haven't stated why a person cannot keep their firearms at their own home.

where else would they store them?

Aisde from those who need a gun as a tool for their job, I see no reason for a person to keep a gun in their house. But there are downsides, like someone getting shot.

I also don't know where they would store them. Find someone smarter than me to come up with an idea.

[LAwLz]

What anime is your avatar from?

Not him but his avatar is Louise from Zero no Tsukaima (aka The Familiar of Zero).

 

 

 

"I don't, but other people with law enforcement experience will say the same thing."

 

"And other law enforcement has different views."

http://www.thebangswitch.com/another-self-defense-gun-use-that-never-happens/

Notice how my links are to for example the official website of the metropolitan police service's official website which has a neutral stance, while yours is from a website called "The BangSwitch Blog" and talks about conspiracy theories and is extremely pro-guns? The dude even has reviews of barrels for rifles on his site.

I'm not saying that your source is extremely biased and unreliable but... Actually that's exactly what I am saying. If you can link some organization (not just a random cop who loves guns) which recommends civilians to wear guns then go ahead. I will be waiting. But if you are just going to post links to random blogs then I will have a very hard time taking you seriously.

 

 

 

"And if they aren't willing to do that then other citizens won't need weapons since there would not be anything to fight."

Yet another assumption.  My statement was to point out that at least in our military there would be many reluctant to turn their weapons against the people.

In reality should such a takeover occur those doing it would likely begin placing military leaders in key positions they can trust.  Ultimately though not everyone will fall in line.

Some will be on the government's side, and some won't be.

They would be reluctance to turn their weapons against their own people because of their own morals and beliefs, not because you have guns. The civilians would be at such an incredible disadvantage in terms of fire power than your puny guns would be like pea-shooters.

It really is that simple. Either the government turns their weapons against you and then you're fucked (drone strikes, bombs, missiles etc) or they don't in which case you're the one threatening with killing people to get what you want, and in that case you're the terrorists, not the government.

And if a big part of the military decides to join then it's those people who will be in charge of the outcome, not the ones who has pathetic firearms in their homes. The kind of weapons you got at home won't help at all in an all out war when it involves bomb planes and drones. It won't matter one bit.

You are living in a fantasy world where you think you will become an action hero if a war breaks out.

[Thunderpup]

Not him but his avatar is Louise from Zero no Tsukaima (aka The Familiar of Zero).

 

thanks

 

 

 

If you can link some organization (not just a random cop who loves guns) which recommends civilians to wear guns then go ahead. I will be waiting.

This better?

 

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

 

 

 

 

 

They would be reluctance to turn their weapons against their own people because of their own morals and beliefs, not because you have guns.

 

It really is that simple. Either the government turns their weapons against you and then you're fucked (drone strikes, bombs, missiles etc) or they don't in which case you're the one threatening with killing people to get what you want, and in that case you're the terrorists, not the government.

And if a big part of the military decides to join then it's those people who will be in charge of the outcome, not the ones who has pathetic firearms in their homes. The kind of weapons you got at home won't help at all in an all out war when it involves bomb planes and drones.

 

Countries who have used that much force against its citizens usually end up with the rest of the citizenry rising up against them.  It happened in Iran during the revolution, and it's happening now in Syria. China, Vietnam, and  Cuba are also examples.

Even Mexico is an example where despite using their military they still haven't squashed the drug cartels who are largely equipped with small arms.

Generally the ones who were successful in their efforts instead simply made people disappear instead of using blunt force.

 

Besides wars are generally won on the ground and using air power as the sole means of force, especially in populated civilian regions, traditionally does not yield the desired results.

 

[STRMfrmXMN]

 

 

Question is the box you mentioned locked? Kids find hidden boxes all the time.

 

 

I think up until a certain age there is most definitely good reason to keep it locked away from your kids, however it defeats the point of it being an emergency object then.

[Thunderpup]

I think up until a certain age there is most definitely good reason to keep it locked away from your kids, however it defeats the point of it being an emergency object then.

 

I agree, but I was thinking more along the lines of one of those hand safes where you simply put in the code and it pops open.

 

But at minimum the concept of something being in a box under a bunch of other boxes also defeats the purpose of it being an emergency object while also raising the chances for it being found by little fingers.

[STRMfrmXMN]

I agree, but I was thinking more along the lines of one of those hand safes where you simply put in the code and it pops open.

 

But at minimum the concept of something being in a box under a bunch of other boxes also defeats the purpose of it being an emergency object while also raising the chances for it being found by little fingers.

Shelf life my friend.

 

How tall were you when you were seven years old? I imagine not tall enough to reach the top drawer of dad's dresser

[stconquest]

Shelf life my friend.

 

How tall were you when you were seven years old? I imagine not tall enough to reach the top drawer of dad's dresser

 

Oh IDK, I found some interesting videos 7 feet up on top of a Cabinet at the age of eight.  Grabbed one and popped it in the VCR.    Watched about 10 seconds before I knew I should put it back. :mellow:

 

They were hidden from plain sight by the trim of the cabinet, but I liked to explore. 

[Thunderpup]

Shelf life my friend.

 

How tall were you when you were seven years old? I imagine not tall enough to reach the top drawer of dad's dresser

 

While I don't recall what my height was, I would of been in at least kindergarten if not 1st grade by then and at that point I was indeed tall enough to reach the top dresser.

 

Plus I recall being able to get stuff from the top of the closet just by using chairs or other furniture.

 

I also recall my younger brother, who probably was a 2nd or 1st grader, finding my mothers hand gun in a place that was quite high just by rummaging while standing on some stuff.

 

It was unloaded fortunately, and I also caught him which was fortunate as well.

[stconquest]

 

While I don't recall what my height was, I would of been in at least kindergarten if not 1st grade by then and at that point I was indeed tall enough to reach the top dresser.

 

Plus I recall being able to get stuff from the top of the closet just by using chairs or other furniture.

 

I also recall my younger brother, who probably was a 2nd or 1st grader, finding my mothers hand gun in a place that was quite high just by rummaging while standing on some stuff.

 

It was unloaded fortunately, and I also caught him which was fortunate as well.

 

Scary shit. I just found some porn.

 

I recall my uncle and grandfather having rifles, and not always locked up... but hidden. I never messed with them. Found bullets one day, grandfather got in deep shit for that one.

 

Oddly enough, every time I found something like the porn tapes and bullets, they disappeared... never to be seen in the house again. Damn women! (jk)

[MourningSouls]

My one issue with gun control is that people tend to assume it just means an all out ban.

 

While I do not support any all out bans, I do support gun control. Automatic weapons, unnecessarily large calibres, etc.

 

Regardless of anything, the people who are the cause of any type of gun ban talk, they don't follow the law. Legal means are not the only way to obtain firearms, hell, often times the legal way is by far the most difficult way. Taking guns from law abiding citizens only takes their means of self defense.

[Bearded4Glory]

My one issue with gun control is that people tend to assume it just means an all out ban.

 

While I do not support any all out bans, I do support gun control. Automatic weapons, unnecessarily large calibres, etc.

 

Regardless of anything, the people who are the cause of any type of gun ban talk, they don't follow the law. Legal means are not the only way to obtain firearms, hell, often times the legal way is by far the most difficult way. Taking guns from law abiding citizens only takes their means of self defense.

 

We already have those restrictions...

 

This is always the gun control argument.  "Don't worry, we don't want to ban all guns just these scary looking ones".  Over the years this has happened tons of times, each time they want something else and they will never stop until guns are totally banned.  A good example is the Federal Assault Weapons ban than Clinton signed.  There was a sunset clause that said if it wasn't resigned within X amount of time it was voided.  Well 10 years (I think that was the length) later and it was not signed again, want to know why?  Because it made no difference!

 

AR15s and other scary looking "military style" whatchamahavits are used in hardly any crime.  The typical gun used to kill another person is a handgun but our Supreme Court has ruled that they are protected under the 2nd amendment and the Federal and State governments can not ban them.

 

Another good example is the bill that Gavin Newsom proposed just the other day.  Back in the late 90s there was a push here in CA to have more Gun Control. They ended up doing a bunch of stuff but one of the big ones was banning "High Capacity" (or if you know anything about guns you would call them standard capacity) magazines.  In order to get the law passed they had to allow previously purchased/owned magazines to be grandfathered in.  Now this new bill that was introduced this week wants to reverse that and confiscate all magazines in CA over 10 rounds.  How is that fair?  Overnight, thousands of CA gun owners will become criminals just for having a piece of metal that holds bullets.  What if they are not paying attention to the news and aren't tuned into the CA gun culture?  They would never know that they are now a criminal.

 

 

That is one thing a lot of people who aren't into guns don't understand.  The antis will not stop, ever.  Today we may give them an inch, and 10 years from now we will find ourselves 10 miles down the road because every time someone got scared we gave another inch.

 

Sorry, we are tired of it and we will not give another inch.

[LAwLz]

Please read my posts a bit more carefully. The FBI link, as stated previously, was posted for general statistics for the discussion and to acknowledge that the FBI has taken in account armed citizens helping in situations by reporting it themselves, which they did. So please read the entire report:

 

Page 21,

There is nothing about armed citizens on page 21 in the FBI report. Here is the entire text from page 21:

This study helps clarify the environment with regard to both the level of risk citizens face and the speed with which active shooter incidents occur. A majority of the 160 incidents (90 [56.3%]) ended on the shooter’s initiative before the police arrived—sometimes when the shooter committed suicide or stopped shooting, and other times when the shooter fled the scene. In 64 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.0%) of 64 incidents ended in 5 minutes or less, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less.

The study identified 21 (13.1%) of 160 incidents where unarmed citizens made the selfless and deeply personal choices to face the danger of an active shooter. In those instances, the citizens safely and successfully disrupted the shootings. In 11 of those 21 incidents, unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students confronted the shooters to end the threat. In 10 incidents, citizens, working or shopping when the shootings began, successfully restrained shooters until police could arrive. And in 6 other incidents, armed off-duty police officers, citizens, and security guards risked their lives to successfully end the threat. These actions likely saved the lives of students and others present.

Recognizing the increased active shooter threat and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold, these study results support the importance of training and exercises— not only for law enforcement but also for citizens. It is important, too, that training and exercises include not only an understanding of the threats faced but also the risks and options available in active shooter incidents. Finally, the FBI recognizes that seeking to avoid these tragedies is clearly the best result. The FBI remains dedicated to supporting prevention efforts within all communities affected by these tragedies. As the FBI continues to study the active shooter phenomenon, the Bureau remains committed to assist state, local, tribal, and campus law enforcement in developing better prevention, response, and recovery practices involving active shooter incidents.

 

It does not even mention the 2 instances where civilians killed the shooters.

I have no idea how you can read this and come to the conclusion that "FBI acknowledges the importance of armed citizens". The only conclusion I come to when reading that text (which you linked to support your argument) is that the FBI thinks the US is so messed up that normal people has to undergo training on how to handle a mass shooting, and by training they don't mean taking gun lessons. They are referring to training and discussions regarding "decisions they may face" (page 8).

 

 

 

Guns have above, coupled with my previous examples and videos, in the hands of the citizens helped in situations of shootings, robberies etc etc. Considering that not many people carry guns, or out in the open (many prefer them to remain at home, locked up safely), those that did possess a firearm was able to help in this situation when present. Is it common? No, certainly not, which is not what I said or wished to discuss/point out.

So you agree that it is incredibly rare, and yet you still believe that the FBI agrees with you that the chance of everyone surviving in the event of a mass shooting breaking is significantly higher if one or more of the victims has a gun with them? When you make such a bold statement (here is your statement word for word: "If just one person was armed during a massacre, the chances everyone survives increases.") and then refer to the FBI as a source, you might want to actually have some solid evidence to back it up. So far I have not seen any evidence from you to support that claim.

 

 

 

And just to be clear here, we're not talking about unarmed citizens being able to restrain a shooter or criminal, so it doesn't matter if you COULD restrain someone without a gun--we're discussing the benefits of guns being in the hands of civilians. Because without them it doesn't mean you always can if they have an assault rifle or there are more than one criminal present.

Don't turn the argument around. You have to provide evidence that if one person has a gun then the chance of everyone surviving increases. We are not talking about how likely it is that an unarmed civilian stops a criminal vs how likely it is an armed civilian does. Personally I don't think we can even make such a claim because the sample rate is very low and it's incredibly hard to measure accurately. It's because of those things that I am arguing with you right now, because you don't seen to have any problem making bold claims without solid evidence.

 

 

 

Your statements doesn't prove anything and that's why I disagree. People aren't safer without guns because of a minority of events happen. You say we aren't safer because guns are accessible and propose, based on statistics (of two links, one of which is decades old), that we should get rid of them (entirely?) but I have given you multiple studies, cases, and statistics that show just how many lives they save or can save.

 

But yet your statistics and links are 100% fact and ours aren't?

Stop with the strawman. If we are going to discuss this seriously then I want you to stop immediately with your fallacies. Can you quote where I said we should get rid of guns entirely? If you can't then stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Accidents involving guns is not the minority. Like the reports I linked earlier states, accidents are the majority of events. Accidental deaths involving guns are according to the studies linked earlier 4 times as common as intentional deaths.

If accidents make up 80% of the incidents then they are not the minority. They are by far the majority.

 

I have not read the entire thread so I have probably missed a lot of links, but so far you have not given me a single study, case or statistic. Your only post directed at me before this one contained a total of 0 sources. The FBI link you posted did not show anything regarding "how many lives they save or can save" when referring to armed civilians.

 

You did mention (but did not provide any source) some statistic which might very well be 100% fact. I never claimed it was factually wrong. What I did say was that correlation does not imply causation. If you do not understand why correlation don't necessarily imply causation then I recommend you watch this excellent video from Khan Academy.

So again, I am not saying your facts are wrong. What I am saying is that the data you provide is not necessarily evidence for your conclusion.

 

 

 

The results are out of the millions of gun owners. Compared to those who own a gun and use it responsibly and safely? Yes, the accidents are in a minority. If you honestly believe that the safe and responsible usage of guns is the minority, I obviously can't help you as I have no idea what other way I could try to prove it or say it. I could say "Please use this CDC form to check the statistics in unintentional deaths from 1999 to 2013" but that probably wouldn't be accepted by you either. (I cannot post the url because the CDC website requires agreeing to terms to view the data, making it impossible to share the results via a URL.)

We are talking about two different things here. You're talking about the total number of gun owners vs the total number of accidents while I am talking about the number of times a gun was used on a criminal vs the number of times it was accidentally used.

What the statistics and I are saying is that if you have a gun for self defense, the risk of harming someone by accident is 4 times as high as the chance of hurting someone in self defense.

The thing I am talking about is the important statistic because it is the one that involves risk vs reward, and according to the studies the risk is significantly higher than the benefit.

 

 

 

True, true. But not all people who break into a house are looking to score a TV and do you know how many people get hurt or killed in a robbery, even by accident (with or without a weapon)? And I asked what am I supposed to do for each time of criminal? Am I supposed to comply to their demands too, in hopes that maybe I won't be raped or murdered? Or am I supposed to be defenseless because, statistically speaking, a robber is more likely to enter my house without the intent to kill or rape than a rapist? A gun is the only way I can protect myself against such threats.

Yes, if you end up in a situation where an armed person is threatening you then you should comply and hope for the best. That is the recommendation of several authorities.

What do you think is the most likely.

1) That a robber breaks in, gets what he wants and then leaves.

2) A robber breaks into your house, gets what he wants and then murder you and your family for no reason or benefit.

 

Personally, I think scenario 1 is the most likely. I don't have any statistics but I would be very surprised if scenario 2 was common. It might have happened a handful of times, but the risk of a robber resorting to murder skyrockets when the victim fights back. Are you really going to decrease the chance of survival in scenario 1, because you are worried scenario 2 might happen?

 

 

 

Did you not read the part where I said both past and modern?

 

There are many instances in recent years where a rebellion successfully happened against a government or leading power who had huge advantages in terms of money and weaponry (oh, and even in the past, it was possibly for one side to be advanced and the other not). It may not be common (thankfully in some places for certain reasons) but it is entirely possible, thus it isn't crazy.

 

No, I don't, and the Lakota didn't either, but they managed to hold off our government, didn't they?

 

I just showed you the lack of advance weaponry or technology isn't going to completely make a rebellion unsuccessful* nor make the right to try and fight it any less sane. And as previously stated, guns in our hands will make the fight difficult for the government at the very least and will at least allow the people the chance to try and survive. But sure, because there's a chance we'd lose in such a situation, we shouldn't even bother to fight tyranny or the mass murder of people or even potential enslavement...

 

With a handgun? Certainly not, and that's why I'm against harsh gun control or gun banning, to improve our chances. I would like to be able to defend myself in any given situation, from another civilian to a government looking to kill me or put me in a camp etc etc.

 

Are you serious? That's not at all what I was saying. :lol:

 

*I am not restricting this to our government, but local power too.

Got any examples? And I don't want examples where the rebels are at a slight disadvantage. I want examples where one side has for example a fleet of drones, tanks and planes, while the other side has regular guns like pistols and assault rifles.

If you are going to use the "fight against a corrupt government!" as an argument then you have to limit the civilian side to only using weapons you believe they should have access to today, since that's your argument. Your argument is, "I should be allowed to own this today because it would come in handy if the government attacked me".

If you don't want your next door neighbor to legal own an RPG today, then you can't say that the civilian side would have access to an RPG during a war against the government.

The civilian side would probably get access to RPGs if such a situation were to occur, but you can't use it as an argument why you should be allowed to have guns today, during non-war times.

[LAwLz]

This better?

 

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

No, because we were not talking about what the police things about gun control. We were talking about what the police advice the victims of robbery to do when they are being robbed.

 

 

 

Countries who have used that much force against its citizens usually end up with the rest of the citizenry rising up against them.  It happened in Iran during the revolution, and it's happening now in Syria. China, Vietnam, and  Cuba are also examples.

Even Mexico is an example where despite using their military they still haven't squashed the drug cartels who are largely equipped with small arms.

Generally the ones who were successful in their efforts instead simply made people disappear instead of using blunt force.

 

Besides wars are generally won on the ground and using air power as the sole means of force, especially in populated civilian regions, traditionally does not yield the desired results.

You can't really compare countries such as Syria vs the US. USA spends more on their military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany does combined (610 billion dollars vs 601 billion dollars)

So going to war against the US government is not even close to going to war against the government in for example Cuba (which according to this website was 94.3 million dollars in 2010).

Fighting an enemy which has spent less than 100 millions on their army is no easy task, but it's a cake walk compared go going up against an enemy who has spent 610 billion dollars.

 

I was not saying the government would only use air forces. They got thousands of tanks as well, and pistols and rifles are not doing to deal any damage at all against those. You need explosives, which I don't think anyone in this thread is recommending people who keep at home in case of a civil war.

[Thunderpup]

I recall my uncle and grandfather having rifles, and not always locked up... but hidden.  I never messed with them.  Found bullets one day, grandfather got in deep shit for that one.

 

Oddly enough, every time I found something like the porn tapes and bullets, they disappeared... never to be seen in the house again.    Damn women!  (jk)

My grandfather's house in west virginia had a fair amount of guns that he never locked up, but in that area you are taught to  have a healthy respect for them.

 

Sadly my mother never actually did that and just glossed over the issue entirely.  

 

 

No, because we were not talking about what the police things about gun control. We were talking about what the police advice the victims of robbery to do when they are being robbed.

 

 

Dude you just said this(see below) and i provided you exactly that. 

 

If you can link some organization (not just a random cop who loves guns) which recommends civilians to wear guns then go ahead. I will be waiting.

"6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident."

 

You can't really compare countries such as Syria vs the US. USA spends more on their military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany does combined (610 billion dollars vs 601 billion dollars)

So going to war against the US government is not even close to going to war against the government in for example Cuba (which according to this website was 94.3 million dollars in 2010).

Fighting an enemy which has spent less than 100 millions on their army is no easy task, but it's a cake walk compared go going up against an enemy who has spent 610 billion dollars.

 

Then explain our military's inability to control Iraq?

Seriously i've already had this conversation with others on this very thread i know what i'm talking about when it comes to the US military.  

 

If the US gov't wished a hitler-esque take over of the country they would need the citizenry to be on board for the most part.  If they went about it the way you are describing they would lose that and then the fighting would begin.  Odds are military units loyal to the government would clash with those that aren't  The government would declare Marshall law and soldiers loyal to the government would police controlled areas; which is where the insurgency comes in.  Sadly its a scenario that has played out time and time again, and hopefully never comes to pass here.

[NeoZeon]

I'll just say this, if you are pointing to particular points as the basis for your argument, your argument probably isn't valid. This goes both ways. When making law, we need to address trends. This is is the case for any subject. For example, republicans often point out that the polar vortex is contrary to global warming because it was an anomalous  cold year in North Eastern United Stated, while there are many things wrong with this statement, in the era of big data, the particular cannot be relevant to a trend. This is why all the data pointing towards restricting guns lowering the murder rate (and mass shootings) around the world is so strong: There is overwhelming evidence for gun control and there is very little against. 

 

You are being intellectually dishonest, or at least incredibly unscientific, if you are against gun regulation and say its a data driven choice. Yes there are some data sets that suggest more guns will decrease violence, but there are even more data sets that say the contrary. This is indisputable. You could argue that sociologists are not measuring the right things, but most of these data sets that show more gun control reduces violence pass the "eye test" where as its much harder to actually observe more guns reducing violent crimes. 

 

The reason this issue is contentious is not about facts, because if we all made decisions solely based on the facts (which in many cases is somewhat inadvisable), we would have more gun control. This issue is contentious because it's a moral issue. It's like drinking a can of soda. Yes, I love the taste of soda, but because it will make me fat, I will not drink it. Other people do not care about getting fat, so they drink soda. Some people can drink soda and not get fat. The people who do not cause problems and own guns are like the people who can drink soda and not get fat. They are the ones who have problems with gun control. Also, the people who drink soda and get fat, are like people who abuse gun laws. These are the people we need to restrict from getting guns. This is the moral issue we have: do we give up some of our freedoms so others who shouldn't have these freedoms don't have them or should we just live with the consequences that come from people who shouldn't have guns getting guns. This is the proper way of thinking about this issue, in my opinion. 

 

It's much easier most of the time to make the moral argument against gun control: we have a history of gun freedoms and most of the time things are fine. But just because an argument is easy to make doesn't make it easily reconcilable. My students often laugh at me when I tell them, "Don't worry, this phenomena can be well constrained with math, math makes everything simple". They laugh because mathematics is the boogieman, and words are easier to understand for most people. But with math we can draw pictures (plots/graphs) and assign words to interpret them. With words, getting exact pictures is much more difficult, with words, its much harder to write down mathematically.  And this is why often the harder argument to make (like using math) tends to make understand the consequences simpler. With subtracting the amount of guns, the only thing we have to reconcile is that we have less guns. If it doesn't produce the results we want, we can always change the law back to the way it was. When we don't reduce the amount of guns, we have to consider that people are getting murdered and we are doing nothing about it, despite having the capability to at least try. It's much more depressing to strike out standing than it is to go out swinging. Right now we are just looking at the ball passes us by, and that just sucks. 

[LAwLz]

Dude you just said this(see below) and i provided you exactly that. 

 

"6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident."

Oh sorry I think I got you mixed up with someone else. Go back a few posts and you will see that I was talking about what to do during a robbery.

Here is the exact course of the conversation:

 

Me: if you want the greatest chance of survival during a break-in then you comply with the robbers demands.

You: Do you have any law enforcement experience that makes you a subject matter expert on such things?

Me: I don't, but other people with law enforcement experience will say the same thing. For example Justin Freeman, a former officer will tell you this and so will the Bernalillo country sheriff's department and so will the metropolitan police.

You: "And other law enforcement has different views." http://www.thebangsw...-never-happens/

Me: I'm not saying that your source is extremely biased and unreliable but... Actually that's exactly what I am saying. If you can link some organization (not just a random cop who loves guns) which recommends civilians to wear guns then go ahead.

 

That "recommends civilians to wear guns" part should be "not comply and instead fight back". Sorry for the mix-up.

To get back to the original conversation, can you link me to some organization that recommends victims of robbery to go against the demands and instead fight back?

 

 

 

Then explain our military's inability to control Iraq?

Seriously i've already had this conversation with others on this very thread i know what i'm talking about when it comes to the US military.  

 

If the US gov't wished a hitler-esque take over of the country they would need the citizenry to be on board for the most part.  If they went about it the way you are describing they would lose that and then the fighting would begin.  Odds are military units loyal to the government would clash with those that aren't  The government would declare Marshall law and soldiers loyal to the government would police controlled areas; which is where the insurgency comes in.  Sadly its a scenario that has played out time and time again, and hopefully never comes to pass here.

In a country like the US, the winning side would be entirely depending on what military forces joined which side. Civilians with their pistols would not make a difference in the grand scheme because the powers fighting each other would be so much greater. A pistol would not even be a drip in the ocean. If you have a fully loaded tank in your back yard you could make a difference, but other than that your gun you got at home would probably not make any difference at all. Especially not since other countries would get involved as well and send in their forces. The world is not an action movie and you're not staring as the protagonist.

[Picklenuttz]

Anyone who carries on daily basis wear a helmet 24/7? You're more likely  to bump your head on something than need to defend yourself with a firearm

[LAwLz]

-snip-

And this is why often the harder argument to make (like using math) tends to make understand the consequences simpler. With subtracting the amount of guns, the only thing we have to reconcile is that we have less guns. If it doesn't produce the results we want, we can always change the law back to the way it was. When we don't reduce the amount of guns, we have to consider that people are getting murdered and we are doing nothing about it, despite having the capability to at least try. It's much more depressing to strike out standing than it is to go out swinging. Right now we are just looking at the ball passes us by, and that just sucks.

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think more gun laws would help the US. It would probably just create an enormous black market plus a bunch of crazy people going out protesting and shooting people (there are plenty of people who threatens to kill anyone who wants to take their guns away). I think this is an unsolvable issue until the mentality of the entire US changes. Too many extremists.

 

 

Not sure if this has been posted already (probably has) but it's pretty funny and very on-topic. Might make everyone in here a bit more cheerful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63i1yCswEtI

[GoldSrc]

Thoughts on gun control?

What are your thought on speed limits?

 

Your average joe should not be allowed to buy assault rifles like they were candy.

[Albatross]

There is nothing about armed citizens on page 21 in the FBI report. Here is the entire text from page 21:

 

It does not even mention the 2 instances where civilians killed the shooters.

I have no idea how you can read this and come to the conclusion that "FBI acknowledges the importance of armed citizens". The only conclusion I come to when reading that text (which you linked to support your argument) is that the FBI thinks the US is so messed up that normal people has to undergo training on how to handle a mass shooting, and by training they don't mean taking gun lessons. They are referring to training and discussions regarding "decisions they may face" (page 8).

 

But I'm looking at it right now on page twenty-one via Mozilla and you even quoted it:

 

 

They acknowledged its importance, clearly, by mentioning in a report on "how to better prepare people" for situations like this. How can it not mean they are acknowledging its importance--its benefits--when it is the intent of the report to document how these crimes happen (or how to better predict it) and to teach/help people prepare for them? 

 

And what decisions do you think they may have to make? The training they are talking about includes the potential use of firearms to better protect themselves and others (if they wish to risk their lives), or other armed methods available to them. And if someone has a gun, that's a method needing to be trained. What in the world gives you the impression that, after referencing incidents where armed citizens ended a shooting/etc, that their mention of training included everything else but firearms? :huh:

 

So you agree that it is incredibly rare, and yet you still believe that the FBI agrees with you that the chance of everyone surviving in the event of a mass shooting breaking is significantly higher if one or more of the victims has a gun with them? When you make such a bold statement (here is your statement word for word: "If just one person was armed during a massacre, the chances everyone survives increases.") and then refer to the FBI as a source, you might want to actually have some solid evidence to back it up. So far I have not seen any evidence from you to support that claim.

 

It isn't as rare as you think, but regardless of an armed citizen happening to be there, the FBI does acknowledge that armed citizens have helped in situations successfully in each incident they recorded. Their clear acknowledgement of it, and that it was successful, shows that...yes...armed citizens can improve the chances of people (or just that person) coming out of their situation alive.

 

I gave many other links/sources directing to many other cases/examples where a citizen stopped a shooting or violent criminals with their firearms. I even shared a twelve minute video showcasing various incidents. The fact that it happens, a lot, is proof enough that guns in the hands of citizens have helped and can help people survive or stop violent crimes. An armed citizen happening to be there while something like this goes down isn't as rare as you make it out to be, but yes, it isn't as common (because generally criminals want crowds that can't defend themselves *Chattanooga*) as a defenseless crowd being taken hostage, but my claim is that if just one armed citizen was present they can help the situation end successfully and that is the truth. It gives people better odds to be on some equal ground with the person holding them hostage or is shooting them down or trying to go on some other murderous rampage (maybe a bomb or something).

 

Don't turn the argument around. You have to provide evidence that if one person has a gun then the chance of everyone surviving increases. We are not talking about how likely it is that an unarmed civilian stops a criminal vs how likely it is an armed civilian does. Personally I don't think we can even make such a claim because the sample rate is very low and it's incredibly hard to measure accurately. It's because of those things that I am arguing with you right now, because you don't seen to have any problem making bold claims without solid evidence.

 

Can you tell me what evidence you are willing to even consider? Perhaps a source you will find credible?

 

Stop with the strawman. If we are going to discuss this seriously then I want you to stop immediately with your fallacies. Can you quote where I said we should get rid of guns entirely? If you can't then stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Accidents involving guns is not the minority. Like the reports I linked earlier states, accidents are the majority of events. Accidental deaths involving guns are according to the studies linked earlier 4 times as common as intentional deaths.

If accidents make up 80% of the incidents then they are not the minority. They are by far the majority.

 

People abuse the "stop with the strawman" thing way too much...the existence of my parenthesis and question mark has been missed.

 

"that we should get rid of them (entirely?)"

 

And you listed two reports, one of which is from 1998. I gave recent data from the CDC showing that is isn't as common as you are passing it off to be.

 

I have not read the entire thread so I have probably missed a lot of links, but so far you have not given me a single study, case or statistic. Your only post directed at me before this one contained a total of 0 sources. The FBI link you posted did not show anything regarding "how many lives they save or can save" when referring to armed civilians.

 

Oh! I apologize, that post was toward stconquest, not you. It was early in the morning and I hadn't slept, sorry. :blush:  but you did read the post, as you are directing one of the links I gave (FBI one). In the mentioned post I gave multiple cases/examples of armed citizens helping in a situation like this, and the FBI link was given for general statistics as well as acknowledging the existence that armed citizens can and do help in violent situations. It wasn't ever my claim that the incidents are stopped by armed citizens commonly or that there aren't incidents where it sadly resulted in loss of life, but that it can help.

 

Something shouldn't be banned because someone else misuses it--intentionally or not.

 

You did mention (but did not provide any source) some statistic which might very well be 100% fact. I never claimed it was factually wrong. What I did say was that correlation does not imply causation. If you do not understand why correlation don't necessarily imply causation then I recommend you watch this excellent video from Khan Academy.

So again, I am not saying your facts are wrong. What I am saying is that the data you provide is not necessarily evidence for your conclusion.

 

*yea, some of the things I posted wasn't toward you but toward stconquest. see above for explanation/details*

Let's just assume I need a common core video to explain something to me: is it "fact" that one study from 1998 concludes that you are four times more likely to kill yourself with a firearm than use it to successfully defend yourself?

 

We are talking about two different things here. You're talking about the total number of gun owners vs the total number of accidents while I am talking about the number of times a gun was used on a criminal vs the number of times it was accidentally used.

What the statistics and I are saying is that if you have a gun for self defense, the risk of harming someone by accident is 4 times as high as the chance of hurting someone in self defense.

The thing I am talking about is the important statistic because it is the one that involves risk vs reward, and according to the studies the risk is significantly higher than the benefit.

Yes, if you end up in a situation where an armed person is threatening you then you should comply and hope for the best. That is the recommendation of several authorities.

What do you think is the most likely.

1) That a robber breaks in, gets what he wants and then leaves.

2) A robber breaks into your house, gets what he wants and then murder you and your family for no reason or benefit.

 

Personally, I think scenario 1 is the most likely. I don't have any statistics but I would be very surprised if scenario 2 was common. It might have happened a handful of times, but the risk of a robber resorting to murder skyrockets when the victim fights back. Are you really going to decrease the chance of survival in scenario 1, because you are worried scenario 2 might happen?

 

 I already acknowledged that giving a robber what he wants will help, but I asked what of the other situations? Not all people who break in are looking to score some valuables, and there are many that break in without the intent to harm but end up doing so anyway (accident). Are we supposed to just hope for the best in those other situations and comply to rapists and murderers?

 

Because someone shot themselves like an idiot or didn't secure their weapon properly, I should have to be defenseless and hope that a murderer or rapist doesn't happen upon me in my house or on the streets? Maybe instead of banning things or imposing crazy restrictions, we should focus on the clear problem--education and mental health, as well as enforcing the laws we currently have in place.

 

Got any examples? And I don't want examples where the rebels are at a slight disadvantage. I want examples where one side has for example a fleet of drones, tanks and planes, while the other side has regular guns like pistols and assault rifles.

If you are going to use the "fight against a corrupt government!" as an argument then you have to limit the civilian side to only using weapons you believe they should have access to today, since that's your argument. Your argument is, "I should be allowed to own this today because it would come in handy if the government attacked me".

If you don't want your next door neighbor to legal own an RPG today, then you can't say that the civilian side would have access to an RPG during a war against the government.

The civilian side would probably get access to RPGs if such a situation were to occur, but you can't use it as an argument why you should be allowed to have guns today, during non-war times.

 

I gave some, like the Lakota for instance. And slight disadvantages? The Syrian rebels had a huge disadvantage during the initial part of the rebellion, and they managed without anti-missile equipment etc. Even if we're to believe the CIA had no involvement in it whatsoever, the Afghan Mujahideen also had a huge disadvantage against Russia, and they managed to fight back and win with just some training and weaponry (a decade of resistance) even before given billions in funding and weaponry by Saudi Arabia against higher numbers, tanks etc etc. And before being supplied by the NVA, the NLF (consisted of poor farmers etc) used guerrilla warfare to fight back escalated USA involvement.

 

But let's just agree that one side will be horribly disadvantaged (civilians). This doesn't mean fighting back against tanks etc etc isn't possible (or that civilians should have the right to be prepared in some way) with what is legal now or other weaponry civilians have, as guerrilla warfare has helped disadvantaged soldiers/civilians before, even to secure some of the advanced weaponry of the side they are fighting. Civilians could easily make their own explosives, overrun a tank or a military caravan or anything else. The tactics have helped many times before, especially the hit-and-run tactics.

 

I didn't say they would have access to weapons they can't legally purchase today. Though acquiring one isn't exactly impossible in a situation where civilians by the masses have taken up arms against a government, local or not*. I don't think we should be able to legally own firearms like RPGs because of a possibility of a government takeover. But I do believe Americans have the right to bare (some) arms like semi-automatics, fully automatic weapons and general protection, like bullet proof vests or the right to be able to buy or make armored vehicles and stock up on as much ammo as you want. I don't believe, however, that someone should be able to easily purchase any of this.

 

*If the need be, people will probably secure military weapons through their own tactics, but I am limiting it to legal firearms today that some people want to ban.

 

(again, sorry for any grammar mistakes ahead of time)

[LAwLz]

 But I'm looking at it right now on page twenty-one via Mozilla and you even quoted it:

<image>

 

They acknowledged its importance, clearly, by mentioning in a report on "how to better prepare people" for situations like this. How can it not mean they are acknowledging its importance--its benefits--when it is the intent of the report to document how these crimes happen (or how to better predict it) and to teach/help people prepare for them?

I think you and I are coming to very different conclusions when reading that. When you hear the FBI say they want to train people you probably think of training people to kill the shooter by firing back at him. That's not at all what I see when I read "training and exercises include not only an understanding of the threats faced but also the risks and options available in active shooter incidents". Sadly the FBI does not clarify what they mean.

 

As for the 6 incidents, most of them (all but 2) were handled by the police officers and security guards, not civilians. So what you are talking about happened in 2 out of 160 instances. That's hardly enough of a sample size to draw any conclusions from at all. That's why they are bundling those 2 instances together with the 4 where police officers and security guards, as well as the 21 instances of unarmed citizens helped out. You have to read the entire paragraph, not just the two last sentences. On top of that, they are just saying they "likely" saved the lives of others in the report, while you claim with certainty that they saved lives. Your claims do not match up with the sources you are posting.

 

 

And what decisions do you think they may have to make? The training they are talking about includes the potential use of firearms to better protect themselves and others (if they wish to risk their lives), or other armed methods available to them. And if someone has a gun, that's a method needing to be trained. What in the world gives you the impression that, after referencing incidents where armed citizens ended a shooting/etc, that their mention of training included everything else but firearms? :huh:

Because the incidents that ended with an armed citizen killing the shooter only makes up 1.25% of the cases. Do you understand that? It only happened twice out of the 160 cases. What do you think they should focus on during their training, which is limited in the amount of time? Do you think they should train the 99% of people how to act in 98.75% of the situations they studied, or should they train the 1% of people how to act in the 1.25% of situations they studied?

(I don't know how many people were at the mass shootings so the 99% and 1% numbers are just guesses, but since citizens ending the shootings by killing the shooter with their own gun is so incredibly rare I assume the percentage is very low.)

 

Do you see how ridiculous your conclusion is when you put it all into numbers? And no, they won't make individual training programs. That uses up an incredible amount of resources and is not scalable. That's why we don't even do it in classrooms with ~20 students.

 

 

It isn't as rare as you think, but regardless of an armed citizen happening to be there, the FBI does acknowledge that armed citizens have helped in situations successfully in each incident they recorded. Their clear acknowledgement of it, and that it was successful, shows that...yes...armed citizens can improve the chances of people (or just that person) coming out of their situation alive.

 

I gave many other links/sources directing to many other cases/examples where a citizen stopped a shooting or violent criminals with their firearms. I even shared a twelve minute video showcasing various incidents. The fact that it happens, a lot, is proof enough that guns in the hands of citizens have helped and can help people survive or stop violent crimes. An armed citizen happening to be there while something like this goes down isn't as rare as you make it out to be, but yes, it isn't as common (because generally criminals want crowds that can't defend themselves *Chattanooga*) as a defenseless crowd being taken hostage, but my claim is that if just one armed citizen was present they can help the situation end successfully and that is the truth. It gives people better odds to be on some equal ground with the person holding them hostage or is shooting them down or trying to go on some other murderous rampage (maybe a bomb or something).

Yep, I totally agree that the FBI acknowledges that armed citizens has helped put an end to mass shootings. What I do not agree with are the conclusions you jumped to from the report.

 

It's a shame we don't have more statistics regarding how many shootings ended by an armed civilian. I see examples of it here and there in the thread but you have to remember that so far it has been more than 1 mass shooting a day in the US (300 shootings in 289 days). When something is so common as mass shootings are in the US you will inevitably be able to find a handful or more instances of a particular thing happening. But it is important to look at the overall statistics and not just "wow I can find 10 links to this happening so therefore it can't be rare!". If the FBI report is anything to go by, armed citizens might be able to kill about 1-1.5% of shooters. Most things that only has a 1% chance of happening are usually called rare.

 

There is also the possibility that some mass shootings start because someone had a gun on them. I won't say it has happened, but surely you must agree that it is a possibility that someone shoots someone else in the heat of the moment. We don't have any statistics on it so I can't say one way or another, but I think it is certainly possible that it has happened.

 

 

I gave recent data from the CDC showing that is isn't as common as you are passing it off to be.

I already explained to you why the CDC data is not a valid source to disprove my argument. It's because the CDC data does not reflect the risk/reward, which my sources does.

We are talking about two different things.

 

 

Something shouldn't be banned because someone else misuses it--intentionally or not.

That's sadly how laws work. It's the same reason why drugs are banned, and speeding, and so on. You have to make some things illegal because a lot of people are not able to judge if they can use something responsibly or not. That's not really what we are arguing about thought because I have not said I think the US should ban guns. I don't even think harsher gun laws in the US would work. The mentality of people in the US is messed up beyond repair at this point. I hope that I am wrong and something changes, but I don't think it will.

 

 

Not going to respond to the rest of the post but it will just go on and on and on and I don't think either of us will change our minds.

[SansVarnic]

Fuckin' hero complex.  You ain't stopping shit with with your concealed carry firearm.  Stupid fantasy driven arguments.

 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/good-guy-with-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-runs-off/article/445111

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/woman-in-michigan-charged-after-shooting-at-fleeing-shoplifters.html?_r=0

Isolated incidents.

[stconquest]

Isolated incidents.

 

You picked up on that... nice. 

[SansVarnic]

 

If said number of crimes stopped by armed civilians are not reported, how do you know about them? I am just curious.

They are reported, just not in main stream media. I can post links, just not atm.

 

 

I don't own any guns under my name but we have a gun in the house for emergencies. It's in a box, tucked away underneath many boxes within a dresser. It's out of the reach of young children who would likely use it in a negative way on accident. Obviously a kid of 6 years old should never be entrusted to protect the house under any circumstance.

Not a good idea to keep your gun in a box, besides the potential of degradation to the firearm (humidity...) children that are not properly informed or overly curious will always find it.

 

Question is the box you mentioned locked? Kids find hidden boxes all the time.

 

Perhaps but you haven't stated why a person cannot keep their firearms at their own home.

 

where else would they store them?

 

Aside from those who need a gun as a tool for their job, I see no reason for a person to keep a gun in their house. But there are downsides, like someone getting shot.

 

I also don't know where they would store them. Find someone smarter than me to come up with an idea.

Firearms can be stored in all manner of ways; safes, gun cases, lockers, etc. some work better than others.
Why do you automatically assume someone will get shot? A firearm is tool just like my nail gun or stapler and they are both just as dangerous (I can shot you with my nail gun just as easily and cause almost as much damage as I can my firearm) but if they are maintained, stored, taught how to use properly the danger factor goes down.

 

I think up until a certain age there is most definitely good reason to keep it locked away from your kids, however it defeats the point of it being an emergency object then.

 

I own 3 handguns, 2 rifles and 2 shoguns. The rifles and shotguns are kept locked up in gun cases under my bed.
For the handguns 1 is kept in my pack at all times unlocked in a small gun case (for personal carry when off duty) 1 is my service weapon (for on duty carry) which is kept locked up when I am off duty for obvious reasons., and last one is my favorite and it sits on my night stand in a small gun case but is not locked.
I have a 7,6,4 and 2 yrs olds in my home. Both of the older children have been taught to be respectful of the firearms and know not to touch them, we went to a range together and I shot an apple to show what damage it can make and really made the point and erased the curiosity they had. We discussed what firearms were and why I have them. I will be doing the same with the other 2 as they get to point they can understand as well. Each child is different in regards to understanding and if you are a parent you will understand my meaning. At this time my children know and even the 4 year old has figured this out that Daddy's 'guns' are off limits as they are not toys and this how I conveyed the issue I didn't not tell then they were dangerous I let them come to that conclusion their own and they did fairly quickly.

 

My point is similar to what @Thunderpup @STRMfrmXMN said but also that as long as responsible gun owners act like responsible gun owners and teach their children whats what correctly and not try to hide it the curiosity is eliminated and the risk of such accidents are removed from the equation, the gun is treated as an every day object and not thought twice about mishandling or playing with it.

 

 

You picked up on that... nice.

 

I read that and saw this /s
I hope you weren't being that.

 

 

Shelf life my friend.

 

How tall were you when you were seven years old? I imagine not tall enough to reach the top drawer of dad's dresser

A child's height has nothing to do with climbing skill. My son is 2ft tall and he is able to get on things he cannot reach, how he does it is ingenious, I watched him one day and he made steps out of his toys and other things around the house, when the will to know is strong enough nothing will stop a child from find it out.

[STRMfrmXMN]

A child's height has nothing to do with climbing skill. My son is 2ft tall and he is able to get on things he cannot reach, how he does it is ingenious, I watched him one day and he made steps out of his toys and other things around the house, when the will to know is strong enough nothing will stop a child from find it out.

I'm 5"10 and I still can't look over the top shelf of my dresser to see what's inside... if he's that skilled then put him in rock climbing or something man!