Firearms

[Hemmers]

Sorry, but that's just plain ignorant. First of all, Target Shooting is an Olympic Sport. Secondly, plenty of people shoot live quarry for pest control and food. These are all legitimate uses.

Do you really to have your Target Shooting gun at home? Would it be that difficult to let it at the club?
If a gun is not dangerous, like a BB gun or something, it shouldn't be, and I think isn't, considered a weapon.

Well yeah, because my club has in excess of 100 members, each of whom (on average) own more than 1 firearm.
Do you think it a good idea to aggregate somewhere in the region of 200 rifles in a single building, which has "Rifle Club" stamped on the outside of it?
By contrast, very few people know about the unobtrusive cabinet that sits in the corner of my attic - burglars would pass it by unless they knew what it was. Even if they did break in, the bolt for my rifle is stored separately in my kit bag, not with the rifle or ammo, so it is effectively inert.
My club is actually in a town less than a mile from a Police Station, but many are out in the countryside, in abandoned quarries, etc.
Even if they have a clubhouse (many don't), you then have the issue that to make an armoury even semi secure you would need a monitored alarm (i.e. needs a phone line and electricity, which abandoned quarries typically don't have) because otherwise noone will know if a thief rocks up at 3am and spends a few hours breaking in.
Also, from me, the major local competition range is an hour north. But my club is thirty minutes south. So my two hour round trip has suddenly turned into a 4 hour round trip (because I'm adding half an hour each way to get my gun and the same again to put it away). Not only is that inconvenient, but also expensive - I don't know if you're aware quite how much tax we pay on petrol and diesel in the UK, but it's actually more than the cost of the fuel. Diesel is £1.20/litre at the moment, of which >£0.65 is fuel duty and VAT. Furthermore, I'd have to arrange for one of the committee members to let me in - unlock the armoury, disable the alarm, etc - so I could retrieve and replace it. That's going to get very wearing for the poor committee when you've got lots of members going to different comps and needing access.

And do you know many people who hunt squirrels with a revolver, or a submachine gun? In France, again, hunters are allowed to own guns with a limit of three rounds in semi-automatic. They are unconeilable, slow, and you only have two or three shots. Clearly not as efficient to kill someone as a pump action, or a AK-47.

And I am not saying all guns should be banned. I'm saying having guns "for self-defence" should be banned. I consider having people wondering with weapons designed to shoot people (so not hunting rifles), bought with the idea they could be used to shoot people (for self-defence), is unsound.

Well you need to make that point more clearly.
In your previous point you were making statements like
"Banning guns won't stop murders, it will make them more difficult."
and
"...while guns have little use outside shooting people."

Nowhere did you specify that you were arguing against pistols, SMGs or AK-47s.
You were making very broad, sweeping statements about "guns" (by implication "all guns").
As I think we have adequately explained, you were also factually incorrect in your statement that guns have little use outside shooting people.

CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS

Gangsters will always have guns. Most "small" criminals don't in France (although, they are getting more and more). Because it's risky to have them, and not very useful.
Also, prisons are filled with honest people who lost their tamper or did mistakes. Most of them wouldn't have guns.

My point is that if you wish to acquire a firearm you can. This is irrespective of whether you are a gangster or anything else. Yes, many petty criminals will not go to the effort or risk, but they could if they wanted to. And there is literally nothing that can be done to stop them, because where there is demand there will be supply, even if that means setting up a shed with hobby tools and manufacturing them yourself.
Incidentally, the UK's prisons are full of people who have been convicted of knife crime, or who lost their temper and went to the kitchen in search of a tool that would make a handy weapon. The murders still happen, even though we not only banned guns for self-defence, but also banned pistols for target shooting (despite being an Olympic sport).

As for "weapons", everyone owns weapons. I have half a dozen within arms reach of me. Presumably you mean a firearm?

You can kill people with a butcher's knife, but a butcher's knife is designed to cut meat. You would be using a tool as a weapon.
You can knock a nail with the handle of a handgun, but a handgun is still designed to shoot people.

Maybe. Or it may be designed for shooting at the Olympics.

This is a Weapon:

This is a piece of Sports Equipment:


Both pistols/handguns.
One is a weapon, the other is not.

Firearm =/= Weapon
Weapon =/= Firearm

Granted, both could be used as a weapon, but so could a cricket bat or a bow and arrow.

Finally, if someone broke in, I probably wouldn't fight back. I don't want to get hurt, and I don't want to risk injuring or killing someone. My laptop and my watch are not worth it.

You're assuming that they intruder would not hurt you anyway, and would be content to let you cower in the corner as they take your valuables. That of course is your prerogative as an individual.

I however happen to live on a rural small holding. We have had a recent spate of burglaries in the area with thieves taking farm machinery, riding gear (saddles, etc), quad bikes as well as breaking into the houses for the electronics and other valuables.
This particular group will assault anyone they come across, and on one occasion even stole a car with the owner's young child in the back seat (they fortunately dumped him at the end of the road unharmed. The boy's father was less lucky, having been seriously assaulted when they stole the car).

I don't know if you know what it feels like to know that you are the lucky one, to know that your neigbours have been targetted, and to constantly look twice when you see an unfamiliar van pulled up in a layby near your home. It is deeply distressing.
As far as I am concerned, if they break into my house and come across me or my family they will have no hesitation in doing us harm if they so wish (and if we allow them to). For that reason if I am awoken in the night by the sound of burglars, I will not wait to find out if the dark shapes are armed or not.
I will use the necessary level of force the moment they reach the top of the stairs, and UK law supports me in that.

I should emphasise that I have no desire to kill or injure any person. But I'm not going to allow myself or my loved ones to be harmed just so I can satisfy that desire for non-violence. Downstairs is one thing - I wouldn't risk going down to confront them - but they set a foot on the upstairs landing and they will be firmly rebuked.

Now that's got a bit personal, and I've drifted from the topic somewhat, but the point I'm making is that you assume criminals are only ever after property or valuables.

It is a sad fact that some just enjoy violence. Bored teenagers engaging in "Happy Slapping". Saying "just take my wallet" is no good. They will take your wallet, but after they've beaten the cr@p out of you for kicks.
It shouldn't happen, but it does.


You don't feel that you would ever want to carry a firearm or any other sort of weapon. Fair enough.
That however does not give you the right to make that decision for anyone else.
The FBI estimates that millions of assaults a year are prevented by Right-to-Carry. They have no vested interest in it one way or the other, just whichever system yields lower crime. They are in favour of RTC. That says a lot.

[Izawwlgood]

I'd think the drug dealer or pimp is far more likely to use the gun defensively, since they have the more dangerous situation.

I disagree; I think either of those two are more likely to use a gun to threaten or otherwise coerce someone else. But I awknowledge that my point of bringing them up was rather unclear; my point is that if you ban guns, you effectively encourage their availability with people who have nefarious purposes in mind, and, like banning drugs, you don't so much as limit their traffic as simply drive the market for them, underground.

most sensible people on both sides of the issue would not support my right to own a gun, as someone who has been involuntarily hospitalized for a mental disorder in the past)

Which is another reason in favor of the legalization of gun ownership; if it requires even an iota of paperwork to procure a gun legally, then people who are potential risks (and I'm not even touching the topic of where you draw the line) can be easily be filtered out. The analogy isn't particularly polished given the times, but if you walk into a bank for a loan, they run a credit check. Got tons of outstanding debt and a pocket full of poker chips? You probably aren't getting a loan.

Shooting someone to stop, say, a rape or a violent assault is acceptable in my book) but I really doubt one could pull meaningful data out of any study on that.

So, in the same paragraph, you note that the data is suspect, but you assure us that crimes involving guns are more violent, then agree that the utility of guns to stop a violent assault is acceptable, but that there's no data for it... Dude... Really?

Firstly, I'd argue that police resources are better spent cutting off crime closer to the source. Breaking up a drug cartel is far more effective at stopping crime and violence than taking the guns from said drug cartel.

Before I'll accept that, you have to show me that drug cartels only hold onto their drug cartelling with guns, and that crime is reduced in areas with higher police presence. Again, for the bazillionth time in this thread, you cannot trust the police to arrive instantaneously to prevent a violent crime, so the notion that they'll somehow be available or able to protect if guns somehow exit the picture, is ridiculous.

They are immune to prosecution if they keep their gun disassembled and locked away. If you are able to prosecute them for owning a gun, you remove their incentive to keep it locked up. While you have achieved your goal in many households of banning guns (thereby, arguably, making society a bit safer) you've achieved the opposite effect in a few homes.

Every time I read stuff like this, I'm convinced more and more people who argue these topics have zero experience being around guns, or people who own guns. Every gun owner I know (anecdotal evidence, but whatever) keeps their guns separate from the ammo, with either a trigger or barrel lock, and fires it regularly enough to know how to use the thing. I *know* not every gun owner is like this, and that there is a base rate of accidental discharges that result in injury or death of family members, but the numbers are low, very, very low.

And in regards to break ins not necessarily being violent; the last thing I want to have to consider is whether or not a burglar will want to take something from me or my girlfriend that has no monetary value, and subsequently wonder whether or not using force could have prevented it. I'm of the pursuasion that if someone asks for your wallet on the street, you give it to them. If someone tells you to step into the car, or the alley, or a dark anything, you fight back, because your life depends on it.

[EdgarJPublius]

Do you really to have your Target Shooting gun at home? Would it be that difficult to let it at the club?

Do you really have your golf-clubs/baseball glove/frisbee at home? Would it be that difficult to let it/them at the club?

[Thesh]

Shooting is expensive, and the most important thing to practice with your gun is trigger control, which is easier to practice if you aren't firing live ammo. While I shoot every 1 week to a month, I dry fire 3-4 times a week to make sure my trigger control is where I want it to be. Trigger control suffers if you don't practice regularly. I also keep a .357 magnum in my nightstand, fully loaded with two additional speed loaders just in case. I dry fire all of my handguns regularly to practice trigger control. Also, you need to be in the habit of focusing your eyes on the front sight, something that is also easy to forget.

When handling a firearm, the important thing is to keep your finger off of the trigger and keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at all times. If the gun is cocked and the gun requires you pull the trigger to decock it, then you do so with the gun pointed in a safe direction.

The first thing you do before dry firing is check to make sure the gun is unloaded, and then the second thing you do is check to make sure the gun is unloaded. If at any point you find that the gun is loaded, you unload it and go back to step 1. You can repeat these steps as often as you feel comfortable. You always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction while dry firing, just in case you failed at steps 1 and 2.

[Izawwlgood]

Huh, I was under the impression that dry firing any non-rimfire weapon put undue strain on the mechanism. Do you remove the firing pin or somesuch?

[Thesh]

Most centerfire guns can be dry fired without any harm to the gun. Most rimfire guns, dry firing can damage the firing pins although this is not the case with my MK III which can be dry fired all day long. Some centerfire guns will also get damaged from dry firing, mostly older guns. If you own a firearm where the manufacturer does not recommend dry firing (or if you just want to be cautious), you can buy snap caps which will prevent these problems (which are also useful for loading/unloading drills). Many manufacturers actually recommend that you dry fire the gun; I believe this is the case with my Springfield XD.

EDIT: Also, my MK III and XD both require that you dry fire them as part of the disassembly process.

[idobox]

I'm not sure it necessarily makes it more difficult, but it certainly means more money ends up in the wrong hands. If procuring a gun was approximately as difficult as procuring drugs, all you've really done is shift non-government/law enforcement gun ownership solely into the hands of people who are engaged in black market activities.

Are you suggesting we should legalize drugs, traffiking protected animals and blood diamonds? Because we can't totally stop traffic, and some people make money out of it.

Who would you rather have in possession of a gun, a pimp, a drug dealer, or an individual protecting their family? Of those three, who do you think is more likely to use a gun irresponsibly, or even violently? Furthermore, and this is just speculation now, of those three, who do you think is more likely to use a gun defensively?

I don't know about pimps, but most "small" drug dealers in France don't have guns, or at least they don't carry them when dealing.
That aside, does honnest people having guns change anything to the way pimp and drug dealers do their job?
Anyway, if a pimp wants to harm a prostitute, he will, whatever he uses, and will cause about the amount of damage he plans to. If a citizen misuses a taser, he will do much less damage than if he misuses a .357 Magnum.

we don't all yearn for the hive mind or want to make everyone work only for "the greater good".

Uh? What?
Avoiding people to kill each other is akin to rejecting indivual thought?

Well yeah, because my club has in excess of 100 members, each of whom (on average) own more than 1 firearm.
Do you think it a good idea to aggregate somewhere in the region of 200 rifles in a single building, which has "Rifle Club" stamped on the outside of it?
By contrast, very few people know about the unobtrusive cabinet that sits in the corner of my attic - burglars would pass it by unless they knew what it was. Even if they did break in, the bolt for my rifle is stored separately in my kit bag, not with the rifle or ammo, so it is effectively inert.
My club is actually in a town less than a mile from a Police Station, but many are out in the countryside, in abandoned quarries, etc.
Even if they have a clubhouse (many don't), you then have the issue that to make an armoury even semi secure you would need a monitored alarm (i.e. needs a phone line and electricity, which abandoned quarries typically don't have) because otherwise noone will know if a thief rocks up at 3am and spends a few hours breaking in.
Also, from me, the major local competition range is an hour north. But my club is thirty minutes south. So my two hour round trip has suddenly turned into a 4 hour round trip (because I'm adding half an hour each way to get my gun and the same again to put it away). Not only is that inconvenient, but also expensive - I don't know if you're aware quite how much tax we pay on petrol and diesel in the UK, but it's actually more than the cost of the fuel. Diesel is £1.20/litre at the moment, of which >£0.65 is fuel duty and VAT. Furthermore, I'd have to arrange for one of the committee members to let me in - unlock the armoury, disable the alarm, etc - so I could retrieve and replace it. That's going to get very wearing for the poor committee when you've got lots of members going to different comps and needing access.

Of course, any regulation will have impact on owners. That is not a reason not to do so if the benefits are sufficient.
I guess there are ways to secure an armory. Of course it will have a cost. And I'm no expert, but I suppose there are ways to make a gun passive by removing a part. That way, the club would only retain a small part of the gun.
Or you could imagine a security only the club would remove, or any technical solution to render the gun harmless outside the club.

Well you need to make that point more clearly.

My bad.
My point is not that guns should be banned, but that the moral implications should be taken into account when talking about regulations.

My point is that if you wish to acquire a firearm you can. This is irrespective of whether you are a gangster or anything else. Yes, many petty criminals will not go to the effort or risk, but they could if they wanted to. And there is literally nothing that can be done to stop them, because where there is demand there will be supply, even if that
means setting up a shed with hobby tools and manufacturing them yourself.

I don't agree with this. I could make my own explosives, should we deregulate them? I could make poison gas, should we deregulate them?
Making my own explosives, or buying them on the black market, will be more dangerous than buying them from my local drug store if that was local.
If I want to break a rock, I will use other means than explosives, because even though explosive are theoritically an easier way, it is much easier to find a jackhammer, or a pickaxe.
Simply forbidding something doesn't make that thing magically disappear. Yet, it is not a reason to allow it.

Maybe. Or it may be designed for shooting at the Olympics.

If it is powerful enough to kill someone a few meters away, I consider it to be designed to kill people, and optimized for sharp shooting.
If the olympic comitee decided mortar shooting to be an official sport, olympic mortars would still be weapons, unless they decided to use rubber ammo or something.

Firearm =/= Weapon
Weapon =/= Firearm

Well, I have trouble seeing the difference. It may be a linguistic thing, but for me, arm and weapon are synonimous, and firearms are a subcategory of weapons.

I however happen to live on a rural small holding. We have had a recent spate of burglaries in the area with thieves taking farm machinery, riding gear (saddles, etc), quad bikes as well as breaking into the houses for the electronics and other valuables.
This particular group will assault anyone they come across, and on one occasion even stole a car with the owner's young child in the back seat (they fortunately dumped him at the end of the road unharmed. The boy's father was less lucky, having been seriously assaulted when they stole the car).

Of course people buy weapons for a reason. I'm not suggesting gun owners are lunatics looking for the power trip, although there might be a few.
The issue that the police forces are unable to catch criminals is a big one. And being denied firearms doesn't mean being denied other forms of defence, active, like tasers and dogs, or passive, like fences and grids.

Firearms can be an understandable solution in some cases, especially low population density, high violent crime rate and innefficient police forces. You don't treat crime and self-defence in the townships of Rio, in the suburbs of Dallas, in the South African outback and in downtown Stockholm. And there is no reason firearm legislation should be the same.

To make it simple, firearms for self defence are an evil. It can be a necessary evil, a useful evil, or a plain useless evil.
It is a question of utility vs cost.

That being said, I don't think it's feasible to ban handgun ownership in the US.

Given the history and culture of USA, it is not something you can do overnight. But changing the regulations step by step over a few decades is very feasible.

Shooting someone to stop, say, a rape or a violent assault is acceptable in my book

It is not for everyone. And it is not a question about the efficiency of shooting people to avoid rapes, but about the morality of doing so. By the way, rape is not punished by death in USA.
So you're implying citizens should be allowed to deliver a punishment a judge cannot. Of course punishing after the facts is nothing like acting to avoid it, but still it is an issue about the role of justice in society, and can't be easily discarded.

The second cost is that there would be some gun owners who would still want to own guns even without intent to use them to commit crime. Right now, these people have strong incentives to follow gun safety laws. They are immune to prosecution if they keep their gun disassembled and locked away. If you are able to prosecute them for owning a gun, you remove their incentive to keep it locked up. While you have achieved your goal in many households of banning guns (thereby, arguably, making society a bit safer) you've achieved the opposite effect in a few homes.

There are ways to circumvent that. If owning a gun is punished by a fine, and owning a gun without any safety measures is punished by 5 years jail time, there will still be a strong incentive to follow safety measures.

Do you really have your golf-clubs/baseball glove/frisbee at home? Would it be that difficult to let it/them at the club?

A shotgun is more dangerous than a golf club. I am allowed to have solar panels on my roof, but not a RTG nuclear battery in my backyard, because it is more dangerous.

I also keep a .357 magnum in my nightstand, fully loaded with two additional speed loaders just in case.

You have a very powerful handgun, with enough ammo to shoot 18 times, ready to shoot in a moment's notice?
I find that pretty frightening. A kid, or a robber, could find the gun and use it.
You illustrate perfectly why I'm worried with people having guns for self-defence. You consider firing 18 rounds of a very powerful and very lethal weapon as your main defence system. You didn't choose salt cartridges in a shotgun, or a small caliber, and you are more likely to kill someone in your life than I am.

[HungryHobo]

Uh? What?
Avoiding people to kill each other is akin to rejecting indivual thought?

It would help to have quoted the other sentence as well.
You talked about individualism as if it's a bad thing.
I don't consider it a bad thing.

[idobox]

I think my post was already pretty long like that.
I was just startled by the use of the word "hive mind".

[Izawwlgood]

Are you suggesting we should legalize drugs

Um, it's a bit off topic, but yes, I'm not convinced that putting just about any drug on the 'Government says no!' list has done anything but increase it's consumption and ruin lives. Actually, no, it's a bit on topic; I'm not convinced the government is the goto entity for regulation of the day to day lives of the citizenry. I'd prefer it if the government kept it's affairs to protecting us from foreign invasion and maybe a handful of other activities. Telling me what drugs I can use recreationally, and whether or not I can responsibly defend myself from harm doesn't seem like the governments job.

That aside, does honnest people having guns change anything to the way pimp and drug dealers do their job?

Yes, because ifhonest people have guns and are using them for defense, a drug dealer or a pimp now represent less of an threat imbalance. And, in any case, I'd rather honest people able to own guns for home or personal defense than accept the fact that the only people who will have guns are those who obtain them illegally, i.e., drug dealers and pimps, people who I don't want in possession of a gun if I'm not allowed to have one myself.

My point is not that guns should be banned, but that the moral implications should be taken into account when talking about regulations.

You've repeated this a few times, but have yet to really expound on it. I'm still not entirely sure what you consider the moral implications to be, and more specifically, why the few that we've discussed are a bad thing. I.e., individualism, a citizens right to protect themselves, and equalizing the playing field between potential criminals and those who may be targeted by potential criminals.

If I want to break a rock, I will use other means than explosives, because even though explosive are theoritically an easier way, it is much easier to find a jackhammer, or a pickaxe.

Actually, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's perfectly legal to own small amounts of explosives in some areas for the purpose of tree stump removal. I'm not sure what the paperwork involved is, but I wager it's minimal.

[McCaber]

I've been hunting for ten years now. Simply owning a firearm has by no means altered my sense of morality. I see no problem with owning a shotgun or a rifle for the purpose of harvesting deer or small game, especially since their normal predators have been forced out of their natural habitat and the deer haven't.

And being able to put food in the freezer is a huge benefit, especially in these economic conditions.

[Hemmers]

Of course, any regulation will have impact on owners. That is not a reason not to do so if the benefits are sufficient.
I guess there are ways to secure an armory. Of course it will have a cost. And I'm no expert, but I suppose there are ways to make a gun passive by removing a part. That way, the club would only retain a small part of the gun.
Or you could imagine a security only the club would remove, or any technical solution to render the gun harmless outside the club.

The other issue aside from clubs is that most hunters and landowners are not members of clubs. Their firearms are tools for a purpose, not sports equipment. They have no club to store their guns at, so where would they go? Some in the UK have mooted that the Police could do that, but seeing as how crime has risen consistently over the past 15 years, if you ask any Police Officer, they have better things to do than turning a portion of their station over to storage and running an armoury service.

I don't agree with this. I could make my own explosives, should we deregulate them? I could make poison gas, should we deregulate them?
Making my own explosives, or buying them on the black market, will be more dangerous than buying them from my local drug store if that was local.
If I want to break a rock, I will use other means than explosives, because even though explosive are theoritically an easier way, it is much easier to find a jackhammer, or a pickaxe.
Simply forbidding something doesn't make that thing magically disappear. Yet, it is not a reason to allow it.

I didn't suggest deregulation, just not banning it outright. As you say, forbidding something doesn't make it magically disappear.
Phosgene is a nasty nasty chemical weapon - but they allow companies to make it under licence because it's a very useful industrial reagent. In fact I have a friend who has just finished a Chemistry PhD who had Phosgene in his lab fridge. It would make literally no sense to ban him from owneing firearms, because he works with chemical weapons day in and day out (on a university campus where security are generally more concerned with local kids vandalising the place than what canisters the post-grads are carrying in and out of the labs).
Although guns can kill (although as the recent Florida incident shows, that guy would probably have done more damage if he'd been armed with a knife), the question is whether should we stop responsible hunters and target shooters doing it under licence, in the knowledge that criminals will always have access to guns if they truly want them.

Firearm =/= Weapon
Weapon =/= Firearm

Well, I have trouble seeing the difference. It may be a linguistic thing, but for me, arm and weapon are synonimous, and firearms are a subcategory of weapons.

Do you have difficulty telling the difference between a cricket bat and a piece of wood with a nail in it? Or between a bayonet and a kitchen knife? Or between a pen and a knife?
EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD is a weapon. A pillow can be used to suffocate. A biro stabbed into someone's throat can sever an artery. A paperweight can stave someone's skull in. A thumb can be used to gouge someone's eyeball.
If you look in law, most nations do not define what a "weapon" is, they simply run on intent. Hell, there's case history for a grape-fruit being used as a weapon, being forced into someone's face and the (slightly) acidic juices burning their eyes.
So where do you draw the line?
Heck, carrying a biro as a weapon is an offence in the UK - because the law is built on intent (except for knives and firearms which are explicitely defined).

The issue that the police forces are unable to catch criminals is a big one. And being denied firearms doesn't mean being denied other forms of defence, active, like tasers and dogs, or passive, like fences and grids.

Actually it does. Tasers and Mace are both swept up as "prohibited weapons" under Section 5 of the UK's main firearms law. Tasers explicitely and Mace through the "any noxious thing" clause (which was intended for banning flamethrowers when the law was written in 1968).

Dogs are covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Sure you can have some Shepherds barking and being very intimidating, but if they actually bite anyone (even a trespasser), the owner could very well be culpable.
The CPS might decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute (although I wouldn't count on it based on some bone-headed firearms cases they've tried to force through recently, which have all been thrown out and resulted in the CPS being verbally abused by the judge for wasting the court's time). The point is there is no legal protection for the owner. The fact they are on your land is irrelevant. Your dog bites someone, you become culpable.
The Mace issue in my mind is fecking ridiculous. I see no reason why a girl should not be able to slip a can of mace into her purse, but anyway...
Fences and grids are limited by planning laws, so you might be allowed to put up a high fence, you might not.


Official guidance is "Do nothing and call the Police".
Unfortunately, the ratio of on-duty police to citizens is often bordering on worse than 1:5000, so yours needs to be the most serious of the many assaults, burglaries and rapes they will be getting called to (bear in mind they are always paired up, so at any given time each team/pair can only respond to maybe one incident per 10,000 population).

Furthermore (and perhaps most importantly), that mantra is based on the idea the perp is only interested in your wallet or possessions. Unfortunately as I say, happy slappings, rapes and unprovoked assaults are (whilst not everyday to most people) nevertheless not an uncommon occurance, so the idea you can just comply and will be left unharmed is fatally (both literally and conceptually) flawed.
It's all very well saying "I'd rather just let them take my laptop and watch", but who's to say they're going to leave it at that? There's a very good chance they'll give you a good kicking anyway by way of thanks for your compliance.

And if you're being mugged or happy-slapped, you won't have an opportunity to call the Police anyway. They'll just send a Scene-of-Crime officer to supervise the removal of your body and take some photos.
As far as personal protection is concerned, the Police are a PASSIVE force. They will only come when bidden - if you can call them at all. Their 8-minute target response time is far too long to stop a mugger taking your wallet, sticking a knife in your ribs and running away.
They do undertake some pro-active work against gangs, drugs, people trafficking/prostitution, etc, etc, but as far as preventing assaults goes, you're on your own.

[idobox]

Yes, because ifhonest people have guns and are using them for defense, a drug dealer or a pimp now represent less of an threat imbalance.

I seriously doubt pimps and drug dealers have guns to protect themselves against honest citizens, or even to threaten them. Threatening customers is not a very good marketing idea.

You've repeated this a few times, but have yet to really expound on it. I'm still not entirely sure what you consider the moral implications to be, and more specifically, why the few that we've discussed are a bad thing. I.e., individualism, a citizens right to protect themselves, and equalizing the playing field between potential criminals and those who may be targeted by potential criminals.

Killing people is bad. Allowing people to carry tools that are very efficient for that, and have little other use, is, by extension, bad.
I am willing to agree every gun is not very dangerous, that some guns have uses other than shooting people, and that there are cases where shooting people for self-defence is an acceptable solution.
Yet, allowing people to carry handguns, for the sole purpose of self-defence, is similar to allowing people to kill people under some conditions.
Allowing people to kill people is a moral problem.

So okay, it's explained a bit grossly, but it seems I have trouble explaining it more subtly.

Actually, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's perfectly legal to own small amounts of explosives in some areas for the purpose of tree stump removal. I'm not sure what the paperwork involved is, but I wager it's minimal.

I guess laws depends on the country. And that a country with less firearm regulation is probably more laxist on explosives.

The other issue aside from clubs is that most hunters and landowners are not members of clubs. Their firearms are tools for a purpose, not sports equipment. They have no club to store their guns at, so where would they go? Some in the UK have mooted that the Police could do that, but seeing as how crime has risen consistently over the past 15 years, if you ask any Police Officer, they have better things to do than turning a portion of their station over to storage and running an armoury service.

Okay, it's difficult to let people have firearms while controlling their use. It's still an interresting compromise between pro and anti firearm groups.
Of course, people who promote the use of firearms for self-defence won't agree.

Although guns can kill (although as the recent Florida incident shows, that guy would probably have done more damage if he'd been armed with a knife), the question is whether should we stop responsible hunters and target shooters doing it under licence, in the knowledge that criminals will always have access to guns if they truly want them.

There is a whole spectrum of things you can do.
As a said, hunters in France are allowed to own rifles with up to three ammunitions, and the ones I knw don't complain about it.
On the other hand, banning semi automatic handguns, or assault rifles, is a totally different subject.

Do you have difficulty telling the difference between a cricket bat and a piece of wood with a nail in it? Or between a bayonet and a kitchen knife? Or between a pen and a knife?
EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD is a weapon. A pillow can be used to suffocate. A biro stabbed into someone's throat can sever an artery. A paperweight can stave someone's skull in. A thumb can be used to gouge someone's eyeball.
If you look in law, most nations do not define what a "weapon" is, they simply run on intent. Hell, there's case history for a grape-fruit being used as a weapon, being forced into someone's face and the (slightly) acidic juices burning their eyes.
So where do you draw the line?
Heck, carrying a biro as a weapon is an offence in the UK - because the law is built on intent (except for knives and firearms which are explicitely defined)

You can use a melon as a ball. It doesn't mean a melon is a ball. What makes a ball a ball, is the intended use of the manufactured object.
When someone builds a cricket bat, the intended use is sports.
When someone builds a uzi, the intended use is to shoot people.

If an object has the possibility to insert a projectile in someone's skull from a distance of 3 meters, it should be qualified as a weapon.
If an object is as dangerous as your regular mixer or lampstand, there is no reason to consider it differently than your mixer or lampstand.

By the way, in France, dull swords are not considered weapons, but sharp ones are. And most countries have legal definitions, and even categories, for weapons.

Actually it does. Tasers and Mace are both swept up as "prohibited weapons" under Section 5 of the UK's main firearms law. Tasers explicitely and Mace through the "any noxious thing" clause (which was intended for banning flamethrowers when the law was written in 1968).

Dogs are covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Sure you can have some Shepherds barking and being very intimidating, but if they actually bite anyone (even a trespasser), the owner could very well be culpable.
The CPS might decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute (although I wouldn't count on it based on some bone-headed firearms cases they've tried to force through recently, which have all been thrown out and resulted in the CPS being verbally abused by the judge for wasting the court's time). The point is there is no legal protection for the owner. The fact they are on your land is irrelevant. Your dog bites someone, you become culpable.
The Mace issue in my mind is fecking ridiculous. I see no reason why a girl should not be able to slip a can of mace into her purse, but anyway...
Fences and grids are limited by planning laws, so you might be allowed to put up a high fence, you might not.

We are talking about changing laws, for more or less regulations on firearms. We can also change laws on other means of defence.
The regulation in your country seems to be about as strong as in mine. Do you feel threatened?

[Izawwlgood]

I seriously doubt pimps and drug dealers have guns to protect themselves against honest citizens, or even to threaten them. Threatening customers is not a very good marketing idea.

Evidently you are under the impression that drug dealing and pimping is purely an economic enterprise, with absolutely zero implicit threat of violence, and secondly, that this violence is solely limited to those engaged in the trade(s). I would say that impression is incorrect.
But lets assume for a minute it is, and that the only people WITH guns we need to worry about are those who want to rob every day people for either money or violent urges. Allowing citizens to protect themselves with guns, means violent sorts who get guns are now less likely to target random individuals.

Killing people is bad. Allowing people to carry tools that are very efficient for that, and have little other use, is, by extension, bad.
I am willing to agree every gun is not very dangerous, that some guns have uses other than shooting people, and that there are cases where shooting people for self-defence is an acceptable solution.
Yet, allowing people to carry handguns, for the sole purpose of self-defence, is similar to allowing people to kill people under some conditions.
Allowing people to kill people is a moral problem.

I have a hard time agreeing. Killing people is bad; ergo, when your life is threatened, you can and should do everything to protect yourself, including killing whoever is threatening you. Allowing people to carry the tools that reduces the ease at which someone else can kill them, or at the very least, makes others reconsider killing them, is a good thing.
Allowing people to kill in self defense is not a moral problem, but a human right.

[mmmcannibalism]

Killing people is bad

No, killing people is bad in most situations. Your making moral evaluations that do not care about what the context for an action is.

[idobox]

I'll rephrase it.

Killing people is bad. That's all.
There are conditions where not killing could be worse, but it doesn't make it good.

Not considering the efficiency, if there are two ways to avoid a murder, one causing the death of the murderer, and not the other, then the non-lethal solution is better. Which means killing a murderer is bad, even though letting the murder happen is worse.

You seem to think a criminal "deserves" to die, or at least, deserves it more than someone else. Which is a pretty frightening idea, because democracy implies everyone has the same rights.

[Izawwlgood]

No, I think if someone is trying to kill me (or anyone!) I (or anyone!) has every right, legally or morally, to kill their attacker.

Not considering the efficiency, if there are two ways to avoid a murder, one causing the death of the murderer, and not the other, then the non-lethal solution is better.

What's the 'non-lethal solution'? If someone is running at you with a knife, what is your solution to rectifying this problem, that doesn't involve killing them? Throwing marbles in their way?

If you are engaged in activities aimed at ending my life, you better believe you've just rendered your own life forfeit. I am not willing to wait for the law on protecting myself; one of us is going to die because of your actions, and you better believe I'd prefer it not be me.

[mmmcannibalism]

Killing people is bad. That's all.

No, in most circumstances killing people is bad.

Not considering the efficiency, if there are two ways to avoid a murder, one causing the death of the murderer, and not the other, then the non-lethal solution is better. Which means killing a murderer is bad, even though letting the murder happen is worse.

Okay, if I'm ever in a situations where I have a gun and a non lethal weapon that is just as effective I will use the non lethal option. This doesn't mean I will ever compromise my own safety for the sake of someone who is trying to kill me.

You seem to think a criminal "deserves" to die, or at least, deserves it more than someone else. Which is a pretty frightening idea, because democracy implies everyone has the same rights.

I believe people have the right to their own lives, which means they have the right to defend their own life. If someone is violating the right to your life, you have every right to use whatever force is necessary. If you are in the act of attempting murder, all your rights are forfeit until you are either dead or otherwise incapacitated.

[EdgarJPublius]

There's a difference between saying that killing someone to save a life is defensible and can even be the 'correct' action to take in some circumstances, and saying that some people deserve to be killed.

It seems that you (idobox) are agreeing that the first is a valid statement, while simultaneously arguing against the moral position implied by the second. But that's another strawman, no one is actually taking the second position, though admittedly that might not be immediately clear from the way some people are phrasing their points.

[osiris32]

I'll rephrase it.

Killing people is bad. That's all.
There are conditions where not killing could be worse, but it doesn't make it good.

Not considering the efficiency, if there are two ways to avoid a murder, one causing the death of the murderer, and not the other, then the non-lethal solution is better. Which means killing a murderer is bad, even though letting the murder happen is worse.

You seem to think a criminal "deserves" to die, or at least, deserves it more than someone else. Which is a pretty frightening idea, because democracy implies everyone has the same rights.

I happen to have been a law enforcement officer, and in my 3 years I had to draw on someone exactly ONE TIME. But in that moment, that individual was presenting me with the clear and present threat of bodily harm and possible death (swinging a heavy work shovel at my head) I drew on him because, while yes, I could have tried to talk him down or present him with non-lethal force, I did NOT have the time. Your position assumes that the person or threat that you are facing is a rational, reasonable person who would be willing to stop and consider your response. This is NOT the case in reality. Not even close. In most officer involved shootings they have had less than 3 seconds to make the decision. Can you form a rational argument with someone in 3 seconds? And as for the other forms of non-lethal force, you need to be within arms length of a subject for a baton or going hands-on, 21 feet for a tazer to work, within 30-40 feet for capstun/mace, and have the proper weapon for beanbags/rubber bullets. We already have to carry way too much crap on our belts (I was an investigator, so I didn't have as much, and my belt still weighed 20 pounds) so adding that much more to make sure that the person is treated with kid gloves makes police response that much slower and cumbersome.

The fact is some people will only be stopped with lethal force. Whether it's from mindset, drugs, mental defect, or a combination thereof, there are those WHO MUST BE KILLED FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. As terrible as a statement that is to say, I would rather have one death to mourn instead of 3, 6, a dozen, or more.

I attended the funeral of a fellow officer who was gunned down during a traffic stop. He was a very genial guy, always laughing, always trying to get the people he was contacting to laugh. Always made the situation brighter. During a traffic stop the suspect shot him in the face. Can you tell me that individual will not do the same thing the next time the police try to contact him? You have to be ready to deploy lethal force when it is necessary.

(Three weeks later the suspect was located, SWAT moved in, and ended up shooting him when he drew a concealed handgun from his belt and fired twice at the officers. The suspect died in a hospital the next day)

[juststrange]

I think we have devolved away from firearms and over to "Is lethal self defence ok?". Firearms make that easier, sure, but they are different arguements.

Without quoting all the above, I'll try and break down how I see it. Lets say I've got $200 in my wallet, and you rob me at gunpoint. This means one of two things - you think my life is worth less to you than $200, and you are willing to shoot me for it, oooor, you really haven't planned on shooting me but you figure the gun will scare me into giving up my cash.

The first model is pretty clear, and is the one I am going to default you under - when there are guns pointed at me, you lose the benefit of the doubt. Believe me, I try and see the best in people, and the best in situations, and to think that generally, people are good. But right now, I am not willing to die for that particular belief ( I am sure there are some poetic cases where sacrifice can be used to save others souls - go watch 187 with Sam Jackson, but we are disregarding that possibility). Now that I have assigned you a motivation, should I feel like a bad person for shooting you? Lets say you are an honest guy - you are going to shoot me if I don't fork over the cash, and you will leave me alone if I do. Even then, if my life is worth less than $200 to you, is there an expectation that I will "be the bigger man" and not go with the corrallary that your life is worth less (to me) than my $200. If that expectation isn't there, I shoot you. If you are dishonest and plan to cap me anyway, I should shoot you.

And if you are the second guy - and not really planning to shoot me, just trying to scare me, then you are a liar- and I will shoot you.

The firearm is the great equalizer. A little old lady can stand her ground against a rugby player trying to jack her purse. Because she shouldnt have to give up her purse just because she is little and old. In a perfect world, people wouldn't purse snatch, or rape, or mug, or murder. But that world isn't here yet. And it makes more sense to hold onto the guns until that world gets here, rather than give them up trying to get there. Guns don't make people mug people, so they aren't doing much harm I can see.

(P.S. - In my circle, a gun is a gun, a weapon is a device made to cause harm to people. If you slip and refer to a target gun as a weapon, you put a quarter in the jar. The jar goes to the NRA.)

[Greyarcher]

You seem to think a criminal "deserves" to die, or at least, deserves it more than someone else. Which is a pretty frightening idea, because democracy implies everyone has the same rights.

I believe people have the right to their own lives, which means they have the right to defend their own life. If someone is violating the right to your life, you have every right to use whatever force is necessary. If you are in the act of attempting murder, all your rights are forfeit until you are either dead or otherwise incapacitated.

Aye, I follow a parallel line of thought. With someone is committing a crime and may be a serious danger, I think the relationship with that person is closer to "enemy combatant" than "fellow citizen".

[Thesh]

Most of the time, you point a gun at someone who broke into your house, that person is usually going to stop what they are doing and most likely run. If they seem like they are going to attack you, or they do begin to attack you, then that's when lethal force is warranted.

If they just keep doing what they are doing after you point a gun at them and warn them, I think that is the point where you can the award for darwinism in a supporting role (this is a personal belief, not a legal reality).

That said, I hope I am never in a situation where I have to use deadly force, but I hope I don't hesitate if my life is in danger.

[omgryebread]

Uh, sorry it took me so long to respond. Unexpected road trip.

I disagree; I think either of those two are more likely to use a gun to threaten or otherwise coerce someone else. But I awknowledge that my point of bringing them up was rather unclear; my point is that if you ban guns, you effectively encourage their availability with people who have nefarious purposes in mind, and, like banning drugs, you don't so much as limit their traffic as simply drive the market for them, underground.

Okay, I misread you there. I agree that a pimp or drug dealer is more likely to use it to coerce people than to defend themselves. I was saying that a pimp is more likely to use a gun to defend themselves than an average person is, regardless of their other uses of the gun. A law abiding citizen will never use a gun to be aggressive, and probably never use it defensively.

Before I'll accept that, you have to show me that drug cartels only hold onto their drug cartelling with guns, and that crime is reduced in areas with higher police presence. Again, for the bazillionth time in this thread, you cannot trust the police to arrive instantaneously to prevent a violent crime, so the notion that they'll somehow be available or able to protect if guns somehow exit the picture, is ridiculous.

You misread me this time. I'm actually agreeing here. Taking guns away from drug cartels isn't going to stop the drug cartels (not that taking away guns from them is even a realistic goal.) It's not even going to stop them from killing court witnesses or intimidating rival dealers. It's going to make it harder for them (though firebombs honestly seem easier to me, and you can't really outlaw household stuff used to make them) and you might reduce murder but it won't fundamentally change anything. I'm arguing that the money you spent banning guns and enforcing that ban could be directed to undercover police work or youth programs or addiction centers and you'd yield much much better returns on reducing crime.

Every time I read stuff like this, I'm convinced more and more people who argue these topics have zero experience being around guns, or people who own guns. Every gun owner I know (anecdotal evidence, but whatever) keeps their guns separate from the ammo, with either a trigger or barrel lock, and fires it regularly enough to know how to use the thing. I *know* not every gun owner is like this, and that there is a base rate of accidental discharges that result in injury or death of family members, but the numbers are low, very, very low.

I think you misread me again here. I'm not saying that gun owners aren't responsible. Most of my non-immediate family hunts and they're all very responsible. Most of them, were guns outlawed, would turn them in, and prefer to express their discontent by voting for people who would repeal that law. I expect most gun owners would do the same. I also expect that people who keep their guns illegally wouldn't somehow become totally irresponsible. I'm not saying anything at all about gun owners or how they would act. I'm just saying that outlawing guns will remove legal incentive for observing gun safety in the home. [/quote]

I'll rephrase it.

Killing people is bad. That's all.
There are conditions where not killing could be worse, but it doesn't make it good.

Not considering the efficiency, if there are two ways to avoid a murder, one causing the death of the murderer, and not the other, then the non-lethal solution is better. Which means killing a murderer is bad, even though letting the murder happen is worse.

You seem to think a criminal "deserves" to die, or at least, deserves it more than someone else. Which is a pretty frightening idea, because democracy implies everyone has the same rights.

Okay, I agree that an involuntary death is bad, no matter who dies. I'd rather no murder occur, and the murderer stay alive, and be convicted of attempted murder. Were I the third party there to prevent the murder, and I had the choice between a gun and equally effective taser, I'd choose the taser. However, I am totally unwilling to choose the taser when it's not as effective.

We as a society have decided that people have a right to not be killed. However, when you commit a crime, you are violating someone else's rights. By doing this, you're waiving your rights. I can't think of an argument that we should extend equal rights to a criminal. I highly doubt you believe a murderer has the same right to liberty as others do (thus, we lock them up.)

So during the course of a murder, the right to life of a murderer are less than the rights of the victim. I think we can all agree that a gun is more effective at preventing a crime than other weapons. So the question is if you are willing to take the risk of not preventing the crime to preserve the rights of the criminal. In some cases, I agree that lethal force is not cool. Shooting someone who just stole your TV is bad. Shooting someone who's trying to rape someone? Yeah, go ahead. In areas, it gets grayer. We expect that people who rob banks or even stores could get shot in the course of doing so. What about someone running away after a rape? Thankfully, developed countries have a nice way of working through these gray areas. It's not perfect, and it doesn't ever make everyone happy, but it's generally fair enough.

As a side note, trying to define weapon is fairly useless. In English, it can mean either "an instrument designed to to injure" or "an instrument used to injure." In one sense, a target gun is not a weapon, in the other sense, it can be used as one (ineffectively).

[Hemmers]

As a side note, trying to define weapon is fairly useless. In English, it can mean either "an instrument designed to to injure" or "an instrument used to injure." In one sense, a target gun is not a weapon, in the other sense, it can be used as one (ineffectively).

Wikipedia had quite a good definition:

A '''weapon''' is an instrument used for the purpose of causing harm or damage to people, animals or structures.

Although following an edit war the current version is somewhat more verbose:

A '''weapon''' is an instrument used for the purpose of causing harm or death to human beings and/or other living creatures—and doing damage to built structures, transport modes, power grids, economic entities, technological hardware and software, communications linkages and food and water sources, among other things.

It's necessarily vague to reflect the reality that a a weapon can be anything. Things don't have to be designed as weapons to be used as weapons, and likewise things that were very much designed to be weapons can be not-very-good weapons (ask any British Soldier about the SA80 Mk1 in Op Desert Storm).
That definition also doesn't fall into the inaccurate assumption that all firearms are weapons, or all bladed objects are weapons (i.e. a target rifle usually isn't, although a hunting rifle usually is. A kitchen knife usually isn't even though a bayonet usually is).

It all comes back to intent.

[McDoom]

A lot of what I would have said on this topic has already been thoroughly discussed so I won't wake the sleeping bears so I'll just keep this post within my personal experiences.

I've had my Concealed Carry Permit since the day I was old enough to have it. My carry rate is as close to %100 as it can be. The only places I don't carry are the places that systems are in place which keep me from it. Court room and airports being the most notable. Places where a security protocol is in place where metal detectors, x-ray, etc. make the chances of others having weapons of their own practically zero. And to tell the truth, if I could find a way to carry there, I would.

Why do I do this you ask? Because I love having the power to end someone's life at my fingertips all the time? Because my gun effectively counters the weight of my phone, wallet, and keys making my pants perfectly balanced?

No. (Even though the latter is a convenient happenstance.)

I do it because there are people out there that have zero respect for human life. More importantly, for me, they have no respect for my life and the life of others who are doing nothing wrong. Some may find it wrong, but I would end another's life to save my own in a heartbeat. I wouldn't like it. As a CCP holder, I'm well versed in de-escalation methods. I can run away pretty well. However, when push comes to shove, I'll do whatever I need to do to be breathing at the end of the day. I've only ever unholstered my weapon once, and that was enough to send three very large men in the other direction. I hope that I'll never have to fire it. Taking human life is a horrible thing. Not to mention the roughly $50k you'll spend in lawyer and court fees defending yourself both criminally and civilly. I'm prepared though

I also have an AR-15 "Assault Rifle" with a full tac. system. In a situation without rule of law, as unlikely as that may be, I'll be happy I have that around. Also, it's pretty fun to shoot.

I'll agree with the fact that my G22 and the AR-15 are weapons. Can't argue that they're not meant to kill. Will I ever use them to that purpose? No, probably not. But I'm prepared. Should the government allow me to have them? I don't see why not. They're always secured, either deep concealed on my person, strapped to me in some other way, or locked in a half-ton gun safe.

I guess the point I'm getting at is that the intent of the individual is everything. Guns are used to harm people. Should be ban them? I don't think so, unless we're going to ban everything that has that propensity. Allowing law abiding citizens to carry responsibly can only help the situation. Training classes, perhaps yearly, and maybe even accuracy requirements can improve the situation (As almost all of the members of the concealed carry on campus club outs-hot campus police officers at a range night we invited them to, I don't feel this would be much of a problem.) Carrying non penetrating ammunition to lessen the possibility of hitting someone behind your target is something I feel that's important.

When it comes to shotguns and hunting rifles, I really disagree that they can be classified into the weapon category indiscriminately. I've have three shotguns from age 7, and haven't ever shot anything by clay with them, and probably never will. Same goes for my 22L target rifle. Paper and the occasional bottle are the only target it's seen, and it'd be kind of a bad joke to try to use it for anything else.

Just my two cents...

[idobox]

On the subject of lethal self defence.
I am not saying that all form of lethal self defence should be banned, but that there are deep and important moral issues when letting citizens who are not representents of the law use it.
A society can accept its citizens to use lethal violence because it considers the consequences of forbidding it would be worse. But it is a moral question.
If you choose a more efficient, but more lethal way of defence, you are making a moral decision.
We are denied the use of nuclear weapons, antipersonnel landmines and poison gas, but we can use pepper spray and our fists; because society considers the first ones an innacceptable level of violence, and the second ones, an acceptable one.
Where to put the limit between what is allowed and what is forbidden is not only a question of efficiency, it is also a question of social values.
As time passes, and civilization evolves, on average, we use less and less violence, and we grant more rights to more people. When violence rises, it's a sign a civilisation is decaying, or collapsing. Arresting people and putting them in jail is a more humane and civilized way to deal with criminals than lynching.

On the subject of killing.
Killing is bad.
War is a failure of diplomacy.
Euthanasy is a failure of medecine.
Killing is always bad, but sometimes, everything else is worse.

On the subject of firearms/weapons
I think we all agree an assault rifle or a desert eagle are much more of a weapon than a bb gun or a golf club. We can argue a lot about what is a weapon, and what isn't, but I don't think anyone has any issue with guns that are not powerful enough to be dangerous, unless if used to hit people.

Osiris32
As a police officer, your situation is very different from other people.
Of course, you are much more likely than most people to be confronted to violence. But more importantly, it is your mission to protect people and the law. You are trained and paid to do that, you took an oath, you have a hierarchy you have to report to.
I am not questionning the right of the representatives of the law, and of the state to use lethal force against clearly dangerous people. But you have to follow rules about how and when to use it, and I think you have a debriefing after every gunfire, to ensure they were followed.
I understand there are technical issues with the use of non-lethal force. A gun can be used in a non lethal way also. But if ever a policeman makes a mistake, and that happens, and concludes I am a threat, I sure hope he will use a taser rather than a gun.

By the way,it's been on the news in France for a few days. A farmer shot and killed a man who was trying to steal truffles on his land. Truffles are very expensive, and it's very difficult for the police to protect the 'fields' (more forests than field, in fact), so there is a lot of theft, and people who live of it are really angry.
If this guy didn't have a gun, he would probably have attacked the man too. But would he have kiled him?
If you allow people to have guns, you accept that this kind of things will happen.
Deciding if all the dead truffle thieves, dead unfaithful husbands/wives, dead wannabe heroes and misfire victims are worth the avoided crimes is a social and moral question. Depending on the country, the numbers will be different, and depending on your culture and history, the life of a thief, a murderer and a rapist will have different worth.

[mmmcannibalism]

I am not saying that all form of lethal self defence should be banned, but that there are deep and important moral issues when letting citizens who are not representents of the law use it.

You've said this about 5 times; calling something a moral question isn't taking a position. Sorry for being blunt, but it seems to me like you are trying to avoid debate on the issue by just mentioning that everything is a moral question and then acting as if "it is a moral question" is a position.

As time passes, and civilization evolves, on average, we use less and less violence, and we grant more rights to more people. When violence rises, it's a sign a civilisation is decaying, or collapsing. Arresting people and putting them in jail is a more humane and civilized way to deal with criminals than lynching.

The fact that we can use less violence is a sign that civilization as a whole is more advanced; that is, has the capacity to handle things(such as facilities for prisons) that earlier couldn't be done. How to deal with criminals who have been captured by law enforcement is a different issue then what can citizens do to defend themselves against an immediate threat.

Killing is bad.

Why is this inherently true?

Euthanasy is a failure of medecine.

If by failure you mean acceptance of current limitations.

[flippant]

We are denied the use of nuclear weapons, antipersonnel landmines and poison gas, but we can use pepper spray and our fists; because society considers the first ones an innacceptable level of violence, and the second ones, an acceptable one.

This statement is untrue, it's not that we are denied the use of these items, it is that there are more severe penalties for the use of these items that there are for other items. Also I believe the general discussion was for weapons of singular or very local area destruction not the large WMA's you have listed.

Where to put the limit between what is allowed and what is forbidden is not only a question of efficiency, it is also a question of social values.

I suppose you could look at it that way, but I would rather think the line is drawn where we take into account personal freedom and worse case scenarios and come up with a reasonable compromise.

As time passes, and civilization evolves, on average, we use less and less violence, and we grant more rights to more people. When violence rises, it's a sign a civilisation is decaying, or collapsing.

This is where I think you fail to grasp what "civilization" has really done. What it has accomplished is perfecting the level of violence it can enact so well that entire populations are denied their basic needs for food, clean water & medicine just because of the THREAT of violence imposed by richer populations and their arbitrary lines in the dirt they call borders. It would be more merciful if we weren't so good at absolute death and those people would rise up and maybe have a fighting chance to get their basic needs met.

Arresting people and putting them in jail is a more humane and civilized way to deal with criminals than lynching.

Humane and civilized is a matter of perspective about how nice your prison is. Spending sixty years in a steal box with no sunlight, exercise or entertainment, I think I would rather be killed. Spending 50 years at hard labor moving rocks from AtoBtoA all day, I think I would rather be killed. Lynching is always bad though, you need a process to prevent the Mob from accidentally stringing up innocent people.

I think we all agree an assault rifle or a desert eagle are much more of a weapon than a bb gun or a golf club. We can argue a lot about what is a weapon, and what isn't, but I don't think anyone has any issue with guns that are not powerful enough to be dangerous, unless if used to hit people.

it's not the weapon that is the danger but the intent of the person wielding it, be it a pocket knife or a shotgun.

By the way,it's been on the news in France for a few days. A farmer shot and killed a man who was trying to steal truffles on his land. Truffles are very expensive, and it's very difficult for the police to protect the 'fields' (more forests than field, in fact), so there is a lot of theft, and people who live of it are really angry.
If this guy didn't have a gun, he would probably have attacked the man too. But would he have kiled him?

If there were absolutely no guns, would there be 50 times as many thieves and not a truffle to be found anywhere?
I know people who've tasered themselves on purpose so the threat of being tasered is not much of a deterrent for anything.
If the guy knew how to use his gun better, could he have just shot the guy in the foot?
If the guy had more people diplomatic skills could just the threat of the gun have resolved the issue?
If we stopped letting people own land the situation would never have arisen.

[osiris32]

Osiris32
As a police officer, your situation is very different from other people.
Of course, you are much more likely than most people to be confronted to violence. But more importantly, it is your mission to protect people and the law. You are trained and paid to do that, you took an oath, you have a hierarchy you have to report to.
I am not questionning the right of the representatives of the law, and of the state to use lethal force against clearly dangerous people. But you have to follow rules about how and when to use it, and I think you have a debriefing after every gunfire, to ensure they were followed.
I understand there are technical issues with the use of non-lethal force. A gun can be used in a non lethal way also. But if ever a policeman makes a mistake, and that happens, and concludes I am a threat, I sure hope he will use a taser rather than a gun.

The issue with non-lethal force is that it's not always effective. Certain mindsets such as intense rage/depression, drugs, and mental defects can allow someone to continue to be a threat even after things like Capstun and Tasers have been employed. Now, this is a minority of cases where force needs to be employed, but as my old boss said, "I'm gonna try to be nice, but dammit, I'm going home to my wife and daughter tonight."

I think you're right in that you should have to follow rules about using lethal force. CCW permits, laws behind justifiable homicide, and laws behind firearm purchases do this. The problem is that there are individuals who don't follow the law. Some do that as a mistake, others do that as a choice. To take away a right from a majority because of the actions of a minority is wrong in my mind. That would be like removing people's ability to drive because of a few DUIIs. Those individuals used a privilege in a dangerous manner, and people got hurt and killed. So obviously, no one should be able to drive. Yes, being able to drive is a necessity, for work and such, but is not the right to defend one's self against a threat also a necessity? It may not come up as often as getting groceries or going to work, but is it not as important?

[idobox]

You've said this about 5 times; calling something a moral question isn't taking a position. Sorry for being blunt, but it seems to me like you are trying to avoid debate on the issue by just mentioning that everything is a moral question and then acting as if "it is a moral question" is a position.

I'm trying to defend the fact that efficiency shouldn't be the only parameter for a choice, which is not evident for everyone on this thread.

I also am against firearms in the case of my country, France. I cannot speak for other countries, that have different criminality, population density, police force, history and culture.
I feel safe without a gun: criminals here rarely use lethal violence when mugging, robbing, dealing, etc, I don't think I ever angered someone to the point of murder. I also feel the use of violent ways of self-defence in my case would lead to more violence from criminals, and overall more danger for me.
This applies to my case, and not to South Africa or USA. I have the feeling UK is not very different from France, but I don't really know, so I prefer to shut up.
If any French people feel like arguing about firearm legislation in France, I'm open to debate.

The fact that we can use less violence is a sign that civilization as a whole is more advanced; that is, has the capacity to handle things(such as facilities for prisons) that earlier couldn't be done. How to deal with criminals who have been captured by law enforcement is a different issue then what can citizens do to defend themselves against an immediate threat.

Considering or not the use of lethal violence, when there are other (less effective) ways to protect yourself is linked to your civilization.
Also, a more advanced civilization is a civilization where the need for self defence is lower. If crime rises, as it is the case in many countries, including mine, it is a sign civilization is receding.

Killing is bad.

Why is this inherently true?

I tried to keep my ideas simple, to make them clearer, since I have trouble expressing myself.
I don't want to enter a metaphysical debate about universal good and bad. But can you find an example where killing a human could be considered by some to be good?

If by failure you mean acceptance of current limitations.

If you could cure someone easily and painlessly, you wouldn't even considerate euthanasy.
It is because medecine fails to cure or alleviate some diseases that euthanasy exists.

This statement is untrue, it's not that we are denied the use of these items, it is that there are more severe penalties for the use of these items that there are for other items. Also I believe the general discussion was for weapons of singular or very local area destruction not the large WMA's you have listed.

Okay, let's forget WMD (what is a WMA?). Let's just keep landmines on your lawn, behind a fence, to protect yourself from assassins. You are not allowed to have them, that's what I mean by "denied". If there is a subtelty I miss between the two, please explain it to me.

This is where I think you fail to grasp what "civilization" has really done. What it has accomplished is perfecting the level of violence it can enact so well that entire populations are denied their basic needs for food, clean water & medicine just because of the THREAT of violence imposed by richer populations and their arbitrary lines in the dirt they call borders. It would be more merciful if we weren't so good at absolute death and those people would rise up and maybe have a fighting chance to get their basic needs met.

The system is far from being perfect, and some (many?) of our leaders are bastards. Okay.
But at some point, it was accepted by almost everyone that african slaves had no rights, could be beaten, sold or killed by their owner. Now it isn't.
For the african kid dying in Sahel because our rich countries refuse him food and medecine, or for the indian kid working day and night in a toxic shipwreck, it does little difference.
For the populations of rich countries, it makes a lot of difference. They care. Not enough to change things, it's true, but at least they care a little and wish things change.

Humane and civilized is a matter of perspective about how nice your prison is. Spending sixty years in a steal box with no sunlight, exercise or entertainment, I think I would rather be killed. Spending 50 years at hard labor moving rocks from AtoBtoA all day, I think I would rather be killed. Lynching is always bad though, you need a process to prevent the Mob from accidentally stringing up innocent people.

We now have higher expectations for prisons than we had 50, 100 or 200 years ago.
A steel box with no sunlight or possibility for exercise and entertainment would be considered an inhumane prison now. Yet it would be more humane than a cold basement with rats, only bread and water, and daily beatings.

it's not the weapon that is the danger but the intent of the person wielding it, be it a pocket knife or a shotgun.

A shotgun is more dangerous than a knife when the intent is not to kill.
In a self defence situation, you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to protect yourself, even if it means killing.
The farmer did not shoot to kill, but to protect its good.

If there were absolutely no guns, would there be 50 times as many thieves and not a truffle to be found anywhere?
I know people who've tasered themselves on purpose so the threat of being tasered is not much of a deterrent for anything.
If the guy knew how to use his gun better, could he have just shot the guy in the foot?
If the guy had more people diplomatic skills could just the threat of the gun have resolved the issue?
If we stopped letting people own land the situation would never have arisen.

Are 50 times more truffle thieves worth one human life? I don't think so. Truffle farmers would probably disagree with me.
It doesn't really matter if you are afraid of being tased or not if you are shaking and drooling on the ground while being tased.
Tasers do not work by frightening people, but by incapaciting them.
You could send everyone to anger management classes, and remove property, you would still have cases of people shooting people with no premeditated murder ideas. This includes accidents.
Whatever you can say, guns are dangerous, like many other things. Are they useful? yes.
Is the usefulness worth the danger? It depends on the use, on the gun itself, and on the person wielding it.

The issue with non-lethal force is that it's not always effective. Certain mindsets such as intense rage/depression, drugs, and mental defects can allow someone to continue to be a threat even after things like Capstun and Tasers have been employed. Now, this is a minority of cases where force needs to be employed, but as my old boss said, "I'm gonna try to be nice, but dammit, I'm going home to my wife and daughter tonight."

Lethal force isn't alway effective either. A bullet in the leg won't stop someone from shooting.
But I agree with the police, or the army, to use lethal force when they NEED to.

I think you're right in that you should have to follow rules about using lethal force. CCW permits, laws behind justifiable homicide, and laws behind firearm purchases do this. The problem is that there are individuals who don't follow the law. Some do that as a mistake, others do that as a choice. To take away a right from a majority because of the actions of a minority is wrong in my mind. That would be like removing people's ability to drive because of a few DUIIs. Those individuals used a privilege in a dangerous manner, and people got hurt and killed. So obviously, no one should be able to drive. Yes, being able to drive is a necessity, for work and such, but is not the right to defend one's self against a threat also a necessity? It may not come up as often as getting groceries or going to work, but is it not as important?

You make a good point, but the use of a car doesn't imply hurting people or damaging property. It is the result of a misuse when that happens.
The use of a weapon implies hruting people or damaging property.

I agree people should be allowed to protect themselves, but not at all cost. I don't know what it's like where you live, but here, the risk of getting killed for your wallet or your TV is very low, and I don't think it's worth the risk of a freightened victim misusing a gun.

[osiris32]

You make a good point, but the use of a car doesn't imply hurting people or damaging property. It is the result of a misuse when that happens.
The use of a weapon implies hruting people or damaging property.

The use of a firearm also doesn't imply hurting people. I use a firearm at least twice a week, and that doesn't imply hurting people or damaging property (unless you count paper targets) To use your direct quote, "It is the result of misuse when that happens." The same could be said of any dangerous object, car/butcher knife/baseball bat. It's all about intent.

I agree people should be allowed to protect themselves, but not at all cost. I don't know what it's like where you live, but here, the risk of getting killed for your wallet or your TV is very low, and I don't think it's worth the risk of a freightened victim misusing a gun.

I'm glad you live in such a safe area. However, I live in a city of over a million people where street crime is a problem. Would you deny those million people the ability to defend themselves against gutter punks and gang bangers who ARE willing to shoot you over the $40 you have in your wallet?

[marky66]

I think that one reason my area is safe is that a burglar or other potential perpetrator of a break in has a good chance of being shot. All other things being equal, if they took the guns away from everyone in my city, then the bad guys would count on a much better chance of getting out unscathed, and crime will likely increase.

[mmmcannibalism]

I tried to keep my ideas simple, to make them clearer, since I have trouble expressing myself.
I don't want to enter a metaphysical debate about universal good and bad. But can you find an example where killing a human could be considered by some to be good?

Someone has the trigger to blow up a building(full of children), we have a sniper aimed at him.

[flippant]

A shotgun is more dangerous than a knife when the intent is not to kill.

and a shotgun is more effective than a knife if the intent is to control the situation and resolve it with no violence at all.

example.
You are a thief stealing my truffles,
I walk up and say "stop that, they don't belong to you."
You are much bigger than me, you say, "make me".
We both know the police are too far away and you will be long gone by the time they get there.
So you being larger say, "go away or I will hit you"

If I have a knife, but you are bigger, the threat is still there because being bigger and stronger may still give you the advantage unless I know some martial arts or something which you will not be able to tell until the aggression is under way.

On the other hand, if I walk up and point a shotgun at you and say "stop that, I have a shotgun", the mere threat of immense physical harm and possible death should resolve this situation whether you are bigger or not. If you then decide to escalate it to me shooting you, I would think you are more to blame than me.

Fixed your quote

- Az

[thorgold]

"If guns kill people, then pencils cause spelling errors."
I don't know who said that, but it seems a fitting enough summary of the situation.

[Zamfir]

"If guns kill people, then pencils cause spelling errors."
I don't know who said that, but it seems a fitting enough summary of the situation.

Because being effective at killing people is an unintended side effect of guns? Really?

[Azrael]

This thread should not devolve into the tossing about of catch phrases. Stick to meaningful participating in the current discussion.

[idobox]

The use of a firearm also doesn't imply hurting people

My mistake. The use of a firearm implies damaging something. It can be a human, an animal or even a paper target.
Firearms work by making holes in things.
But I was mostly referring to firearms for self-defence. That wasn't very clear.

I'm glad you live in such a safe area. However, I live in a city of over a million people where street crime is a problem. Would you deny those million people the ability to defend themselves against gutter punks and gang bangers who ARE willing to shoot you over the $40 you have in your wallet?

My area isn't that safe. Criminals still rob and mug people, but they don't kill them for $40.
It was already evoked, but I will insist. I don't think criminals here are nicer than anywhere else. But since people don't carry guns, and the penalties are rather low, they are not very afraid of getting shot or arrested. On the other hand, the penalty for firing a gun, or even owning one, is pretty heavy, so it is more risky to use a gun than not to.

I think that one reason my area is safe is that a burglar or other potential perpetrator of a break in has a good chance of being shot. All other things being equal, if they took the guns away from everyone in my city, then the bad guys would count on a much better chance of getting out unscathed, and crime will likely increase.

Crime would probably increases, but I'm not sure violent crime would in the long term.

Someone has the trigger to blow up a building(full of children), we have a sniper aimed at him.

As I said, it is not a good thing to kil. But it is much worse solution to let him blow up the building.
It's still a bad solution, but the alternative is worse.
A good solution would be to defuse the bomb, if it is possible.

and a shotgun is more effective than a knife if the intent is to control the situation and resolve it with no violence at all.

Is it better than a taser? or a shotgun loaded with salt?

"If guns kill people, then pencils cause spelling errors."
I don't know who said that, but it seems a fitting enough summary of the situation.

Guns kill people. Cars kill people. Power tools kill people.
Most car related deaths are accidental, and some are intentionnal. And we have rules, so that the human cost is acceptable in regard of the advantages.

[flippant]

and a shotgun is more effective than a knife if the intent is to control the situation and resolve it with no violence at all.

Is it better than a taser? or a shotgun loaded with salt?

Like I said before, the threat of being tased is not much of a deterrent, the threat of a shotgun is a deterrent.

I would bet that since that French farmer shot the guy that truffle thefts have declined a bit from before. Start posting signs saying," if we catch you stealing truffles you will be shot" and the thefts will decline even more.