Firearms

[flippant]

In terms of if carrying a gun makes you more violent, it is perhaps more precise to say that carrying a gun indicates the level of violence you are prepared to use if you deem it necessary.

I like this formulation a lot, but there is an aspect that does not appear: with a gun, you have the potential to be more violent than without.
In a burst of rage, or if scared, or under influence, you can draw and shoot. You just can't do that if you don't have a gun, you have to first find one, and you will have time to cool down down, or be stopped. You could also grab a knife of bat, and use it, but it is very different from drawing the gun at your belt.

If you're someone who is prone to bursts of rage and you don't have a gun, you might just use your car instead. Which do you think has the potential for incidental violence, a handgun with maybe ten rounds or two tons of metal, glass, & plastic?

When I paid dues to the NRA(National Rifle Association) they used to send me this magazine(mostly propaganda) every month that had 15 or 20 really brief stories about gun owners who stopped a crime, caught a criminal, or protected themselves with either their concealed carry or home protection weapon. The reason I'm stating this is that most of the charts and statistics reference here do not take into account simple incidents where someone scares away a prowler or intruder by just saying outloud "I have a gun" since there's a high possibility they won't even report such an incident.

On a personal note, when I was 10, I saw my dad face down an illegal immigrant (guess) who was probably just looking for food, this man who walked into our fenced yard, passed by our barking dogs and walked onto our front porch. My dad walked outside pointed to the gate he came in and said "go", the man took another step towards my dad who then pulled his 38 out of his pocket pointed it at the man and repeated "go".This time the man walked away. Replace that situation with my dad holding a knife and this stranger could have easily evened the odds by picking up a piece of firewood from the stack next to the house.

[Azrael]

When I paid dues to the NRA(National Rifle Association) they used to send me this magazine(mostly propaganda) every month that had 15 or 20 really brief stories about gun owners who stopped a crime, caught a criminal, or protected themselves with either their concealed carry or home protection weapon.

The problem with those stories is that absent any sort of witness, statistics or confirmation, they're equally as likely to be complete fabrications as the letters in Penthouse.

[marky66]

... complete fabrications as the letters in Penthouse.

OT: wait, what?!

[pizzazz]

When I paid dues to the NRA(National Rifle Association) they used to send me this magazine(mostly propaganda) every month that had 15 or 20 really brief stories about gun owners who stopped a crime, caught a criminal, or protected themselves with either their concealed carry or home protection weapon.

The problem with those stories is that absent any sort of witness, statistics or confirmation, they're equally as likely to be complete fabrications as the letters in Penthouse.

Maybe this is new, but all of the stories published have specific witnesses, and are often taken from police reports and newspapers.

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.

The existence of a gun does not hurt anyone. In fact a serial murderer possessing a gun doesn't hurt anyone. People hurt people. Guns are just an instrument. "A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.''-Lucius Annaeus Seneca

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.

You mean such moral implications as stripping the only effective means of defense from those most likely to be victimized? Most crimes, especially violent crimes, are committed by young men (16-24 years old range, although you can adjust the ranges and get a similar result). In other words, the most physically fit demographic. If a senior citizen or most females tries to fend off your average criminal with a knife or bludgeoning instrument, it's not going to do anything.

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.

That's not quite the point. On the contrary, gun control laws are highly effective are keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who just want to use guns for hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. They are not effective at keeping guns out of the hands of drug dealers, murderers, thieves, muggers, or other criminals. Consider that pre-Heller, the penalty for carrying an illegal firearm in Washington D.C was 5 years in prison, probably the harshest such penalty in the country. But the penalty for murder is much higher than that--from 6-12 years to potentially life. Why should someone who is already risking large jail penalties be scared by another 5 years?

And it has nothing to do with what someone or another thinks about guns, or what we want or hope to work. Unless the penalty for carrying guns exceeds the current penalty for murder, gun control laws cannot work.

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.

To make it simple, no. Just, no. A firearm is simply a collection of metal, ceramic, wood, and/or plastic parts. It is inanimate and cannot be any more evil than any other collection of such pieces, such as a car or hammer. If you want to consider "self-defense" as "evil," that is your prerogative, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with guns.

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.

Support for gun freedom is on the rise in the USA, and it has been for several decades.

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.

Rape can be one of the factors that makes a difference between death and some other sentence. And killing someone in such a case has nothing to do with punishment--it is prevention.

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.

It has a potential to be dangerous. How many people have died because of nuclear power in the United States? (I' pretty sure it's 0).
And anyway, now you're essentially saying the difference between guns and anything else that can be used to kill someone is killing power, and "guns" compared to something else is simply an arbitrary distinction.

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.

There are plenty of safety mechanisms to stop unauthorized persons from accessing a gun. Do you lock your kitchen knives up between every use?
If someone tried to kill each of you, most likely you would be dead and he would be alive.
And I don't even understand your last line. Do you mean that the very presence of a specific collection of parts makes him more likely to then go out and hurt someone (an absurd proposition)? Do you mean that, statistically, people tend to own guns in places with higher murder rates (a correlation that, without further data, could just as easily indicate that after crime goes up, guns become more prevalent)?

Edit--forgot this bit

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.

Can you define a rigorous definition of an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" as well as reasons for your criteria?

[pizzazz]

I had no idea there were so many guns in France. I think I only know 3 or 4 people who have one.

Also, I've looked a bit, and found this
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
and this
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html

The last two are particularly interresting.
There are around 200 justifiable homicides by citizens a year, most of which implied a gun, especially handguns.
In 2005, there have been 7000 non-larceny murders, 4400 of which implied guns, and 3400 handguns.
Also there have been "only" 2000 larceny murders.

Of course, we're missing useful data, like number of justifiable firearm injuries or the number of victims who owned a firearm.
But it strongly suggests guns are far less used for self defence than for murder, and most murders are not related to criminal activity.
In fact, this suggest guns are more likely to be used by non criminal citizens, than by criminals.

It suggests it, but the missing data accounts for far far FAR more than you seem to expect. According to http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general, "A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]", citing this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354. This article: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarch ... icleid=836, states that depending on which studies you use, firearms are used in self-defense from 100,000 to 6 million times per year in the US

For comparison, there are about 10,000 homicides with firearms each year in the US (http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[11]). So guns are used at the very minimum 10 times more often to prevent murders than to commit them (in the US at least).

[osiris32]

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.

There are plenty of safety mechanisms to stop unauthorized persons from accessing a gun. Do you lock your kitchen knives up between every use?
If someone tried to kill each of you, most likely you would be dead and he would be alive.
And I don't even understand your last line. Do you mean that the very presence of a specific collection of parts makes him more likely to then go out and hurt someone (an absurd proposition)? Do you mean that, statistically, people tend to own guns in places with higher murder rates (a correlation that, without further data, could just as easily indicate that after crime goes up, guns become more prevalent)?

I'm not sure what he's getting at, but my guess is that he just doesn't know much about firearms in the first place. As I stated earlier, SALT LOADS DO NOT WORK. Also, a smaller caliber does NOT mean less deadly. A .22LR or even a .17HMR can kill you just as much as a .44 Magnum. Caliber has nothing to do with it, it just makes a bigger hole. Also, having 18 rounds is a GOOD thing. If you are in a gun battle, you never want to be the guy who runs out of ammo first. Besides, if you are in a self-defense situation, where your life is being threatened, your ability to fire accurately is SEVERELY diminished. There are countless examples of trained law enforcement and military personnel who have fired on a threat to their life and missed with several consecutive shots at close range. This is because you are in full-on Flight-Or-Flight mode, and your adrenaline is pumping like crazy. You fine motor skills are compromised, as are your higher thought processes. I would recommend you read This Book, as it goes through all of the myths and realities of using handguns in both offensive and defensive modes.

[Thesh]

If you are going to have kids in a house with guns, the worst thing you can do is hide it from them or tell them its forbidden. They WILL find it. You should teach them the rules of firearms safety, how to safely operate the gun (inspect, safety, clear, load, disassemble, shoot, etc.), and you should allow them to operate under supervision on a regular basis so that they will not be curious about it.

As for locking up a gun, no I don't keep mine locked, for the same reason police don't keep locks on their holsters. Also, unless you have a safe that's too big to move, criminals are still going to take it at get into it. Until I have enough long guns that they are worth the cost, I'm not going to bother with one. Even then, I am still keeping my self defense weapons unlocked where I can get to them quickly.

Also, when you intend to shoot someone, your intent should not be to wound, to scare, to inflict pain on. Your intent should be to kill. The only time you should shoot someone is when that person is an immediate threat to your life (or the life of someone else). You don't aim for the leg, you don't aim for the weapon in his hand. You aim for the biggest part of the body that contains vital organs and major arteries, the chest. You shoot them until they drop to the ground.

I missed this. That's pretty broad, can you support it?

Burden of proof is on the person saying there should be a change, but I have shown evidence supporting my argument earlier in this thread. In fact, we've been arguing about whether banning all guns would even accomplish anything, and the position I take is that gains would be negligible.

[Sero]

Idobox, I'm not sure how familiar with firearms you are. But a fundamental rule of gun safety, usually #2 (right behind 'Treat all guns as if they are loaded.' (Which has more nuance to it than that, but if you just take it literally, without any mental little addons 'unless x, y, z', you have the basics of it)), is 'Never point a weapon at something you are not willing to destroy or kill.' It's an important safety rule. If it's not pointed at something you don't want hit, then if there is an accidental discharge, you're still okay. Embarrassed, but nobody was hurt. But it goes both ways. Never point a weapon at someone, unless you're fully prepared to pull the trigger and kill the target. That doesn't mean you draw a weapon on someone thinking "I am going to kill this guy, come hell or high water.". But if it becomes necessary, you shoot, and you shoot to kill. I'll admit there are arguments possessing validity for both sides of the 'Deescalate versus escalate' argument (IE, should you do nothing except call the police, or try to defend yourself thing), but it is an iron clad rule. If you draw a firearm, you have escalated the conflict to lethal force. If you do that, you had damned well better not be bluffing, or trying to pull your punches.

The 'salt' shotgun thing has already been discussed, and does not work. Smaller calibers is also a little silly. What would be the point? To make it less lethal? A .22 will kill you just as dead as a .50, or in this case a .357 magnum round. Just the latter two will get you to dead a little sooner. And that's the point. Shooting someone in reality isn't like shooting someone in a TV show. People don't die instantly. People aren't instantly incapacitated by a gunshot wound. If you shoot someone with a .32 (Less energy than a .22), they're still going to die. It still has enough energy to make a hole through them, and their vital organs. They're just going to die slower. And they're just going to be a threat while they take longer to die. If you have to use lethal force, which is what ANY firearm is, you want to end the threat as quickly as you possibly can.

I also take issue with the 'main defense system' remark. It's something you only actually use if you absolutely have to. I sincerely doubt Thesh fires off eighteen rounds every time an animal knocks over his garbage cans at nights. It is not a first resort. Thesh, would you say the revolver in your nightstand is the main thing keeping you safe? Or would you say that it's things like a locked front door? Or just the fact that the majority of the people around you, by a huge percentage, are not criminals? Or however you care to characterize it, the point being, I assume while you feel it prudent to have the resort of lethal force at hand if necessary, it does not constitute the majority cause for your safety?

(Also, Osiris32, you might want to fix your quote a couple posts back. It has Pizzazz as the one making the statement 'You have a very powerful handgun, with enough ammo to shoot' etc, when Idobox was the one who said that, which had me pretty confused for a while, until I hunted down the original occurrence of that phrase in this thread.)

[Thesh]

I keep my doors locked, and I live in a city with very low crime rates. I've been living here since I was 2, and never had a break in, never had a car stolen, never been mugged. There are a lot of stay at home moms in my area, so it's not a huge target for daytime burglaries either. I've never drawn my gun on anyone or anything living, nor have I drawn it in fear. I have taken it out when I heard a noise in the back yard, but the muzzle stayed pointed at the ground the entire time (it was a possum).

[pizzazz]

If you are going to have kids in a house with guns, the worst thing you can do is hide it from them or tell them its forbidden. They WILL find it. You should teach them the rules of firearms safety, how to safely operate the gun (inspect, safety, clear, load, disassemble, shoot, etc.), and you should allow them to operate under supervision on a regular basis so that they will not be curious about it.

I know how to keep guns away from kids, but rather than explain the many methods (and probably mess something up, as I do not own a gun), I just left it at general safety features.

As for locking up a gun, no I don't keep mine locked, for the same reason police don't keep locks on their holsters. Also, unless you have a safe that's too big to move, criminals are still going to take it at get into it. Until I have enough long guns that they are worth the cost, I'm not going to bother with one. Even then, I am still keeping my self defense weapons unlocked where I can get to them quickly.

I wasn't referring to trigger locks or locked cases, just simple ways to keep them out of the hands of children.

I missed this. That's pretty broad, can you support it?

Burden of proof is on the person saying there should be a change, but I have shown evidence supporting my argument earlier in this thread. In fact, we've been arguing about whether banning all guns would even accomplish anything, and the position I take is that gains would be negligible.

Perhaps in this case, more specifically (since guns are, in fact, banned in many places, which would place the burden of proof on *everyone* in this thread), we should say that burden of proof falls on whoever is suggesting we restrict a certain right, since if there is no good reason to restrict something, we should not impose the limits on people's rights as well as the logistical cost.

As for calibers and target--movies depict guns very poorly. In this case, the damage caused by a gun often seems to be arbitrary and driven by plot. There really is no "safe" place to be shot--any bones, muscles, organs, tissue, etc hit by a bullet will be ripped to pieces, and you won't be getting up and walking away from a shot to the leg. However, unless you are shot in the brain or heart, a single bullet wound will take time to kill you. Just like with an injury from any sort of weapon, it can take 2-3 minutes to bleed out from even major arteries. That's likely too short for an ambulance to save you, but you will have some time to, for example, return fire (since action movies tend to have the most gunfire).

Caliber is related to stopping power. As mentioned above, a single bullet or even several will not necessarily kill. Larger caliber weapons (and Magnums) exist partially because sometimes there is great need for more stopping power. Accuracy can be lower during high-stress situations, and criminals as well as enemy combatants have been known to imbibe drugs that increase pain tolerance and strength (such as PCP), and more stopping power is needed. For example, the Colt .45 semi-automatic handgun was developed partially in response to complaints the the previously used .38 caliber handgun was ineffective against drugged Philippine tribesmen.

[osiris32]

(Also, Osiris32, you might want to fix your quote a couple posts back.

Yeah, thought that looked a little odd to me, but I was a tad hungover and couldn't place it.

[morriswalters]

Actually I haven't suggested that weapons be banned, in point of fact I have stated that it would be a waste of effort to attempt. What I've been arguing is the point of view that both by their nature and history, firearms are different then most machines that men use. This is because their development has been almost exclusively as machines designed for killing in warfare. Therefore I find comparisons of the type used in these arguments to be disingenuous. Guns were designed to kill, period. This is not to say that guns don't have a place in society. I enjoy going to the range and support hunting as practiced by law abiding sportsmen. Though as a non gun owner I am forced to put up with the antics of gun owners. From those who won't secure their guns against theft, to those who fire their guns off on Patriotic Holidays, and who generally misuse their weapons. To conclude I challenge anyone to point out a practical reason for any private entity to own a fully automatic weapon of any type.

[mmmcannibalism]

To conclude I challenge anyone to point out a practical reason for any private entity to own a fully automatic weapon of any type.

Private military museum/really high end shooting range

(if you meant individual then I can't think of anything)

[Shivahn]

What I've been arguing is the point of view that both by their nature and history, firearms are different then most machines that men use. This is because their development has been almost exclusively as machines designed for killing in warfare. Therefore I find comparisons of the type used in these arguments to be disingenuous. Guns were designed to kill, period.

You keep saying that like it matters.

[Hemmers]

Actually I haven't suggested that weapons be banned, in point of fact I have stated that it would be a waste of effort to attempt. What I've been arguing is the point of view that both by their nature and history, firearms are different then most machines that men use. This is because their development has been almost exclusively as machines designed for killing in warfare.

Yet you don't also argue for restrictions in the skill set that Fencing teaches, even though rapiers and swords have been exclusively developed for warfare. What possible "sporting" use is there for teaching people to use bladed objects in a clear and present combat scenario. It's far more violent than target shooting - you're actually trying to land hits on a fellow human in the name of sport.

History tells us that the deadliest massacres are committed not with firearms but with explosives, yet ammonia-based fertilisers are readily available across the world.

The development of firearms for the last 50 years has been as much as for sporting and target purposes as they have been for warfare purposes. There are large companies making wide varieties of firearms, with not a single sale to Military or Police, because their entire range is developed and manufatcured purely for target purposes.

From the Hagglund Bv206 to the Sikorsky Sea King. Tons of stuff was designed for warfare, or started out as a militaristic development towards it, but has gone on to benefit humanity.
Your boat sinks from under you and you won't say no when a Sea King comes over the horizon.
You get trapped in the mountains and you won't say no if you are taken in by a hunter who feeds you by way of shooting animals.

I posted two images of pistols further up in this thread. if you can't tell the difference between them, youre not looking hard enough.

[Thesh]

In regards to fully automatic weapons, there is one thing I don't remember being talked about in this thread, which usually gets brushed off as silly or paranoid. One argument for why civilians should be allowed fully automatic weapons is to defend themselves in the event of military coup, invasion, and civil war. While it doesn't seem likely now, we have no clue what the future may hold, and there may be situations where civilians need to be able to defend themselves, or join militias. In these situations, it is necessary that civilians have weapons that give them a fighting chance against the opposing forces.

[morriswalters]

What I've been arguing is the point of view that both by their nature and history, firearms are different then most machines that men use. This is because their development has been almost exclusively as machines designed for killing in warfare. Therefore I find comparisons of the type used in these arguments to be disingenuous. Guns were designed to kill, period.

You keep saying that like it matters.

Only in the context of the argument. You can't argue that a gun is analogous to a baseball bat or a butcher knife. It's not. Any number of machines are dangerous, however almost none of them were primarily developed to be dangerous. The danger is a secondary function, not related to their primary function. For instance in this conversation someone has pointed out that you can run over a man with a car if you wish to kill him. This is true. In point of fact more people have been killed in auto accidents this year then with guns in the US. But that doesn't make car ownership analogous to gun ownership. The primary function is to move people from point a to point b, the danger is a secondary function. The primary function for guns is to launch a projectile at high speed for the purpose of hitting a target, at velocities that do damage to the target. This is what it was designed to do, it's primary function. There is no secondary function that I am aware of. A gun is dangerous because it's designed to be dangerous. Which is what I'm arguing as a basis for controls.

[Glass Fractal]

In regards to fully automatic weapons, there is one thing I don't remember being talked about in this thread, which usually gets brushed off as silly or paranoid. One argument for why civilians should be allowed fully automatic weapons is to defend themselves in the event of military coup, invasion, and civil war. While it doesn't seem likely now, we have no clue what the future may hold, and there may be situations where civilians need to be able to defend themselves, or join militias. In these situations, it is necessary that civilians have weapons that give them a fighting chance against the opposing forces.

I don't know how true it is but I've heard that even the military doesn't make much use of the full auto setting on assault rifles because the result is generally that you miss a whole bunch of times, if anything the extra stray bullets would be even worse for civilian shooters.

[marky66]

What I've been arguing is the point of view that both by their nature and history, firearms are different then most machines that men use. This is because their development has been almost exclusively as machines designed for killing in warfare. Therefore I find comparisons of the type used in these arguments to be disingenuous. Guns were designed to kill, period.

You keep saying that like it matters.

Only in the context of the argument. You can't argue that a gun is analogous to a baseball bat or a butcher knife. It's not. Any number of machines are dangerous, however almost none of them were primarily developed to be dangerous. The danger is a secondary function, not related to their primary function. For instance in this conversation someone has pointed out that you can run over a man with a car if you wish to kill him. This is true. In point of fact more people have been killed in auto accidents this year then with guns in the US. But that doesn't make car ownership analogous to gun ownership. The primary function is to move people from point a to point b, the danger is a secondary function. The primary function for guns is to launch a projectile at high speed for the purpose of hitting a target, at velocities that do damage to the target. This is what it was designed to do, it's primary function. There is no secondary function that I am aware of. A gun is dangerous because it's designed to be dangerous. Which is what I'm arguing as a basis for controls.

The primary function of a drill is to spin a sharpened hunk of steel at high speeds for the purpose of ripping a hole in a target. Therefore it is dangerous, was designed to be dangerous, and should be banned?

[Shivahn]

What I've been arguing is the point of view that both by their nature and history, firearms are different then most machines that men use. This is because their development has been almost exclusively as machines designed for killing in warfare. Therefore I find comparisons of the type used in these arguments to be disingenuous. Guns were designed to kill, period.

You keep saying that like it matters.

Only in the context of the argument. You can't argue that a gun is analogous to a baseball bat or a butcher knife. It's not. Any number of machines are dangerous, however almost none of them were primarily developed to be dangerous. The danger is a secondary function, not related to their primary function. For instance in this conversation someone has pointed out that you can run over a man with a car if you wish to kill him. This is true. In point of fact more people have been killed in auto accidents this year then with guns in the US. But that doesn't make car ownership analogous to gun ownership. The primary function is to move people from point a to point b, the danger is a secondary function. The primary function for guns is to launch a projectile at high speed for the purpose of hitting a target, at velocities that do damage to the target. This is what it was designed to do, it's primary function. There is no secondary function that I am aware of. A gun is dangerous because it's designed to be dangerous. Which is what I'm arguing as a basis for controls.

The entire point is that it does not fucking matter. Do you know what the genetic fallacy is? Because you've just spent an entire post arguing that it's not fallacious to treat something's origins as though they're somehow relevant to its modern usage, and its effects. Whether the primary function of a chemical weapon is as a chemical weapon or a fertilizer doesn't magically mean we should treat it differently.

[morriswalters]

The primary function of a drill is to spin a sharpened hunk of steel at high speeds for the purpose of ripping a hole in a target. Therefore it is dangerous, was designed to be dangerous, and should be banned?

The entire point is that it does not fucking matter. Do you know what the genetic fallacy is? Because you've just spent an entire post arguing that it's not fallacious to treat something's origins as though they're somehow relevant to its modern usage, and its effects. Whether the primary function of a chemical weapon is as a chemical weapon or a fertilizer doesn't magically mean we should treat it differently.

What I object to is comparing guns to knives and baseball bats, or to restate it, to the myth that a gun is other than what it is. A machine designed to kill. This is not a bad thing. Hunters do the public a favor by culling populations that grow past the ability of the land to support. I have enjoyed the few time I have shot at a range. But as a personal preference I don't own a gun, I find that I can manage my life in such a fashion that I don't need it. I am however forced to live with the consequences of others decisions to own them, and with the evangelistic fervor that won't will never accept any limitations without regard to whether they will do any good or not.

To Shivahn
I do read the posts so you can assume that I understood the question, what you can take away from that is I disagree with your characterization of my post.

Pray to whatever Gods you believe in for the one Ohio Officer slain today and the other who was wounded during the performance of their duty.

[osiris32]

Pray to whatever Gods you believe in for the one Ohio Officer slain today and the other who was wounded during the performance of their duty.

Officer Down Memorial Page

The list grows longer every day. I have known fellow officers who have ended up on this website. A tragic end to a life committed to service.

[marky66]

The primary function of a drill is to spin a sharpened hunk of steel at high speeds for the purpose of ripping a hole in a target. Therefore it is dangerous, was designed to be dangerous, and should be banned?

The entire point is that it does not fucking matter. Do you know what the genetic fallacy is? Because you've just spent an entire post arguing that it's not fallacious to treat something's origins as though they're somehow relevant to its modern usage, and its effects. Whether the primary function of a chemical weapon is as a chemical weapon or a fertilizer doesn't magically mean we should treat it differently.

What I object to is comparing guns to knives and baseball bats, or to restate it, to the myth that a gun is other than what it is. A machine designed to kill. This is not a bad thing. Hunters do the public a favor by culling populations that grow past the ability of the land to support. I have enjoyed the few time I have shot at a range. But as a personal preference I don't own a gun, I find that I can manage my life in such a fashion that I don't need it. I am however forced to live with the consequences of others decisions to own them, and with the evangelistic fervor that won't will never accept any limitations without regard to whether they will do any good or not.

To Shivahn
I do read the posts so you can assume that I understood the question, what you can take away from that is I disagree with your characterization of my post.

Pray to whatever Gods you believe in for the one Ohio Officer slain today and the other who was wounded during the performance of their duty.

Let's say you are successful in your endeavor to limit or ban gun ownership. A month later I'll be saying: But as a matter of law I cannot own a gun. I find that there is no way to protect my life, family, and property in such a fashion that I don't need it. I am however forced to live with the consequences of others decisions to restrict my owning them, and with the evangelistic fervor that led to limitations without regard to whether they will do any good or not.

So why is your complaint more valid than mine?

[The Great Hippo]

To Shivahn
I do read the posts so you can assume that I understood the question, what you can take away from that is I disagree with your characterization of my post.

But Shivahn is correct; you are engaging in the genetic fallacy. Here's another example: "Cats originally evolved claws to attack and kill other animals. Since I oppose the murder of animals, I should declaw my cat." - "But your cat isn't going to use claws to kill other animals. He's a house cat. He never even encounters any other animals." - "Nevertheless, they were designed for killing, so I oppose them, and they need to be removed."

The only thing that is of relevance is what the cat is going to do with his claws. The 'history' behind the evolution of a cat's claws is irrelevant; what's important is what your cat is doing with them now. Similarly, the evolution of guns--in terms of production, design, and purpose--is not nearly as relevant to this discussion as how guns are actually being used.

If baseball bats are twice as dangerous as guns--but you support laws regulating guns over baseball bats on account of the fact that one was designed for killing and one was designed for a game--then you've completely missed the point.

[morriswalters]

How are guns being used? This is exactly the point.

From Wikipedias definition of genetic fallacy
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.[2]

I stated,

What I object to is comparing guns to knives and baseball bats, or to restate it, to the myth that a gun is other than what it is. A machine designed to kill.

The statement in bold is my claim.

Gun owners claim special privileges regarding gun ownership. Certainly the courts have ruled under the second amendment that the right is guaranteed.

The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If guns are not arms then are they subject to the Second amendment? You can't have it both ways. The founders noted the difference. In fact I would declare that you are employing the "genetic fallacy".

[The Great Hippo]

Perhaps our confusion is a result of the quote you provided?

What I object to is comparing guns to knives and baseball bats, or to restate it, to the myth that a gun is other than what it is. A machine designed to kill.

Whether or not guns are designed to kill is wholly irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not they are being used to kill, and to what extent they are being used. I gave the example of the baseball bat--baseball bats were not designed to kill. But if, for whatever strange, bizarre reason, baseball bats were used to kill twice as often as guns, would you oppose them? If the answer is yes, then you are being consistent, and this is probably just a misunderstanding. If your answer is no, then you are engaging in the genetic fallacy. How or why guns were designed has no relevance to a discussion of whether or not guns should be regulated.

Gun owners claim special privileges regarding gun ownership. Certainly the courts have ruled under the second amendment that the right is guaranteed.

The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If guns are not arms then are they subject to the Second amendment? You can't have it both ways. The founders noted the difference. In fact I would declare that you are employing the "genetic fallacy".

I'm not particularly concerned with what the founding fathers had to say on the issue of gun control. Regardless, 'arms' can have several meanings, and I don't think that you should describe me as 'unarmed' on account of me using steak-knives to kill people rather than machine guns.

[Thesh]

I don't know how true it is but I've heard that even the military doesn't make much use of the full auto setting on assault rifles because the result is generally that you miss a whole bunch of times, if anything the extra stray bullets would be even worse for civilian shooters.

Depends on the situation. At long range, burst/full auto is practically useless in a rifle, but still used with a machine gun for suppressive fire (for suppressive fire, full auto may be useful in a rifle as well). At close range, firing in bursts or full auto can be more effective than semi auto.

[morriswalters]

I'm not particularly concerned with what the founding fathers had to say on the issue of gun control. Regardless, 'arms' can have several meanings, and I don't think that you should describe me as 'unarmed' on account of me using steak-knives to kill people rather than machine guns.

Oh, okay then. So we have a constitutional right to bear steak knives. Or baseball bats. Or cars. Then can I go to court and claim that the government is infringing my right to bear cars by forcing me to be trained and licensed. I mean, I am going to use it for self defense if somebody assaults me on the highway, don't you see.[/Sarcasm] I'm not arguing that you can't be killed in other ways, I'm arguing that you can't compare guns to steak knives. Anything can be a weapon but a gun can't be anything other than a weapon. I don't make this distinction, the Constitution and the NRA does. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for the Second Amendment. (If you are not a US citizen then this argument is not relevant.)

[The Great Hippo]

I'm not arguing that you can't be killed in other ways, I'm arguing that you can't compare guns to steak knives. Anything can be a weapon but a gun can't be anything other than a weapon. I don't make this distinction, the Constitution and the NRA does. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for the Second Amendment. (If you are not a US citizen then this argument is not relevant.)

Even if the gun is unloaded? Is it still a weapon? What if I've loaded it with blanks--is it still a weapon? What if I've loaded it with anti-riot shells? Still a weapon? What if I've bricked it--rendered it incapable of ever firing bullets again--and just use it as a nifty paper-weight? Still a weapon?

If the root of your argument relies on the definition of 'arms' in the US Constitution, then that's fine--but 'arms' does not have to be synonymous with 'devices designed exclusively to kill'. As defined by the Constitution, arms are the means by which I can defend myself; the government has no right to render me defenseless. If the government tries to take away my sword--and I use my sword for self-defense--I could very easily see this being a fair argument. I'd likely have to prove that there is a very real threat, and that a sword is a functional means to address that threat, but I don't see that as being impossible.

Regardless, my interest in regulating guns doesn't stem from the 2nd amendment, or the NRA's arguments concerning it.

[EdgarJPublius]

\ Anything can be a weapon but a gun can't be anything other than a weapon.

What if it's a piece of sporting equipment, or a means of self support?

Even if it was true that a gun could magically only be used to kill people, the idea guns are inherently evil and universally without legitimate use would be ludicrous and ultimately baseless unless you reject the idea that the application of lethal force can ever be justified.

[morriswalters]

The root of my argument lies in the way people argue about guns. People who argue that guns in and of themselves are no more dangerous than knives or baseball bats. That's a a load of crap. Drop a a loaded 357 into a fire along with a baseball bat and a steak knife. Which one can kill you then? Drop a loaded revolver on the ground with a load under the hammer. Can I leave first?

Should guns be banned. No, can't be done. There are too many here. Should they be better regulated? I think so, but what do I know.

Even if the gun is unloaded? Is it still a weapon? What if I've loaded it with blanks--is it still a weapon? What if I've loaded it with anti-riot shells? Still a weapon? What if I've bricked it--rendered it incapable of ever firing bullets again--and just use it as a nifty paper-weight? Still a weapon?

Yes,yes,yes,no.

[EdgarJPublius]

Drop a a loaded 357 into a fire along with a baseball bat and a steak knife. Which one can kill you then?

Fire is dangerous, just being around one can be deadly, what if a spark flies out and ignites you're clothing? I think fire should be better regulated. As for dropping stuff in the fire? Come on, who knows what chemicals were processed into that bat, breathing the fumes could easily be more deadly than a bullet.

You are making a fundamentally bankrupt argument; that guns should be 'regulated better', a nebulous solution with absolutely no substance, in response to the perceived 'dangerousness' of firearms. At the same time though, you reject attempts to apply this same argument to other objects which are just as dangerous and in some cases have been proven to be even more dangerous because guns belong to some ill-defined category of objects that are malum in se while automobiles and knives (which can both trace their modern ancestry to weapons of war) are perfectly fine for no other reason than that you have decided they belong to some other arbitrary category.

[morriswalters]

You are making a fundamentally bankrupt argument; that guns should be 'regulated better', a nebulous solution with absolutely no substance, in response to the perceived 'dangerousness' of firearms. At the same time though, you reject attempts to apply this same argument to other objects which are just as dangerous and in some cases have been proven to be even more dangerous because guns belong to some ill-defined category of objects that are malum in se while automobiles and knives (which can both trace their modern ancestry to weapons of war) are perfectly fine for no other reason than that you have decided they belong to some other arbitrary category.

On the contrary, in your response you demonstrate exactly what I mean. The Constitution defined arms in a special way, not me. I simply object to the portrayal of guns as other than what they are. Follow the breadcrumbs. First breadcrumb. Second breadcrumb. Where you find this.

From the Wikipedia
A weapon is an instrument used with the aim of causing harm or death to human beings or other living creatures — and for inflicting damage upon civil or military infrastructure and life-sustaining natural resources. In essence, it is a tool made with the purpose of increasing the efficacy and efficiency of such activities as hunting, fighting, the committing of criminal acts, the preserving of law and order, and the waging of war in an offensive or defensive fashion.

Under this definition then almost anything can be a weapon. By extension, following your reasoning then almost anything can be seen as a protected object under the second amendment. Is that what you are saying? In any case, once a gun is loaded it is dangerous, inherently. The powder used in bullets is a Class 1.1D explosive. If you are a hand loader than I am sure you take special precautions, store your powder and primers safely, since if exposed to fire they can explode. If you keep a round chambered then it is subject to shock. See this.

[flippant]

In the hand of an person with ill intent, which is more dangerous, a car or a gun? Inside a house, the answer is a gun. Outside in say Times Square, or even just the highway, I would say it was the car, and the stuff you load a car with (sorry I mean fill) is a class 3 flammable liquid, and though not quite as volatile as gun powder there is certainly more of it available and in circulation.

You want to make the argument that guns are inherently more dangerous than knives or baseball bats and need specific rigorous regulation, but if you go down that road than you need to rigorously regulate anything than can be used like a gun (to repetitively kill or injure) also. Oklahoma City & 9/11 were both accomplished without the use of firearms or gunpowder. It's been stated that many gun owners use their guns for very peaceful purposes, many car owners use their cars for very peaceful purposes. Now compare the death rate of misuse between cars and guns. Which needs severe regulation and restriction? Which is the cause of 10's of thousands of deaths every year? Which kills more innocent people due to the owners intoxication or inattention to safety?

Dont regulate my gun ownership just because you don't play with them yourself and then justify with a "safety" concern.

[EdgarJPublius]

You are making a fundamentally bankrupt argument; that guns should be 'regulated better', a nebulous solution with absolutely no substance, in response to the perceived 'dangerousness' of firearms. At the same time though, you reject attempts to apply this same argument to other objects which are just as dangerous and in some cases have been proven to be even more dangerous because guns belong to some ill-defined category of objects that are malum in se while automobiles and knives (which can both trace their modern ancestry to weapons of war) are perfectly fine for no other reason than that you have decided they belong to some other arbitrary category.

On the contrary, in your response you demonstrate exactly what I mean. The Constitution defined arms in a special way, not me. I simply object to the portrayal of guns as other than what they are. Follow the breadcrumbs. First breadcrumb. Second breadcrumb. Where you find this.

From the Wikipedia
A weapon is an instrument used with the aim of causing harm or death to human beings or other living creatures — and for inflicting damage upon civil or military infrastructure and life-sustaining natural resources. In essence, it is a tool made with the purpose of increasing the efficacy and efficiency of such activities as hunting, fighting, the committing of criminal acts, the preserving of law and order, and the waging of war in an offensive or defensive fashion.

Under this definition then almost anything can be a weapon. By extension, following your reasoning then almost anything can be seen as a protected object under the second amendment. Is that what you are saying? In any case, once a gun is loaded it is dangerous, inherently. The powder used in bullets is a Class 1.1D explosive. If you are a hand loader than I am sure you take special precautions, store your powder and primers safely, since if exposed to fire they can explode. If you keep a round chambered then it is subject to shock. See this.

You are making claims about what I've said that don't actually have anything to do with the content of my post, or indeed reality in as much as it can be objectively observed.

Your claim that the U.S. Constitution defined 'arms' in any way is entirely false, no such definition exists within that document.

But that doesn't really matter as the U.S. Constitution is not of any particular relevance to this debate in general, or to my points specifically.

I never made any claim that anything should be 'protected', under the second amendment or otherwise. Contrariwise, you have repeatedly made the claim that guns should be singled out for some undefined 'regulation' above and beyond that which is applied to any other dangerous object for reasons that seem completely arbitrary.

[aoeu]

If you are going to have kids in a house with guns, the worst thing you can do is hide it from them or tell them its forbidden. They WILL find it. You should teach them the rules of firearms safety, how to safely operate the gun (inspect, safety, clear, load, disassemble, shoot, etc.), and you should allow them to operate under supervision on a regular basis so that they will not be curious about it.

No, you should keep it locked and hidden. I am scared of what will happen when your kid does get curious or your teenager gets dumped the first time.

As for locking up a gun, no I don't keep mine locked, for the same reason police don't keep locks on their holsters. Also, unless you have a safe that's too big to move, criminals are still going to take it at get into it. Until I have enough long guns that they are worth the cost, I'm not going to bother with one. Even then, I am still keeping my self defense weapons unlocked where I can get to them quickly.

That is a crime and would have you lose your license where I live.

Also, when you intend to shoot someone, your intent should not be to wound, to scare, to inflict pain on. Your intent should be to kill. The only time you should shoot someone is when that person is an immediate threat to your life (or the life of someone else). You don't aim for the leg, you don't aim for the weapon in his hand. You aim for the biggest part of the body that contains vital organs and major arteries, the chest. You shoot them until they drop to the ground.

Horrible advice. If somebody "storms your house with a knife", you don't shoot to kill.

[morriswalters]

You are making a fundamentally bankrupt argument; that guns should be 'regulated better', a nebulous solution with absolutely no substance, in response to the perceived 'dangerousness' of firearms.

Would you point me to where I said that. The below is as close as I can find.

Should guns be banned. No, can't be done. There are too many here. Should they be better regulated? I think so, but what do I know.

Before I quit for a while and go on to something else I'll recap what I've said.

I enjoy Shooting
I think a handgun ban is unworkable even if SCOTUS would let it happen
Guns are efficient killing machines
Comparing a steak knife or a baseball bat to a gun is ludicrous.
Guns are inherently dangerous, especially if loaded. Gun owners typically say all guns should be treated as loaded, it's safer.
SCOTUS has ruled that Governments can't put a ban on possessing handguns in the home. Thereby giving special status to handguns.

If I missed anything just tell me.
By the way I will probably get my concealed carry permit this year. I may or may not buy a 9mm. But just having the permit will make the friend who taught me to shoot nervous, he thinks I'm unstable. He may be right.

On that last post I agree with Thresh oddly enough. If you have kids make sure they understand guns, and if you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

[mmmcannibalism]

No, you should keep it locked and hidden. I am scared of what will happen when your kid does get curious or your teenager gets dumped the first time.

So kid not knowing gun is potentially dangerous and finding it is a better situation then kid knowing there is something dangerous(but not necessarily where it is at) and that he shouldn't touch it? Should you not tell your kid about cooking and hide the stove so he doesn't burn himself?

[aoeu]

So kid not knowing gun is potentially dangerous and finding it is a better situation then kid knowing there is something dangerous(but not necessarily where it is at) and that he shouldn't touch it? Should you not tell your kid about cooking and hide the stove so he doesn't burn himself?

The kid won't find a gun. He will find a locked box, with an unloaded gun inside. The key is in your pocket with your other keys or some other sure place. If you can't teach the kid to not go through your private stuff you couldn't teach gun safety.

I do not consider getting burns from a stove a risk for anyone's life.

[Zamfir]

So kid not knowing gun is potentially dangerous and finding it is a better situation then kid knowing there is something dangerous(but not necessarily where it is at) and that he shouldn't touch it? Should you not tell your kid about cooking and hide the stove so he doesn't burn himself?

It's not either/or. You can teach a kid about guns under supervision, then lock the guns so they cannot experiment without your supervision. But hoping that training alone will be enough to prevent accidents is a dangerous approach.

The big difference with a stove is warning: you can easily hurt yourself, but to do lasting damage you have to go through pain first. With a gun and ammunition, you can do lasting damage without any prior warning that you are on the wrong track. The closest thing to that I can think of in a kitchen is a turning over a pan of boiling oil for frying, and I would definitely not allow kids unsupervised in a kitchen with boiling oil.