Are handguns pointless?

[Bozo Erectus]

I don't approve of looters at all, but armed citizens would have dampened the enthusiasm of armed or unarmed looters for entering private property. I pity the looter that tries to loot my house. Even my kids know how to safely operate our firearms. Indeed, my 10 year old is one hell of a shot with his SKS.

Oh ok. I interpreted your original comment--

After a natural disaster if I have a gun but no food and you have a food supply but no gun........I have a food supply. That can be applied to many other supplies and services......

--to mean that in the event of a natural disaster, youd feel entitled to come take my supplies from me, because you have a gun and I dont.

I stand corrected then.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's more of an attitude where he's happy to punish looters, because it protects his society. But if he doesn't think his society can stop him, he's willing to become a predator.

It's remarkably honest, actually.

 

[mitsho]

Yes, they are pointless. My reasoning is Swiss:

In Switzerland we have a militia army. Every male of 18 has to enter the military for a 21 week recruitment school (and afterwards every so and so year 3 weeks of repetition course). Of course, every soldier gets his weapon, the Sturmgewehr (a rifle) and can/has to take it at home, together with a little ammunition*.
This means that nearly every Swiss family has or had (after your service, you can give it back) somewhere a rifle at home. And these are normal people who otherwise wouldn't have a weapon at home!
In the end that means that nearly every deadly crime, family drama, and sometimes also suicides etc. are done with this Sturmgewehr. I remember the story of a few years ago when a psycho did enter the parliament of Zug and shot quite a few mp's and other innocent people. With the sturmgewehr.

There aren't many bloody deeds in Switzerland, but it always makes me sad when these things occur. The rifle that should protect the Swiss kills more people every year and saves none.

A rifle at home doesn't bring security. and to those who now say that if there wasn't that rifle available, the people would just take something else, I answer: That may be true, but why make it easy for the men and women that want to kill another human being (even themselves)?

mfG mitsho

*the idea behind this is that in a case of war (I know, ) one could battle yourself to the barracks of your unit .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It's more of an attitude where he's happy to punish looters, because it protects his society. But if he doesn't think his society can stop him, he's willing to become a predator.

It's remarkably honest, actually.

Are you referring to what Norlamand said? Is that how you interpret his comments? Certainly the part of his original comment that I quoted can give that impression. I dunno, I'll leave it to him to clear it up once and for all.

Not referring necessarily specifically to Norlamand, but I gennerally get the impression that gun lovers take the sense of strength and empowerment they get from guns, and often get carried away and see themselves as a law unto themselves. They seem to see themselves as cop, judge, jury, executioner and victim, all rolled into one. Ive also noticed how theyre often the first to proclaim their patriotism, and the first to proclaim their willingness to fire on representatives of the US government if they disagree with it. Many of them seem to be expecting (and seem to be relishing the idea) being put under siege by the US government, like the Branch Davidians.

 

[bhsup]

b) you don´t have a gun and notice a burglar in your house: You will not go into an unnecessary confrontation (in case of owning a gun you will go into confrontation more likely), you play being either asleep and loose some property which can be replaced (you will even not loose money when you have an insurance)

Do you have a family? Would you take the risk of an intruder being a harmless burglar and let it just tip toe around your home, your daughter's room, your son's room, whether you have a gun or not? I certainly wouldn't. You have to protect your family from harm, which means you have to assume the worst about anyone who would break into your home in the middle of the night. I'm not suggesting shooting on sight as it may well be a drunken friend or neighbor being stupid, but you have to confront any such situation no matter what, and I'd rather do it armed than unarmed.

 

[IglooDame]

Do you have a family? Would you take the risk of an intruder being a harmless burglar and let it just tip toe around your home, your daughter's room, your son's room, whether you have a gun or not? I certainly wouldn't. You have to protect your family from harm, which means you have to assume the worst about anyone who would break into your home in the middle of the night. I'm not suggesting shooting on sight as it may well be a drunken friend or neighbor being stupid, but you have to confront any such situation no matter what, and I'd rather do it armed than unarmed.

No, batteryacid is simply willing to bet his life and that of his family's that the burglar won't be inclined to kill anyone in the house.

Personally, I wouldn't take that bet, but hey, I only bet where I have an unfair advantage anyway.

 

[Panzeh]

If you refuse to defend your stuff then it really isn't your stuff at all since people can come in and take it at will.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

No, batteryacid is simply willing to bet his life and that of his family's that the burglar won't be inclined to kill anyone in the house.

Personally, I wouldn't take that bet, but hey, I only bet where I have an unfair advantage anyway.

Like the time I bet a classmate that I would roll >5, and then used a twenty-sided die, turning my chances from 1/6 to 3/4...

Yeah, that's my kind of bet. (Although if I had thought about it, I would have used the tens die from a d100, which has faces reading 00, 10, 20, 30.. 90.)

 

[batteryacid]

What I meant is, that if you have a gun and encounter him, you will force him to make a desparate move in 100% of the cases, which is not the case otherwise

I saw a lot of documentaries abut security, gun industry etc. with interviews with burglars (some with about 100 thefts) and all af them said, that they never looked for confrontation but for a clean, simple theft - I overlooked the possibility that some of you seem to live in an area where looting happens - seems to be a different kind of situation there

The fact remains, that most murders are done by people you know (family, friends, where strong emotions are mixing in) and not by random invaders or thieves (at least not in the first world- I exclude here areas with serious internal problems and civil wars etc.), and in this case, a gun in the house is the worst thing you can have

With family at home: I read more about bad accidents involving weapons which were at home than about some thief who shot the whole family and then robbed the house

@ dices: you have to know the probabilites of things that can happen before you mean that you take more risk in having a gun at home than otherwise

@guns accidents: I was in the army for 9 months (Is duty here) .We were protecting the border against illegal immigrants (most of them we found were in really bad condition) and had therefore real munition and a really bad working cycle (means 4 times overnight duty in a week) and ca. every month a stupid gun accident happened.

The neighbour of a friend was shot by a Hunter (my friend was 1 m besides him)

@ death through burglars: Non

that makes 5-0 for my argumentation

@ Guns in the house and family: I would not feel well when my kid plays with some friends at home - even with separated gus and ammunition- such accidents happen all the time- not even speaking about teenagers with mixed up emotions and troubles at school.

 

[bhsup]

What I meant is, that if you have a gun and encounter him, you will force him to make a desparate move in 100% of the cases, which is not the case otherwise

I disagree with that. We're not forcing him/her to do anything of the sort. They can choose to calmly get on the floor in a prone position and put their hands out to their sides if they want. Any desperate move on their part is their decision based on the situation which they put themselves into by breaking into a home.

@ Guns in the house and family: I would not feel well when my kid plays with some friends at home - even with separated gus and ammunition- such accidents happen all the time- not even speaking about teenagers with mixed up emotions and troubles at school.

That's certainly your perogative to not have a gun in your home if you prefer, I'm not taking the approach that everyone should be required to have a gun in the home.

Personally, having grown up around guns, I think teaching kids about them early is the best way to avoid problems with them.

 

[IglooDame]

What I meant is, that if you have a gun and encounter him, you will force him to make a desparate move in 100% of the cases, which is not the case otherwise

I think you're oversimplifying tactical realities here.

I saw a lot of documentaries abut security, gun industry etc. with interviews with burglars (some with about 100 thefts) and all af them said, that they never looked for confrontation but for a clean, simple theft - I overlooked the possibility that some of you seem to live in an area where looting happens - seems to be a different kind of situation there

100% of burglars are not looking for a clean simple theft. Aside from which, not all home invasions are by burglars anyway.

The fact remains, that most murders are done by people you know (family, friends, where strong emotions are mixing in) and not by random invaders or thieves (at least not in the first world- I exclude here areas with serious internal problems and civil wars etc.), and in this case, a gun in the house is the worst thing you can have

Most murder victims recognize their murderer, it's true. But, many of those relationships are criminal enterprise ones - pusher/addict, pimp/prostitute, between gang members, etc. Not involving yourself in illegal businesses does far more to improve your odds of not being murdered than not owning a gun.

With family at home: I read more about bad accidents involving weapons which were at home than about some thief who shot the whole family and then robbed the house

You read more about it because the news media pushes such stories. How often do you read about someone pointing a gun at a would-be assailant and the assailant running off? That happens over a million times a year in the US, and the media hardly ever reports it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you referring to what Norlamand said? Is that how you interpret his comments? Certainly the part of his original comment that I quoted can give that impression. I dunno, I'll leave it to him to clear it up once and for all.

Not referring necessarily specifically to Norlamand, but I gennerally get the impression that gun lovers take the sense of strength and empowerment they get from guns, and often get carried away and see themselves as a law unto themselves. They seem to see themselves as cop, judge, jury, executioner and victim, all rolled into one. Ive also noticed how theyre often the first to proclaim their patriotism, and the first to proclaim their willingness to fire on representatives of the US government if they disagree with it. Many of them seem to be expecting (and seem to be relishing the idea) being put under siege by the US government, like the Branch Davidians.

Oh, his comments are quite scary. He basically just said that he'd be willing to shoot and loot people if times got tough. Now, that's true for many people, but I fear that someone who's that open about it won't wait until times are actually tough.

Anyway, owning a gun is rather empowering. Much like how God must feel when He's holding a gun.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Anyway, owning a gun is rather empowering. Much like how God must feel when He's holding a gun.

I know, I think thats why they make me ill. For me, guns are like heroin: I know for a fact that Id love heroin if I did it, which is why I always stayed away from it. Same thing with guns. Put a gun in my hand and let me shoot a few rounds, and Id be hooked for life. Heroin = pleasure, no pain. Guns = violence, power.

 

[batteryacid]

I googled a bit about guns and gun accidents to bring some facts in:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf

In 2002, nearly 8 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, intentional, and suicide-related shootings

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.

From 1999 through 2002, an average of 960 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its very simple: if theres no gun in the home, the chances of the child shooting himself or a friend are virtually zero. Place a gun in the home, and the chances go up considerably, Id imagine.

 

[IglooDame]

I googled a bit about guns and gun accidents to bring some facts in:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf

Just out of curiosity, how would you respond if I posted 'facts' taken off the NRA's website?

Because the Brady Campaign is pretty much the same as the NRA, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

[batteryacid]

Just out of curiosity, how would you respond if I posted 'facts' taken off the NRA's website?

Because the Brady Campaign is pretty much the same as the NRA, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

It seems you didn´t look into this short report , because it simply summarises statistics from sources like the police, the federal trade bureau, national archives, national center for injury prevention and control, the UN Office on drugs and crime, the FBI uniform crime report and scientific reports, to name some - so reliable sources I would say, and not propaganda.

I couldn´t find an scientific reports or statistical data which would back up the position that guns are useful on the NRA homepage- and I think they would put it on front if such reports would exist

 

[IglooDame]

It seems you din´t look into this short report , because it simply summarises statistics from sources like the police, the federal trade bureau, national archives, national center for injury prevention and control, the UN Office on drugs and crime, the FBI uniform crime report and scientific reports, to name some - so reliable sources I would say, and not propaganda.

I have looked into that short report, and like pretty much everything else on the Brady Campaign's website (and to be fair, like most everything on the NRA's website), they cherry-pick statistics, use leading terminology, and sidestep counterarguments in their little reports.

But what the heck, I've got a few minutes to kill:

In 2002, nearly 8 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday

By "killed with guns" they're somewhat counterintuitively including suicides (~3 out of the 8) homicides (~5 out of 8) and accidents (.4 out of 8), and I think most people would think that 17, 18, 19 year olds are a far different circumstance than children under 16 or 15. If you drop it to 14 and under (the stats page only goes in five-year age increments) you get about 1.2 per day for all categories.

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, intentional, and suicide-related shootings

Possibly apples and oranges - gun used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting, vs guns used anywhere (not just in homes) in criminal, "intentional" (does 'intentional' include self-defense?), and suicide shootings. Though I note that the author of the study they quote (Kellerman) is the one that originated the fundamentally flawed "43 times more likely to shoot a loved one" study.

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.

We've already discussed this one in this thread. And BradyCampaign's source? That Kellerman fellow again.

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.

I'm not sure where they're getting this one, the verdict on any link of gun ownership to suicide is still out. In any case, the source for this nugget is our buddy Mr. Kellerman.

From 1999 through 2002, an average of 960 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.

Does "teenagers" still include up through 19 year olds?

But one gets much more context by actually going to CDC's injury stats site and perusing these numbers in context. As far as accidents go, drownings remain ahead of firearms in all age groups (to say nothing of motor vehicles). In suicides, it looks like firearms make up roughly half the total number, with suffocation next up with a third or thereabouts.

 

[Truronian]

I'm gonna go with handguns are useful:

Good handgun deaths:
Shannon
Ana-Lucia

Bad handgun deaths:
Libby

I think its quite clear that the pro outweigh the cons

Seriously though, I think handguns have their uses (protection, law enforcement) although whether they are a fundemental human right is debateable.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm gonna go with handguns are useful:

Good handgun deaths:
Shannon
Ana-Lucia

Bad handgun deaths:
Libby

Now see, I liked Ana-Lucia. Also remember that Sawyer shot a polar bear that was threatening everyone with a ahndgun, but he also tried and failed to mercy-kill Agent Mars with the same gun.