Are handguns pointless?

[North King]

Ummm, geurilla warfare?

Apparently you didn't notice the ""?

In any case, guerilla warfare only works when a substantial amount of the population supports it, and when the perpetrators can hide. Which is definitely getting harder in the modern world. Surveillance and such are easier and easier.

Let's just say, I'm not too confident that the people of an industrialized nation can carry out guerilla war against the technologically advanced army of a government which has the help of spy sattelites.

 

[Tulkas12]

Apparently you didn't notice the ""?

In any case, guerilla warfare only works when a substantial amount of the population supports it, and when the perpetrators can hide. Which is definitely getting harder in the modern world. Surveillance and such are easier and easier.

Let's just say, I'm not too confident that the people of an industrialized nation can carry out guerilla war against the technologically advanced army of a government which has the help of spy sattelites.

Yea, I missed the smilie, my bad. Btw, a very substantial part of the population is assumed in the case of a civil war.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've been the victim of mugging three times in my life. None of them had guns, and I survived each encounter. I don't know if them having guns would have changed things, but it certainly could have for one of the encounters.

And until someone can give statistics that show that Canadian criminals have the same density of guns that American criminals do, I'll feel our laws also keep guns out of the hands of the criminals. I know the criminals can get guns, but it's tougher here. So the concentration is lower, and the more desperate criminals are less likely to be able to afford a gun.

I still think that there should be more freedom to own guns, but that guns must be insured vs. damages the gun causes. Then let the insurance rates deter people from owning guns. Just like cars.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Let's just say, I'm not too confident that the people of an industrialized nation can carry out guerilla war against the technologically advanced army of a government which has the help of spy sattelites.

Of course they can't, just ask Iraq. Or maybe Iraq is not too industrialized?

 

[Sidhe]

Apparently you didn't notice the ""?

In any case, guerilla warfare only works when a substantial amount of the population supports it, and when the perpetrators can hide. Which is definitely getting harder in the modern world. Surveillance and such are easier and easier.

Let's just say, I'm not too confident that the people of an industrialized nation can carry out guerilla war against the technologically advanced army of a government which has the help of spy sattelites.

Yeah but where is Osamah these days, and can you track his guerrilas effectively, Guerilla warfare has entered the 21st century too, with a home made bomb and massive financial backing.

 

[IglooDame]

Hate to be a partykiller, but that link doesn't say they're wrong, only that their evidence is wrong.

True enough. But, the data does not appear to support a conclusion that a gun is more likely (much less 43 times more likely) to kill a family member than an unknown assailant. Later down (following the bouncing link) we get:

Defensive uses of guns are both effective in preventing injury and more common than aggressive uses, in the home or outside it. The average American household is unlikely to experience a serious gun victimization or to use a gun defensively, but the latter is far more likely than the former. In light of the flaws and weak associations of case-control research, currently available data do not provide a sound empirical basis for recommending to the average American that he or she not keep a gun in the home.

I am not out to prove that owning a gun is always a good idea - obviously, there are people that should not. However, the generality that anyone concerned about killing a relative or friend should not own a gun is *ahem* "unproven".

 

[North King]

Yeah but where is Osamah these days, and can you track his guerrilas effectively, Guerilla warfare has entered the 21st century too, with a home made bomb and massive financial backing.

Right, that "War on Terror" dealie. Well, let's just say, it's not a major threat to the US gov't (no matter what some might try to say, I have yet to see a terrorist nation about to take control of ours, or come close...), and it's no suprise they don't invest resources to fight it effectively. A civil war, on the other hand...

 

[GinandTonic]

It is a very important right over here. Any trampling of it wories me, I'll take the negatives it comes with for the overall positive it instills. I have had personal experience with gun tradgedies so I can say I would stick by my opinion.

Have to chalk this one up to cultural difference I guess. I understand you lot see it as a right and dont want that messed with, but it is just inexplicable from over here.

People arguing that since a home defence handgun isnt 43 times as likly to kill a relation/ friend as a criminal but only 12 times as likly that makes them ok just seems freaky to me. And what I really dont understand is why you need a HANDgun for home defence, surely since it is in your home the small/ concealable nature only benefits those who would criminally conceal them.

 

[Tulkas12]

Right, that "War on Terror" dealie. Well, let's just say, it's not a major threat to the US gov't (no matter what some might try to say, I have yet to see a terrorist nation about to take control of ours, or come close...), and it's no suprise they don't invest resources to fight it effectively. A civil war, on the other hand...

Actually I must disagree with you here, the targeting of the WTC was an economic attack. It was very dangerous considering the viability of the economy at the tiem. Remember they shut down the stock market for a week to avoid the ensuing fallout that had already begun around the world. They will target economic targets again and if the econmies faulter enough the world becomes very dangerous very fast. It could upset the balance we all have come to enjoy, and of course that was their stated goal, as part of Al-qeada's long term goal of re-establishing the caliphate of Islam.

 

[IglooDame]

True it's nowhere near as high as 43:1, but looking at the numbers in your link it's still 12:9 unintentional deaths to self defense homicides. Not very conclusive given the small numbers involved, but I'm still less than convinced the guns are actually beneficial.

They're essentially just taking the study at face value when they come up with 12:9, I think. Farther on they remove even that as a valid ratio.

 

[Tulkas12]

Have to chalk this one up to cultural difference I guess. I understand you lot see it as a right and dont want that messed with, but it is just inexplicable from over here.

People arguing that since a home defence handgun isnt 43 times as likly to kill a relation/ friend as a criminal but only 12 times as likly that makes them ok just seems freaky to me. And what I really dont understand is why you need a HANDgun for home defence, surely since it is in your home the small/ concealable nature only benefits those who would criminally conceal them.

Yea, its just a difference, your point is well taken, but irrelevant to me.

 

[North King]

Actually I must disagree with you here, the targeting of the WTC was an economic attack. It was very dangerous considering the viability of the economy at the tiem. Remember they shut down the stock market for a week to avoid the ensuing fallout that had already begun around the world. They will target economic targets again and if the econmies faulter enough the world becomes very dangerous very fast. It could upset the balance we all have come to enjoy, and of course that was their stated goal, as part of Al-qeada's long term goal of re-establishing the caliphate of Islam.

It is patently ridiculous to claim that terrorists have ever threatened the territorial integrity of the USA, and I won't bother to argue against it.

 

[IglooDame]

Have to chalk this one up to cultural difference I guess. I understand you lot see it as a right and dont want that messed with, but it is just inexplicable from over here.

People arguing that since a home defence handgun isnt 43 times as likly to kill a relation/ friend as a criminal but only 12 times as likly that makes them ok just seems freaky to me. And what I really dont understand is why you need a HANDgun for home defence, surely since it is in your home the small/ concealable nature only benefits those who would criminally conceal them.

For the most part, a shotgun is better than a handgun from a home-defense standpoint - easier to aim under stress, less wall penetration, larger impact area.

Handguns come into their own for concealed carry, whether defensive or offensive.

 

[Sidhe]

Right, that "War on Terror" dealie. Well, let's just say, it's not a major threat to the US gov't (no matter what some might try to say, I have yet to see a terrorist nation about to take control of ours, or come close...), and it's no suprise they don't invest resources to fight it effectively. A civil war, on the other hand...

I think your moving the goal posts on what terrorism wants now, it's an end to US infulence in the Middle East and desired intent to disrupt any peace process it trys to implement, by fear and creating discension and civil strife, it's doing OK I'd say. Invading the US isn't and no doubt never will be an issue, making you fear the insidious web of an almost invisible menace is terrorisms goal. Best way to deal with terrorism is to fight it without war, with intelligence, to limit the hate and fear it tries to instigate, not to feed it. This seems very difficult for people to grasp though.

 

[Tulkas12]

It is patently ridiculous to claim that terrorists have ever threatened the territorial integrity of the USA, and I won't bother to argue against it.

It would be if that was what I said, what I did say was they can/did and want to threaten the economic stability of the world. The easiest attacks to be made on this stability is US businesses. If they are succesful in full the jeopardy of the times would increase in factors. If you think policies are ugly now wait till the next depression, thats when the real ugliness comes.

 

[North King]

I think your moving the goal posts on what terrorism wants now, it's an end to US infulence in the Middle East and desired intent to disrupt any peace process it trys to implement, by fear and creating discension and civil strife, it's doing OK I'd say. Invading the US isn't and no doubt never will be an issue, making you fear the insidious web of an almost invisible menace is terrorisms goal. Best way to deal with terrorism is to fight it without war, with intelligence, to limit the hate and fear it tries to instigate, not to feed it. This seems very difficult for people to grasp though.

You're silly. It was you who brought up terrorism in response to my point about civil war. That said, I agree with you, but this is off topic...

 

[Sidhe]

You're silly. It was you who brought up terrorism in response to my point about civil war. That said, I agree with you, but this is off topic...

Your right, I should save this discussion for a topic where it is relevant, I apologise.

 

[IglooDame]

Well the initial premise is wrong.

Yes Igloo dude has won the internet, Kudos, what do you plan to do now, win the galaxy or maybe try out for the universe, or you could keep it simple and go for Earth, all hail Igloo dude master of the internet. Who shall I kill for you first master

Oh and for the record, thanks for the thought, but I do my own killin'.

 

[Shylock]

Of course they are pointless. Forming a viable civilian revolution is silly, when the vaunted handguns run into tanks.

Get some Spearmen

 

[emzie]

And until someone can give statistics that show that Canadian criminals have the same density of guns that American criminals do, I'll feel our laws also keep guns out of the hands of the criminals. I know the criminals can get guns, but it's tougher here. So the concentration is lower, and the more desperate criminals are less likely to be able to afford a gun.

This has little to do with the laws here. It's not hard at all to move anything across the boarder. By far, the lack of gun crime in Canada has more to do with culture, poverty differences and to a lesser extent, having 1/10th the population of the states.

Take Toronto (2.5 Million) for example: "Of 78 murders last year (which is absurdly low compared to American cities of the same size), 52 were gun-related" or 66% Link

In an American city of the same size (Chicago at 2.8 million): 448 Murders of which 74% were gun-related homicides. link.

The rate in Canada is seemingly on the increase as well. It's the vary fact that, per capita, there are 4 times as many murders in the States that give us lower numbers. link The actual weapon used seems to be at a similar (slightly favouring guns in the States) ratio.