Some facts about guns in the US

[pjdude1219]

It is not the "how many bullets do you need to kill a deer" that owners of the weapon consider, it is the "now that I am out in the middle of nowhere hunting I don't want to have to re-load a clumsy single shot if I should run into a predator that wants my deer" that makes owning this style weapon handy or desirable

and a simple bolt action rifle with a 5 or 6 round mag is more than enough for such a need.

 

[iceaura]

And I know it bugs you that people fixate on this part of the gun culture, but for the rest of us it is the most prominent voice in the debate.

If you want to focus on the crazy as the most prominent voice in the debate (at least, in opposition to gun control legislation), that's one thing. If the gun control debate were largely between crazy and sane, as so many US political debates seem to be, that would be one thing.

Your actual position, however, is illustrated thus:

And for gun owners and advocates like yourself, I can see how our focus on this cohort is frustrating. But, to the one, they have extraordinary influence over the public policy discussion, and, to the other, it doesn't surprise me when, given a choice, a gun owner like yourself chooses to side with these grotesquely irresponsible gun owners
- - -
Okay, we get it, you're a "responsible gun owner", but you're also ferociously advocating for these horribly irresponsible, dangerous, menace-to-society gun owners and advocates.
- - - -
And that's kind of sad, actually, because while I suspect you would say it's irresponsible gun ownership, I am also aware that in your outlook such acts should not bear any penalties, and not even if that round strikes a person
- - - -
Well, I can tell you for certain that in my opinion this is not a "responsible gun owner"; unfortunately, from our prior discussions on the subject, I cannot discern whether or not you find losing track of shots fired and shooting other people's homes irresponsible or not.
- - - -
And part of the functional problem that remains between the idyllic gun culture you describe and the menacing gun culture people object to is that, given a choice, you will support the menace.
- - - - -
The few liberals who are also gun owners that I know don't follow your path. Hell, the one who owned an assault rifle agrees that the things should be illegal, and only had one because he could. One of my friends got rid of his gun after he realized that he didn't really need it, since his martial arts training made him a walking lethal weapon, and anyone who wanted to kill him could do so with a rifle from longer range, and the nine millimeter handgun would do him absolutely no good. The other scaled down to one handgun and a shotgun when he got engaged
- - -
So it's true; I don't understand why you, for instance, advocate for such extreme irresponsibility. But the "gun culture" you describe sounds a lot more like the myth of responsible gun ownership I learned about when I was a child and have never managed to witness.

I'm going to confine myself to three simple, and I hope illustrative, comments on that: 1) I have never owned a gun, of any kind. I have posted that several times on this forum, including in direct responses to you in threads I am sure you were reading. 2) I have several times advocated for holding gun owners accountable for their "accidents" and irresponsible employments, and frequently made the point that the gun owners I talk to agree with me and I with them in this matter, and even the members of the NRA nationally poll generally on the side of the angels there. 3) The position that deluded menace dominates the public debate on both sides of this issue (almost uniquely, in US political discourse) is not advocacy for the delusion or the menace on either side.

 

[pjdude1219]

Patience is perhaps a constant when I hunt. I never chamber more than one round, and I wait for the best shot to present it's self.
I never even load the weapon if i've had a drink. Weapons are intended to be deadly, and I take that seriously. But, then again, i ain't really mainstream in anything that I do.
I resent the "gun control" loonies, because in their quest to go after the folks that I don't even know, they would trample my rights as well.

you mean your made up rights that didn't exist until 40 years ago when the NRA made them up?

and plus you've claimed to be a responsible gun owner but freely admited to being perfectly willing to commit a crime using your gun. at the very least you've copt to assault. so were to take your word that people like you would be responsible but by your own admission your not.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

and a simple bolt action rifle with a 5 or 6 round mag is more than enough for such a need.

Not necessarily
you are making assumptions without having been the object of desire for a charging bear or wild boar
neither of which to you really want to stand around and try to talk reason to

Even WITH a large clip and a semi-auto rifle I nearly lost my life. (M-16 vs Big Bad Bear)

I would have preferred a larger caliber as well as a larger clip in that particular situation, but I used what I had

you mean your made up rights that didn't exist until 40 years ago when the NRA made them up?

assumption based upon ignorance
there is no proof that this comment is legitimate

we've already discussed this
i've already looked through the law library and case histories on line that I found

and you never presented proof positive of this assertion
therefore it is a troll comment

 

[pjdude1219]

If you want to focus on the crazy as the most prominent voice in the debate (at least, in opposition to gun control legislation), that's one thing. If the gun control debate were largely between crazy and sane, as so many US political debates seem to be, that would be one thing.

Your actual position, however, is illustrated thus:



I'm going to confine myself to three simple, and I hope illustrative, comments on that: 1) I have never owned a gun, of any kind. I have posted that several times on this forum, including in direct responses to you in threads I am sure you were reading. 2) I have several times advocated for holding gun owners accountable for their "accidents" and irresponsible employments, and frequently made the point that the gun owners I talk to agree with me and I with them in this matter, and even the members of the NRA nationally poll generally on the side of the angels there. 3) The position that deluded menace dominates the public debate on both sides of this issue (almost uniquely, in US political discourse) is not advocacy for the delusion or the menace on either side.

the "responsible" gun owners your defending are like sculpter here. who admits if he was mugged would turn around and shoot the guy in the back which if you'll note is criminal. has implied if he ever met me he'd kill me. so no one side is crazy and its the one you've repeatedly defended.

 

[pjdude1219]

Not necessarily
you are making assumptions without having been the object of desire for a charging bear or wild boar
neither of which to you really want to stand around and try to talk reason to

Even WITH a large clip and a semi-auto rifle I nearly lost my life. (M-16 vs Big Bad Bear)

first off if a bear or boar is charging you you already screwed up and weren't paying attention to what's happening around you. the best defense isn't a gun. its paying attention. and quite frankly given the average bear and your attitudes its a loss that you won that.

I would have preferred a larger caliber as well as a larger clip in that particular situation, but I used what I had

assumption based upon ignorance
there is no proof that this comment is legitimate

we've already discussed this
i've already looked through the law library and case histories on line that I found

so than i guess you didn't understand them. the first supreme court case that presented your view point was heller. that you misinterpted previous one's to suit your needs is not really my issue.

and you never presented proof positive of this assertion
therefore it is a troll comment

so i need to post evidence to disprove your unproven lie? that should be noted you have yet to provide any proof for.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

first off if a bear or boar is charging you you already screwed up and weren't paying attention to what's happening around you. the best defense isn't a gun. its paying attention.

it just so happens that WE WERE paying attention, it was the BEAR who wasn't paying attention.
I was on duty training in the military.
the bear got surprised even though we were TRYING to avoid it

and quite frankly given the average bear and your attitudes its a loss that you won that.

troll comment
not relevant

so than i guess you didn't understand them.

personal conjecture not based upon evidence

that you misinterpted previous one's to suit your needs is not really my issue.

and, of course, you can provide all these for review?
Just because you don't like what you hear doesn't mean it is any less true
our last encounter you made this same claim and you've YET to provide proof of comment
therefore this is just continual TROLLING

so i need to post evidence to disprove your unproven lie? that should be noted you have yet to provide any proof for.

and what did I lie about?
YOU NEVER DID post links to me showing or proving your assertions of ANY case supporting your comment about "that you misinterpted previous one's to suit your needs" NOR did you find any links or proof from a reputable source (like a law library) that showed a law decision that commented that GUNS are NOT a constitutional right

in the past, you claimed this to me and you have YET to prove it
considering you simply just took up the same argument without proof, then you are TROLLING

still no lie there, pj. sorry

EDIT: and I am not going to debate back and forth unless you can provide PROOF from a reputable source that is NOT A BLOG, or other biased web-site.

find the decision in a LAW LIBRARY and show me what I missed, please
or shut up and stop trolling

 

[kx000]

Guns are just another prickly cactus. I guess it's the mind that must go wild for the violence to occur.

 

[Kittamaru]

Not necessarily
you are making assumptions without having been the object of desire for a charging bear or wild boar
neither of which to you really want to stand around and try to talk reason to

Even WITH a large clip and a semi-auto rifle I nearly lost my life. (M-16 vs Big Bad Bear)

Actually... that's more BECAUSE you were using an M-16 - the NATO 5.56 x 40 round is... well, really not all that big OR powerful - it imparts about 1,767 joules of energy into the target. By compare, your standard hunting rifle, a 7.62 x 63 .30-06 Springfield for example, imparts upwards of 2,800 joules... and because it's a much larger round, it "hits" harder, leaves a larger permanent cavity, and generally does more damage. I would bet that two or three well placed shots from a 30-06 would have dropped that bear easily - how many shots did you put into it with the M-16, and how many of them hit vital or semi-vital locations?

EDIT - ah, that's why - military, out on training. Fair enough

Heck, I would wager my 1911 Colt firing a good JHP+P ammo would do the job as well... those rounds put some mighty nice holes in soft targets... and bears don't typically wear body armor A double tap of that into the bears chest cavity and I doubt it'd have too much fight left... and that leaves me with plenty of rounds to spare.

The alternative, of course, would be to hit the head... but I think you'd want an FMJ to ensure you penetrate the skull, and the head a much smaller target than the chest, so you are more likely to miss.

I would have preferred a larger caliber as well as a larger clip in that particular situation, but I used what I had

This is why, whenever I hunted with my Grandfather, he had his .357 Magnum and I had his m1911 Colt as sidearms - much easier to use in an "emergency" situation, and quick to get off two or three high-power rounds.

EDIT - Ah, I see Captain - you were on a military exercise. Then, yeah, you're probably all too familiar with the, hm, shortcomings of the 5.56 round

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I would bet that two or three well placed shots from a 30-06 would have dropped that bear easily - how many shots did you put into it with the M-16, and how many of them hit vital or semi-vital locations?

EDIT - ah, that's why - military, out on training. Fair enough

I emptied a ten round clip into him... hit him every time, but there were several non vital shots including extremity through-and-through
eventually a sniper brought him down with a head-shot.
yep! the larger caliber hunting rounds are MUCH more effective.
the .223 is not bad for hunting deer, but I prefer either my .308, 30.06 or my .50 cal Black Powder Minie ball, sabot slug etc

EDIT- SMALL deer like in central and southern/southeast US

The alternative, of course, would be to hit the head... but I think you'd want an FMJ to ensure you penetrate the skull, and the head a much smaller target than the chest, so you are more likely to miss.

This is why, whenever I hunted with my Grandfather, he had his .357 Magnum and I had his m1911 Colt as sidearms - much easier to use in an "emergency" situation, and quick to get off two or three high-power rounds.

EDIT - Ah, I see Captain - you were on a military exercise. Then, yeah, you're probably all too familiar with the, hm, shortcomings of the 5.56 round

usually I keep my .45 (Army Single Action revolver with either black powder or modern smokeless) or .357 on me when hunting,
and normally I also carry an M-9 with me in the military, but this is when I was lower on the totem pole, and I did not have a sidearm... just the M-16

and like you said... I am ALL too familiar with the shortcomings of the 5.56

that was one heck of a poignant reminder of the shortcomings though!

EDIT - Kittamaru: would LOVE to carry a 1911! one of my fav. weapons ever. always went bang, like my army colt.
used to argue and try to get one in the military whenever I could... i preferred it over the M-9 9mm
you have any PICS of your .357 or Grandpa's 1911? PM them to me!
I'll dig up the .38/,357 snub nose police special I have and the army colt pics

 

[Tiassa]

Asking the Obvious Questions

Asking the Obvious Questions

E. J. Montini, of the Arizona Republic:

On Tuesday afternoon, not long after the news of the shooting went public a man left a message on my voicemail saying, "Come on, Montini. What's taking you so long? Here's yet another opportunity for you to spread your anti-gun hatred. It's another chance for you to try to rob us of our Second Amendment Rights. And even better – because that's how (expletives) like you are – you can use the death of a man and the trauma of a child to spew your (expletive). Don't disappoint me.'"

Okay, I won't.

Not because anything the caller said was true, but because I've heard it all before.

For some people, the way to cut off any discussion of common sense gun control is to demean anyone who wants to bring up the topic.​

And to that, he's got a point. But more important than the predictable excrement from the degenerates of the American Homicide Cult, are the actual issues affecting life and death:

We should ask those uncomfortable questions now. Before anything like this happens again. Arizona law allows a minor to possess a weapon if accompanied by a parent, guardian or an instructor. But this type of weapon?

It's time we asked ourselves:

Why would a shooting range allow a kid to handle an automatic weapon? Why would a parent? And, most importantly, why would a state?​

And those are fine questions. Well, at least for anyone who isn't going to bawl about the nanny state every time someone suggests we should actually do something as a society to prevent and discourage accidental homicides and injuries caused by guns.

And for those bawling paranoiacs? Perhaps it's time to admit that it really isn't about guns, but killing other people.
____________________

Notes:

Montini, E. J. "Why do we allow a child to handle an Uzi?" Arizona Republic. August 28, 2014. AZCentral.com. August 28, 2014. http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmo...ent-shooting-range-arizona-uzi-girl/14685785/

 

[Kittamaru]

I emptied a ten round clip into him... hit him every time, but there were several non vital shots including extremity through-and-through
eventually a sniper brought him down with a head-shot.
yep! the larger caliber hunting rounds are MUCH more effective.
the .223 is not bad for hunting deer, but I prefer either my .308, 30.06 or my .50 cal Black Powder Minie ball, sabot slug etc

EDIT- SMALL deer like in central and southern/southeast US


usually I keep my .45 (Army Single Action revolver with either black powder or modern smokeless) or .357 on me when hunting,
and normally I also carry an M-9 with me in the military, but this is when I was lower on the totem pole, and I did not have a sidearm... just the M-16

and like you said... I am ALL too familiar with the shortcomings of the 5.56

that was one heck of a poignant reminder of the shortcomings though!

EDIT - Kittamaru: would LOVE to carry a 1911! one of my fav. weapons ever. always went bang, like my army colt.
used to argue and try to get one in the military whenever I could... i preferred it over the M-9 9mm
you have any PICS of your .357 or Grandpa's 1911? PM them to me!
I'll dig up the .38/,357 snub nose police special I have and the army colt pics

*grins* The .357 I have at my mothers house (she has a gun safe, and I don't want to keep a firearm in our townhouse since we dont' have a safe) - the m1911 I have to ask, but I think my uncle may have taken it after my Grandfather passed away. I'll grab pics ASAP for ya (at work atm)

Always bugs me every time the military comes up to trials for a new weapon and they insist on keeping with the 556... I just... augh. AK47 ain't a pretty gun, but my GOD if it isn't damned effective... the 7.62 packs a punch!

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

*grins* The .357 I have at my mothers house (she has a gun safe, and I don't want to keep a firearm in our townhouse since we dont' have a safe) - the m1911 I have to ask, but I think my uncle may have taken it after my Grandfather passed away. I'll grab pics ASAP for ya (at work atm)

COOL! and THANKS!
I can understand ya gotta work...
I will dig up pics of my guns as well...

Always bugs me every time the military comes up to trials for a new weapon and they insist on keeping with the 556... I just... augh. AK47 ain't a pretty gun, but my GOD if it isn't damned effective... the 7.62 packs a punch!

I completely agree!
I prefer the AK-47 over the M-16, ESPECIALLY when the environment is dusty, dirty and field conditions!
I carried the AK when deployed to Saudi and Afghanistan, as well as every other time that I could.
it wasn't always easy getting one, or getting permission, but I always tried my best...
the selling point was always the same: it goes BANG when you need it to and as we were forward, we could pick up ammo from the hostiles and needed less supplies
you can practically mud-wrestle with the thing and then use it... gotta love THAT part, right?

although I DO love the accuracy of the M-16 over distances... I have/do/will likely always prefer the AK-47 for the simple reasons above

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Perhaps it's time to admit that it really isn't about guns, but killing other people.

IMHO - THIS is the absolute truth!

and this is what I will always believe is the CORE PROBLEM that should be addressed

 

[Kittamaru]

Yep... the M16 has much, much tighter tolerances than the AK, making it far more accurate at range, but God help ya if you get some sand in the barrel... or the mechanism... or the clip... or on the paint job... finicky as hell that gun is...

I actually rather liked the FN SCAR-H... nice all around gun... dunno why we stuck with the M16 *shrug* Hell, if we REALLY wanted to stick with 5.56... the HK416 is a beautiful gun!

but, i'm slowly getting off topic here XD

 

[sculptor]

Ok, maybe I'm a tad older?, for me, it was the m14, 7.64 x 51... What a sweet weapon, I loved the touch and feel of her. We never missed at 400 meters and she could reach out effectively far beyond that. At 2800fps, the round wasn't much slower than the win mag.
I was really sad when they told me that they were going to cut them up after switching to that ugly toy m16.

Please post the pix in here guys

 

[Kittamaru]

Ok, maybe I'm a tad older?, for me, it was the m14, 7.64 x 51... What a sweet weapon, I loved the touch and feel of her. We never missed at 400 meters and she could reach out effectively far beyond that. At 2800fps, the round wasn't much slower than the win mag.
I was really sad when they told me that they were going to cut them up after switching to that ugly toy m16.

Please post the pix in here guys

I'll start a new thread once I get some pics of my stuff, and if Captain is okay with it, I'll post his images there too

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What about hunting?

I covered that already: "Except for a handful of reprobates who get their jollies by shooting non-human animals (leaving many of them wounded and suffering for days)"

Or competition shooting?

Humans can make a competition out of just about anything. We don't have to make murder weapons available for them to have a good time.

Would you say the same thing about a bow and arrow or crossbow? What about a sword? Knives?

Somewhere in there is a dividing line. Having to be in close proximity to someone in order to harm him seems like a way to reduce casualties.

Self defense - Heaven forbid an armed attacker ever enters our home, I have an effective method to defend myself.

But as I noted earlier, the average gun owner is five times as likely to kill someone who is not a threat by accident, incompetence or confusion, or commit suicide, than to actually use it in self defense. In other words, in aggregate guns make the country less safe.

Donald West Wilder II was 100% positive that a burglar had broken into his home, so without so much as a "stop right there," he put a bullet through the heart of . . . Caleb Gordley--his neighbor's son. The Gordleys had only lived in their "little ticky-tacky box" tract house for a few months, and Caleb still had trouble finding his own, especially after dark. He sneaked out of an upstairs window to go to a party with his friends. When he came back he spotted his house--same color, same tree he had climbed down, same unlatched upstairs window.

I suppose now you're going to tell me that if a kid has never been in trouble, is a good student, a successful athlete, beloved by his whole community... it's perfectly reasonable for him to die for doing something a little naughty.

As I said: the main use of a gun is to turn a disagreement into a death.

I get it... your statistic that "the average gun is five times as likely to kill someone in anger, confusion, carelessness or suicide, than to actually disable a human or other animal with both the ability and intent to cause serious harm." That's great and all... but that's NOT the guns fault. That's the HUMAN's fault.

The vast majority of motor vehicle deaths are also the human's fault. Yet since the proliferation of rear-view mirrors in the 1920s/30s, we have indeed been doing our best to make cars safer. The death toll per mile has been dropping steadily for decades... even though it can be argued that the quality of driving has been deteriorating as the dearth of public transportation has turned almost everyone into a driver.

Don't hold ME, as a responsible, well-adjusted person, to task for what some OTHER idiot did.

Sorry, but on a large scale, it's utterly impossible to distinguish one idiot from another. The fact that you (apparently) feel that you are one of the blessed few who can be counted on to never kill someone by mistake or in anger does not impress me at all. Have you ever met a gun owner who said, "I'm a near-sighted idiot with a mean temper, so I shouldn't really own this thing, but I like it so much I won't give it up?" Sounds like something George Zimmerman or Adam Lanza would have written in his high school yearbook.

no, seriously, the background check SHOULD be expanded . . . .

You stand in opposition to the National Rifle Assholes, who assure us that they represent every gun owner in the USA.

WHAT THE HELL do you need a pistol that can put a hundred rounds down range in under a minute for!?)

That accounts for the Adam Lanzas, but most gun deaths are not perpetrated by monster guns. The kid who killed two people and himself in the Mall in Columbia (MD), across the parking lot from my office, managed to do it with a friggin' shotgun!

Well, I skydive, which has no useful, legitimate purpose (outside of killing people i.e. dropping armed paratroopers.) In fact I teach it and make a fair amount of money doing so. I must be even more of a pathetic loser who wants to feel like a real man. (Or I want to kill people; those must be the only two options.)

But skydiving is not a sport that can be easily perverted into murder. You're no threat to any of us. Could you land on somebody and kill them without doing the same to yourself?

Not to mention, it truly is a sport. Sure, shooting is a sport for some people, but the vast majority of gun owners are not sportsmen or women.

My impression is that most firearms deaths are the result of criminal acts, and aren't being committed by regular firearm owners, including citizens who might be carrying a firearm in jurisdictions where concealed carry is legal.

Absolutely untrue. Of the 30,000 Americans killed by gunfire every year, only 5,000 are killed deliberately by criminals, or by the intended victims who kill the criminals. 10,000 are killed by accident, mistaken identity, anger, carelessness (a major form of which is simply not understanding how resourceful children can be) and other unintentional causes. The remaining 15,000 are suicides.

Yes, I of all people believe in a person's right to commit suicide. But if you have to spend some time planning it, acquiring the tools, equipment and know-how, that gives you quite a bit of time to decide that you were just having a bad day and tomorrow will be okay. But if you have a gun in your desk drawer (like my favorite uncle had), it's all over in 30 seconds and there's no time to reconsider.

My own opinion is that shotguns are perhaps the best all-around general-purpose firearm. They are obviously best for shooting birds. When loaded with deer-slugs, shotguns are servicable for larger game at shorter ranges. (I believe that a few US states require that deer be hunted with shotguns for some unknown reason. Link to example.) And put a short 18" barrel on a shotgun and it becomes probably the most devastating home-defense weapon available to civilians.

Back in the day, people assured me that a shotgun was the ideal home-defense weapon. It's not easy to use offensively, but it can keep people from coming too close.

But these days, people assure me that it's not so cut-and-dried. Apparently you need quite a bit of skill and practice to use a shotgun for defense.

My own belief is that the people's right to own firearms is kind of the last line of defense of liberty and popular soverignty in the face of top-down elitist tyranny. That doesn't necessarily mean anarchism or opposition to the idea of government. It just means that people should retain some ultimate means of defending their own interests if things start to become too oppressive.

You're living in the 19th century. Have you seen the shit that the government's got??? Armed drones with infrared sensors that can see your heat signature through your roof at night and shoot you in your sleep?

Even the fucking cops have small tanks that can drive right through the wall of your house.

Besides, physical combat is passe. If the government wants to bring us to our knees, all they have to do is crash the internet. We'll be out of food and fuel within a week.

Obviously lightly armed civilians wouldn't stand much chance in a face-to-face head-on confrontation with a fully-equipped military force. But on the other hand, the combined force of many millions of armed civilians could conceivably form the basis of a significant unconventional popular insurgency.

So now you want the government to escalate to nuclear weapons???

I just tend to favor 'the people themselves are the last line of defense of their own liberty' vision over the competing vision of a totally disarmed and emasculated citizenry reduced to just praying that its elite rulers up on top continue to remain (relatively) benign.

I don't disagree with your probability calculation. I simply don't think that guns--a 14th-century technology!--are going to be of any use against the world's wealthiest and most advanced government.

You might stop and consider the numbers: Something like ten percent of the people in this country are on the federal, state or municipal government payroll. (I am!) We don't want to see our friends, family and neighbors tyrannized. We have considerable ability and opportunity for sabotage.

 

[Kittamaru]

I covered that already: "Except for a handful of reprobates who get their jollies by shooting non-human animals (leaving many of them wounded and suffering for days)"

So even though when I would go hunting with my grandfather and we'd get, say, a Deer... then have the head mounted (if it was one worth mounting), have it processed to get Venison (which we would use for everything from burgers to jerkey), had a pelt made into a throw cover for a chair, etc... we're a pair of "reprobates"...

Good to know you have such a high opinion of those of us who are happy to go out, get some fresh meat, and also do our part to stop the Northern WhiteTail Deer from overpopulating... which in PA has been a rather large issue, given that, aside from the occasional coyote or feral dog, these creatures have next to NO non-human predators...

But then again, I guess it'd be better if they just starved to death after a massive overpopulation resulted in them destroying farmland and forest alike?

Humans can make a competition out of just about anything. We don't have to make murder weapons available for them to have a good time.

Indeed, we don't have to... we could always go out and club a deer with a stick, or stab it with a pointy stick, or just run them over with our cars...

Somewhere in there is a dividing line. Having to be in close proximity to someone in order to harm him seems like a way to reduce casualties.

At the same time, being able to stop someone with, say, a bowie knife or switchblade from forty feet seems preferably to having to get up close and personal.

But as I noted earlier, the average gun owner is five times as likely to kill someone who is not a threat by accident, incompetence or confusion, or commit suicide, than to actually use it in self defense. In other words, in aggregate guns make the country less safe.

Let me ask this - of those 'average gun owners', how many of them are ACTUALLY qualified to use a firearm in self defense? My wager; at best, less than half, more likely, less than 20%.

Donald West Wilder II was 100% positive that a burglar had broken into his home, so without so much as a "stop right there," he put a bullet through the heart of . . . Caleb Gordley--his neighbor's son. The Gordleys had only lived in their "little ticky-tacky box" tract house for a few months, and Caleb still had trouble finding his own, especially after dark. He sneaked out of an upstairs window to go to a party with his friends. When he came back he spotted his house--same color, same tree he had climbed down, same unlatched upstairs window.

I suppose now you're going to tell me that if a kid has never been in trouble, is a good student, a successful athlete, beloved by his whole community... it's perfectly reasonable for him to die for doing something a little naughty.

As I said: the main use of a gun is to turn a disagreement into a death.

Not at all - Donald West Wilder the Second is guilty of perhaps the most blatant and common of gun use incompetence - not positively identifying your target. It is part of "hunting 101" - if you cannot be certain what your target is (in this case, who), and you are not aware of what is immediately beyond your target, YOU DO NOT SHOOT. Period, full stop.

Now, if said target is shooting at you, you can safely identify the target as "hostile" and leave it at that.

The vast majority of motor vehicle deaths are also the human's fault. Yet since the proliferation of rear-view mirrors in the 1920s/30s, we have indeed been doing our best to make cars safer. The death toll per mile has been dropping steadily for decades... even though it can be argued that the quality of driving has been deteriorating as the dearth of public transportation has turned almost everyone into a driver.

Then why don't we / haven't we done the same thing for firearms? We've made it harder for cars to be stolen... let us do the same for guns!

Sorry, but on a large scale, it's utterly impossible to distinguish one idiot from another. The fact that you (apparently) feel that you are one of the blessed few who can be counted on to never kill someone by mistake or in anger does not impress me at all. Have you ever met a gun owner who said, "I'm a near-sighted idiot with a mean temper, so I shouldn't really own this thing, but I like it so much I won't give it up?" Sounds like something George Zimmerman or Adam Lanza would have written in his high school yearbook.

My grandmother used to shoot with my grandfather and I... when her grip strength started to fail her, she bowed out, knowing that her lack of hand strength could result in accidentally firing somewhere she wasn't intending to. So, yes... there are "smart" gun owners out here that do have common sense.

You stand in opposition to the National Rifle Assholes, who assure us that they represent every gun owner in the USA.

Yes, I do. I think the NRA has waaaaaay too much political and social power and should, in all honesty, probably be disbanded.

That accounts for the Adam Lanzas, but most gun deaths are not perpetrated by monster guns. The kid who killed two people and himself in the Mall in Columbia (MD), across the parking lot from my office, managed to do it with a friggin' shotgun!

I would classify a shotgun as a "big gun" to be honest... especially in the larger gauges, they kick HARD, and they can ricochet VERY easily.

But skydiving is not a sport that can be easily perverted into murder. You're no threat to any of us. Could you land on somebody and kill them without doing the same to yourself?

It wouldn't be hard for a skydiving instructor to tamper with the parachute pack of a student in such a way as to cause them to impact the ground at terminal velocity as opposed to gently...

Not to mention, it truly is a sport. Sure, shooting is a sport for some people, but the vast majority of gun owners are not sportsmen or women.

I know many people who would argue with you that skydiving is not, in fact a sport... but that those who do so are absolutely INSANE for jumping out of a perfectly good airplane.

Absolutely untrue. Of the 30,000 Americans killed by gunfire every year, only 5,000 are killed deliberately by criminals, or by the intended victims who kill the criminals. 10,000 are killed by accident, mistaken identity, anger, carelessness (a major form of which is simply not understanding how resourceful children can be) and other unintentional causes. The remaining 15,000 are suicides.

I would lump those killed in "anger" and "gross negligence" in the same category as "criminal". Mistaken identity... quite possibly could be as well. If you are truly responsible with your firearm, then there is no reason for you to "accidentally" kill someone with it; it would be like "accidentally" punching someone in the face with a steak knife. Could it happen? I'm sure it could... but the circumstances that would lead up to that would be truly remarkable, and I would be hard pressed to believe that SOME form of negligence or utter stupidity was not involved.

Yes, I of all people believe in a person's right to commit suicide. But if you have to spend some time planning it, acquiring the tools, equipment and know-how, that gives you quite a bit of time to decide that you were just having a bad day and tomorrow will be okay. But if you have a gun in your desk drawer (like my favorite uncle had), it's all over in 30 seconds and there's no time to reconsider.

As someone who has been there, and attempted that (with and without a firearm), I can safely say that if THAT is a reason to ban guns, then you must also ban:
Cars/Trucks/SUV's/Motorcycles/ATV's/RV's/Lawnmowers/Snowblowers/Boats/Generators/pretty much ANYTHING that uses an internal combustion engine (suicideby carbon monoxide poisoning)
All ropes, twines, strings, neck ties, bed sheets, network/power/telephone/data cables, and anything else that could be used to form a noose (suicide by strangulation/hanging)
Roads and automobiles (suicide by jumping in front of a moving vehicle)
Cleaning chemicals, Bleach, Medicine Cabinets/prescription drugs, over the counter medications, acids, and other household compounds (suicide by ingestion of toxic substances)
Knives, Bats, Firestarters, drops higher than two feet, large bodies of water (suicide by stabbing, blunt object, self immolation, jumping off a cliff/bridge/building, drowning)

The list goes on and on and on...

Back in the day, people assured me that a shotgun was the ideal home-defense weapon. It's not easy to use offensively, but it can keep people from coming too close.

But these days, people assure me that it's not so cut-and-dried. Apparently you need quite a bit of skill and practice to use a shotgun for defense.

yes and no - a shotgun is generally a "point and click" weapon that, at anything under 20 feet, is likely to be lethal so long as you are pointed in the approximate direction. This makes it ideal for a home-invasion scenario (such as the woman who retreated to her bathroom and, when the two big mean men broke down the bathroom door, were greeted with a torso full of buckshot)

You're living in the 19th century. Have you seen the shit that the government's got??? Armed drones with infrared sensors that can see your heat signature through your roof at night and shoot you in your sleep?

Even the fucking cops have small tanks that can drive right through the wall of your house.

Besides, physical combat is passe. If the government wants to bring us to our knees, all they have to do is crash the internet. We'll be out of food and fuel within a week.

Sad, but true.

So now you want the government to escalate to nuclear weapons???

I don't disagree with your probability calculation. I simply don't think that guns--a 14th-century technology!--are going to be of any use against the world's wealthiest and most advanced government.

Again, true

You might stop and consider the numbers: Something like ten percent of the people in this country are on the federal, state or municipal government payroll. (I am!) We don't want to see our friends, family and neighbors tyrannized. We have considerable ability and opportunity for sabotage.

Do you really? Okay, lets just put out a hypothetical:

Say you worked as a Domain Administrator / IT Manager for a large government contractor and managed active directory/domain services for the US Army... and you wanted to sabotage them. How would you do it?
Go into a domain controller, select all the user accounts and computer accounts, and click "delete", then replicate to all the other domain controllers?
Perhaps remove or disable the firewalls?
Viral infection?

How long do you think any of those would actually affect them for? A few hours? Maybe a few days? Really, just depends on how long it takes them to realize the issue, load a backup, and recoup anything lost since the last backup (if they are smart, and use the Grandfather/Father/Son approach, they would have a yearly, Monthly, Weekly full backup, and run a Daily incremental, so they really wouldn't lose much)

 

[GeoffP]

I don't disagree with your probability calculation. I simply don't think that guns--a 14th-century technology!--are going to be of any use against the world's wealthiest and most advanced government.

Without disagreeing or agreeing with the remainder of the post: Iraq. Afghanistan. Northern Ireland. Terrorism, generally. Can those fancy American sensors see which people voted Republican, and which voted Democrat? Can they see into their minds?