Would you leave your gun at home?

if all crime no longer existed

In that case, I wouldn’t.

But crime does exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. People make others into victims all the time and until they stop, I’m going to take responsibility for the safety of myself and the safety of others and be prepared to deal with violence in the off chance that violence arises.

(For the record, I don’t turn 21 until the end of the month, so I can’t legally carry until then. I’m getting my concealed carry permit and carrying after my birthday)

Maybe it’s a regional thing or something but I cannot conceive of ever carrying a gun.

If I had a mentally disturbed neighbour I would feel safer if I knew he didn’t have a gun. If I had a gun I wouldn’t feel safe leaving it at home in case someone set it off by accident. I dont have a gun and like @janbb cannot imagine ever owning one. Not required over here I am pleased to say.

Something tells me that Fluther doesn’t quite understand the concept of concealed carry laws in the United States. In that case, I’m going to post this link that I would encourage everyone to read to better understand this topic.

Guys, let’s focus on the “for those of you who carry a gun to protect yourself from other people” portion of OP’s details, please.

I would only carry a gun with me if it was built in to my iPhone.

I also don’t really see the argument here. Nobody shot Loughner, they tackled him. One wonders how many people in the audience had guns. I’m guessing more than zero, considering it’s Arizona.

@Qingu Good point.

Considering the crowd of people around, I’m glad no one pulled a gun on him and instead opted to tackle and disarm. It would have been way to easy to accidentally hit yet another innocent bystander. Especially considering how common a through-and-through is at close range.

@Seek_Kolinahr You’re here!

Hanging out at the Library for a while. Glad to be lurking. ^_^ How are you?

How do you live with constantly being scared? That is simply fucked up. I have a gun, but I only use it when Jerky sounds delicious.

@Not_the_CIA, it’s not about “constantly being scare.” This is a meme that gets thrown around a lot that has no real meaning.

Fear != preparedness. Bad things happen to good people all the time. What’s so horrible about being prepared if it happens to you?

@janbb, you may not have a reason to carry one, but that doesn’t mean others don’t. I’m personally somewhat acquainted with a guy who saved his own life and the lives of his friends when he was carry concealed. They were having a late evening get-together at the office when a wanted criminal strolled in, and forced them all to lie face down at gun point (which potentially means you might wind up being killed execution style). Before he laid all the way down, the guy pulled his own legally-carried weapon and exchanged fire with the bad guy. He was shot several times, and the bad guy fled only to be found a few blocks later by police. He had several outstanding warrants, was a felon, and couldn’t legally be armed anyway, but thanks to the legally-armed man, he was caught and put away and the innocent lives were spared that night. If I can get in touch with him, I’ll see if I can get him to post his story.

Also, one of my best friends was brutally raped by her ex boyfriend and he got off scott-free. He creeps on her all the time, and she (legally) carries a concealed handgun in case he ever decides to hurt her again.

My last words on this (for now): Bad people do bad things for no reason. It is prudent to be prepared. Guns have been used to hurt a lot of people, but they’ve been used to save a lot of people as well. Since they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, you might as well be ready to deal with those who might harm you. To re-iterate my answer to @JLeslie‘s initial question: I would stop carrying if crime ceased to exist. No crime = nobody to potentially hurt you. There wouldn’t be a reason for any kind of self-defense in a world of that nature.

I don’t own any firearms, and, I do live in the wilderness. I have neighbors, including two county sheriffs, and a game warden that have shot coyotes and a bobcat that were killing/harassing our animals.

I was not happy about it, but, it is a necessity once in awhile.

I agree with @Not_the_CIA

Living in a state of paranoia is a mental illness.

If I did own a gun I would not carry it around with me.

I see guns the same way I see alcohol.

For every responsible drinker/gun owner, there are 5 unstable ones. Just my opinion.

For every ‘potential’ need I believe there are a dozen dangers to carrying around a firearm.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I am not sure of your point, I am not talking about laws on this question, I am talking about a mindset. I am in favor of the right to bear arms, but what is interesting to me is where I grew up no one was talking about or carrying guns. Most people who I grew up with hate the idea of having to handle one. Where I live now, they are very gun oriented. Kind of touching on @janbb point. The question was just a curiosity about whether it is really all aboit protecting oneself, or also that people simply feel better with the gun on their person, even when it is not necessary for protection.

I don’t necessarily agree that people who carry guns live in a paranoid state. I think they put on their gun, like they put on their clothes, and don’t think about it the rest of the day.

@Qingu, @Seek_Kolinahr In a round about way you have helped make the point that “most” gun owners and CCW Permit holders already know. More guns in the crowd don’t automatically make it more dangerous. People who decide, myself included, to CC a pistol know the weapon very well. We know the laws and obey them. We generally shoot often and practice with the weapon that we CC. Can anyone give me examples of a CC person going off half cocked and killing innocent people while trying to protect someone else?

@JLeslie, I posted the references to the laws because I thought they were relevant. I did bring up examples about self-protection. Sure, there are probably people who use guns as a security blanket, but there are plenty of people who actually need them for real defensive or cautionary purposes. I don’t carry yet (because I legally can’t until I’m 21), but I plan on doing so after I get my permit on my birthday. I don’t see myself as frightened, or paranoid, or anything like that. I’m very happy with my life and I can’t remember the last time I was actually afraid of anything. I will carry because I see myself has having a realistic view on the world. I’m not a karate master. If I run into trouble (which I don’t go looking for) I want to be able to walk away with my law-abiding ass in tact.

And yeah, some people do put on their gun like they do their clothes. Most people that have trained extensively with their firearm do that. They know it’s there in the off-chance they needed it, and other than that, it’s not a big deal. They aren’t playing cowboy or anything like that.

@JLeslie You are absolutely correct. Many times during the day I have to make an effort to feel for my gun to remind myself it is there.

@missingbite brings up a good point. A lot of people have this fantasy that people who carry concealed are nutjob cowboy wannabees who would blindly fire into a crowd if someone looked at them the wrong way. Statistically, this is complete bollocks.

Most people who carry know the laws and the responsibility they are taking on, as @missingbite pointed out, and they train to the point of where they would know exactly where each bullet went if they had to take that kind of action.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard But, what I think I am right about, after hearing your answer, is gun oriented people want to carry a gun, whether there is something to fear or not. You look forward to it. While people like me, either it does not occur to us, or we hate the idea. It isn’t that people like me think nothing bad could ever happen. I was raised by people who were raised in the Bronx. I always lock my doors, car and house, I try to be aware of what is around me, etc.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard No, I think that is what you think we think. Most people don’t think everyone who carries a gun is going to wildly fire into a crowd.

@JLeslie, But, what I think I am right about, after hearing your answer, is gun oriented people want to carry a gun

Sometimes that’s not the case. Some people have to because of the area they live in. My friend who was raped hardly wanted to carry, but she does because she doesn’t want to be made a victim again.

You look forward to it.

Um… no. I really don’t. There is a difference between encouraging something to happen and being prepared for it. The guy I referenced above wasn’t looking forward to being marched into his own office and forced to lie face down with a gun to his head.

I can bring sunblock to the beach but it doesn’t mean I want to go to the beach.

No, I think that is what you think we think. Most people don’t think everyone who carries a gun is going to wildly fire into a crowd.

I wasn’t referring to you, but this is the kind of attitude I see quite often. Especially on the internet among people that have little understanding of the concept of concealed carry and self defense. This wasn’t an attack on you.

@missingbite and @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard, okay. But then I completely don’t understand why people say they would feel safer in a rampage-on-crown situation carrying their gun. Since they are trained to know their gun is useless/irresponsible in that situation.

Are there even any stats as to how often guns (particularly concealed weapons) are used by civilians to prevent crime?

Well, like many gun owners I own multiple firearms ranging from some unique collectibles to various hunting rifles, to several more appropriate for practical recreational and/or defensive usage. It would be pretty darned hard to carry them all around at once!

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard You seem unwiling to even entertain the idea of not getting your gun even if there was no reason to carry a gun, no need for protection, you just go back to saying there is always a need.

@Qingu I’m not sure what you mean by “rampage-on-crown” situation. If we are talking about the AZ shooting I would not see my gun as a useless tool. It would depend on the situation. I would never pull the trigger unless I was relatively sure no one else would be hit. It may or may not be of “use.”

@Qingu, But then I completely don’t understand why people say they would feel safer in a rampage-on-crown situation carrying their gun. Since they are trained to know their gun is useless/irresponsible in that situation.

That depends on the individual and the situation. If I were armed in an auditorium and a crazed gunman started shooting at people, my reaction would differ greatly depending on the details of the situation. If he was within the range of my own skills and weapon, I’d drop him if I was sure I could. If he was across the arena, I wouldn’t do anything.

Are there even any stats as to how often guns are used by civilians to prevent crime?

Are you referring to guns used in home defense situations, or handguns used by civilians with concealed carry permits? I can find you statistics for either, depending on which you are more interested in.

@JLeslie, If there wasn’t a reason to carry, I wouldn’t carry. I already said that. I’m not really sure what you are getting at. I’m trying to be as reasonable as possible here. When would there not be a need, in your mind?

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I must have missed that, my apologies if I failed to see you wrote you would not carry.

@missingbite Would you go as far to say you like carrying a gun? Danger or no danger?

@JLeslie, no worries. I’m not here to be belligerent. I’m here to educate people about my viewpoint, hopefully.

From my first response to this question, for the record:

”if all crime no longer existed

In that case, I wouldn’t.”

I’ve considered getting a permit to carry, just for the sake pf protecting my daughters when we’ve been out after dark, but I’ve never gotten one.

For the sake of the question- if I did regularly carry, but crime went away, I wouldn’t need to carry one.

*On a side note- it’s not just the crime that makes me want to carry, it’s also the judges that give pedos and other pervs a slap on the wrist. That makes me want to carry.

@JLeslie There are times I don’t carry although my mind has changed over the years on some instances. I used to NEVER carry to church. I felt I didn’t need to. I mean it’s church. Then this happened. Sometimes you never know. If I remember correctly the woman who shot the intruder was a CC off duty police officer. I could be wrong on that.

Sorry, pro-gunners, your arguments will never, ever change my mind. I will never own a gun nor be comfortable with anyone who does.

@missingbite That is interesting to me, but not really in the context of this question. I have always felt vulnerable inside of a synagogue, less safe then walking down the street.

I think that the concept of putting on a gun like a piece of clothing is a bit dangerous, unless you are in law enforcement.

To carry a weapon requires being just about as self aware, CONSCIOUS as one could be.
If one loses consciousness that they could, rote, just pull their weapon and fire in the same way they might unconsciously pull up their pants….well…

I would like to think that those that carry their firearms on their person NEVER lose ‘sight’ of the reality they are in a possistion to cause serious harm or death, just like one should not be unconscious that driving a car IS propelling a 2 ton lethal weapon. Better not fall asleep at the wheel or the trigger.

@Austinlad And that is your right. My problem arrises when people try to take my rights away because they don’t like it.

@Austinlad, that’s fine. I can’t, won’t, and don’t want to force you to change your mind. Liberty, and all that jazz. Just be aware that FiddleBastard in real life is probably one of the least terrifying people you would probably ever meet.

OK – maybe we can agree that it is your right to carry a gun because you feel it keeps you safe and helps prevent crime, even though I don’t feel that. That’s fine. But how the hell do you suggest we control guns from getting into the hands of criminals and nutjobs who fire at will and kill innocent people? If you can solve that for me, I don’t really care if you want to CC or not.

@Austinlad I just read your profile and have to say I find it ironic you are anti-gun but really wanted to be a cowboy as a kid. Didn’t they all carry pistols? I know Roy Rogers did.

@janbb You can’t. That is why gun laws are useless. Most anyway. Without the Government going door to door and taking all guns and never letting another one in the country…..it’s not gonna happen.

But other countries – like Britain – have far fewer guns because of laws and far fewer murders.

@janbb, “there’s the rub” as Shakespeare would say. Guns are everywhere. They aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, and a mass confiscation in the United States would be… well… I wouldn’t want to volunteer for that job. If guns magically disappeared, it still isn’t that hard to make one with access to a machine shop and basic skills.

The way I see it, we should address the socioeconomic issues that lead to the crimes in the first place. Better mental healthcare, stronger efforts to reduce poverty (which is a big factor in violent crime) and so on. Unless the world dramatically changes in a way that realistically won’t be happening any time soon, the bad guys will always have access to weapons, so I don’t see a reason why the good guys should be punished.

But this is all a tad off-topic in terms of @JLeslie‘s original question.

@missingbite When @Austinlad and I were kids, we all played cowboys and Indians and the Indians were the bad guys. Doesn’t mean i believe it now.

@janbb I was just teasing! I respect your views even though I may not agree with them.

@missingbite :-)

@JLeslie I just re-read most of the post and missed you question to me. Yes, I would say I enjoy carrying my gun. I, like most, wish there was never a need for it but I know that not to be the case. I have carried for so long and do travel alone in some very, very remote areas of the US that when I don’t have it I feel….naked.

Not really an issue here in lil ol England town. If I had a gun, say a pistol…..no I tell you what, a magnum! Yeah, i’d holster that baby & carry it everywhere, but then i’ve always fancied myself as a Dirty Harry type. Maybe more of a Soiled Trevor…. I dunno XD

@janbb But other countries – like Britain – have far fewer guns because of laws and far fewer murders.

Violent crime and use of firearms in crime in Britain has almost doubled since the ban was enacted. In 1986, after the UK enacted significant gun control, the homicide rate increased by 1%, signifying little effectiveness.

Source: “Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2000,” British Home Office

Also,

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun
crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun
crimes, grossly downplaying the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

Sources: Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.
Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police, Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996.

@ucme and that’s why I love you.

But @ucme does bring up an interesting point about cultural differences between the US and UK. Most gun crime in the US is related to gang activities and thug culture, which is not as prevalent in the UK.

The gun ban in Scotland came after the horrifying Dunblane Massacre. If I remember correctly that led to many many antique, practically priceless, firearms being destroyed. On top of that, as @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard pointed out, it didn’t really do all that much good. IMHO

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Man hug…..ahem okay! Yeah it’s knives that dominate the landscape in the seedy ganglands peppered across the UK. Not as prevalent as you quite rightly say, but unfortunately they’re out there.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard That’s ok. @janbb question is actually related to your original response regarding gun laws. It all goes together. I’ll speak up if a tangent has no interest for me. No problem.

@JLeslie, ok cool. Just making sure.

@missingbite That is what I thought. It is just a different mindset altogether. Growing up around guns, and not growing up around guns. I will assume you live in a part of the country where discussion about guns is commonplace, and many people you know own a gun. Do you have a lot of crime where you live? Gun crime?

@JLeslie, I’ll throw in and answer that question too, because I’ve brought it up as a point in other gun control threads.

I was born and raised in a rural area. I was terrified of guns (because of cop movies on television) until my best friend’s dad taught me to shoot when I was 7 or so, and I learned that they can be fun if used safely. Everyone around us owned guns from single shot shotguns to so-called “assault weapons.” Nobody ever got shot, and most kids were taught to shoot .22s and .410 gauge shotguns by the time they were 5 or 6. My grandaddy had a few rifles and shotguns that he kept unloaded, but unlocked in his closet. I never touched them without his permission because I just knew better. The other kids did the same. We didn’t have a curiosity about guns because we knew how they worked. They weren’t taboo, so we weren’t tempted to sneak them out and play with them. Consequently, none of us grew up to be serial killers either. Thus, I grew up without a fear of guns, but instead with a respect of them and their potential power as tools and collector’s items.

I still live in a rural area, but meth is rearing its ugly head, and that’s why I keep a home defense weapon. The rest of my guns are for collecting or recreational purposes. Gun crime is still basically non existent in my area, despite the fact that most people have at least one.

I can see why someone who was born and raised in an urban area where only gang members had guns could feel differently about the issue. This is why I’m an advocate for gun safety training as opposed to largely ineffective controls against them.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Your stats about UK don’t mean anything to me without the numbers, do you have a link? If it went from 20 to 40 and is not adjusting for population increase, it is still waaayyyy lower than the US. Percentages do not tell the whole tale.

I might not, although where we live, out in the country, there are coyotes, lynx, bobcat, etc.

The thing is, there is zero liklihood of crime becoming extinct, so the point is moot.

My experiences have been with the redneck hunter types in my area. ( Not meant to offend, but for lack of a better description. )

I have told my stories before, but, in the 19 years I have lived in the hills I have had my dog shot. blew his thigh off with a 30/06 for chasing cows back into their own pasture from a hole in THEIR fence.
I have been shot AT by a psycho neighbor taking drunken pot shots that dropped branches on my head on my own property and me running for cover.
Had same crazy neighbor wave a rifle in my face when one I returned a wandering chicken to him, AND….I was shot at by a bow hunter while riding my horse on a logging trail, the arrow literally missed me and my horse by about 12 inches and struck a tree!

I have a friend who’s horse was shot in the neck on trail ( seriously wounded but survived ) soooo, yep, I am a bit ‘gun shy’ to say the least.

Oh, and did I mention the drunk good ol’ boys that harassed me because I wouldn’t let them follow a Buck onto my property? I was scared shitless…single gal in the woods surrounded by a truck full of angry, drunk, rifle waving hunters that didn’t want to take ‘no’ for an answer.

I call BULLSHIT! hahaha

@JLeslie I live in the south and there are a mix of areas with gun crime and some with little or none. I did grow up with guns and have never been scared of them. I have been frightened by people. I have a cabin in very rural AZ. Ironically enough, I am more “alert” there than anywhere else. Not for the animals but from criminals. Where I live, there are lots of people around and if my car breaks down many people will see me. In AZ if my jeep breaks down and I have to hike miles home, there is no telling who I may run into. I always feel safer there with my gun then just about anywhere else. Hope that gives you some insight into my mindset.

I may also add that as an Airline Pilot, the FFDO program is one of the best programs to come along since September 11th. I won’t go into any detail about the program b/c I don’t want to give out to much info on it. Just google FFDO if you care to learn.

What the Government did to the AA Pilot for speaking out about airport security is one of the lowest.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard You kind of have it all mixed up in my mind. I now live in an area (Memphis) that has gangs, and plenty of bad people with guns, and the good citizens want guns. I grew up in a relatively safe suburb, but there was plenty of crime in the nearby city (Washington DC and New York) but we did not have guns, none of us talked about it, if someone’s parent had one, I never knew it. It really is the culture of the area. You basically said yourself, you probably would not have been interested in guns, if people were not causing you to be. Even the “bad” people with guns, many times get them to protect themselves. An entire culture or community of people without guns, sounds good to me.

@Coloma Holy shit.

@JLeslie, I got my info from a chart. In 1989 the violent crime rate of Great Britain was 350 per 100,000 population wise. By 1998, it had increased to 500 per 100,000.

This is info I copied a long while ago from a print source for an essay I wrote in a class. I can try and find it online, if you want me to.

…if people were not causing you to be.

I’m okay with this. Target shooting and gun collecting is my second favorite hobby, after writing poetry and fiction. I’d rather be comfortable with guns than irrationally terrified of them like I was 7. I thank my friend’s dad for that. Are you saying I’d be better off living in fear as I was before someone “caused me [not] to be?” I can assure you, current, gun-interested me is not a ticking time bomb. Fearful, 7 year old me may not have been so lucky.

An entire culture or community of people without guns, sounds good to me.

Well… good luck with that.

I don’t have statistics about Britain but all I know is that when I lived there, if someone was murdered, it was national news. It was not a daily occurence. I know that is anecdotal and thus not valid as an argument, but my impression is that there is much less homicide per capita in Britan because it is not a gun-owning society. There certainly may be other kids of violent crime, it is not Utopia.

I’d never go anywhere without my gun…. no matter what…

My state does not allow for CC, only LEO’s and retired LEO’s can CC. If I could CC and all of a sudden that miracle of all miracles occurred and no crime existed, I would certainly leave my gun safely locked up at home. Bowie knife though stays in the map pocket of the drivers door!

In an assault free utopia then I’d only bring out my firearms when target shooting, it would become a hobby or sport only.

@JLeslie I’m just curious how you know nobody had guns where you grew up. I find it especially interesting that nobody in a community outside of DC had weapons. I’ve lived all over the country and I didn’t know if my neighbors had guns (with the exception of rifles or shotguns in gun racks in trucks.) It was sometimes discussed with friends and I was aware if they had a firearm in their home. But it wasn’t a general topic of conversation unless there was a specific reason, like repeal of a gun law or whatnot. I bet you may be surprised. People usually don’t go around announcing that they have firearms in their homes or holsters.

I live in the UK and I have never seen a violent incident of any kind and I have little or no fear of walking anywhere in my home city. There would be no point in carrying a gun even if it were legal. I would also be doubtful of the value of a gun for self protection even in a society full of guns. I lived in the US for a while quite happily without one though my elderly father in law kept a loaded gun by his bed. I thought he was nuts.

@janbb Yeah, like here in Memphis almost every day there is a gun murder. I always say you cannot compare a little European country to the huge US, but you certainly can compare the UK to a state, and in many states gun violence is a daily occurence. I think gun crime in Canada is very low also.

I was at a party a while back and a casual friend of ours was talking about getting a gun, for protection. I kind of was just listening to the ongoing conversation. Anyway, one point she started to make was that it is part of our country to own again, it is how our country grew up. And, I found it so incredibly ironic that Michael Moore in his movie about guns, basically says the same thing as a criticism of our country. Same thing taken and used two different ways. She was relating it almost to being patriotic.

@bkcunningham I said, ” I grew up in a relatively safe suburb, but there was plenty of crime in the nearby city (Washington DC and New York) but we did not have guns, none of us talked about it, if someone’s parent had one, I never knew it. It really is the culture of the area.”

(I’m getting roundly disagreed with on my follow-up thread to this. I agree that attitudes seem to be entrenched.)

@JLeslie DC is known as the “murder capital of the US” and look at the history of gun laws in DC. Gun violence was and is very high.

@bkcunningham I know. Gun culture. That is what I am talking about.

@bkcunningham The city I am in now, Memphis, beats DC. We were number one a couple of years ago, now I think we are back down to number 3. I think poverty plays into it, education, and culture.

@JLeslie you mean gun culture like in DC when there is a ban on weapons for decades and inner city kids still get killed by guns? I’m not being a smart-alec, but serioulsy how’s that war on poverty working for us?

@bkcunningham What war on poverty? DC has a gun culture. Gangs, all sorts of thug activity. Here in the south, the inner city, ghetto, has the same shit, plus the people outside of the city are gun-minded in a differentl way. They love their guns. My husband and I are still shocked when we see signs in bars and restaurants that state no guns are allowed on the premises. My husband grew up in Mexico City, plenty of violent crime there. His dad was once held at gun point when he lived in Mexico. His dad was actually a cop when he was very young. His family doesn’t have a gun though, don’t talk about guns, it is completely different than how people think here in the south. It is part of their life.

@JLeslie I’m not being argumentative, but DC had a ban on guns until 2007. How can it be a culture when they are against the law?

The War on Poverty was launched in 1964 by POTUS Lyndon Johnson and is ongoing today. You know, The Economic Opportunity Act? The Social Security Act? The Social Welfare Programs? Head Start, Community Action programs, Legal Aid assistance…et al. We’ve experienced an average poverty growth rate of about 1 million people a year since it was implemented. It’s had a negative impact on the economy as a whole, but especially on the economy of the lower income.

@bkcunningham The gun law has nothing to do with how the people think. Again, if you look at some of my answers above I am not fighting for gun laws on this question.

I don’t agree with half of what is done in the name of fighting poverty. I think at least half the country doesn’t care about those living in poverty. I also think the number will continue to grow if we continue in the same direction. Better education (and I am not talking about 4 year olds and whatever head start thing that I think is a waste, and has basically been proven to be a waste,, but programs at the higher levels) planned parenthood, and better wages are where I would focus.

@JLeslie I don’t know if you realize it, but you just said a very intelligent and deep thing: “The gun law has nothing to do with how the people think.” Exactly.

Those programs have been around forever. Minimum wage laws have helped create poverty. Planned Parenthood has been around for 90 years and hasn’t been effective. Look at the unplanned, underage pregnancies. They are throwing good money after bad. Their track record is deplorable and we just keep taking money from people and paying for programs that are proven failures.

@bkcunningham Are you saying I don’t usually say intelligent or deep things? I did not come to that because you led me there, I was there already, read my answers.

I do not mean planned parenthood the organization, I mean people planning to become parents, instead of getting knocked up as teens or having five babies when they can barely afford two. That would take a cultural shift, not just the availability of sex ed and birth control. A facebook friend of mine just posted a high school not far from me just topped out at 100 known pregnant girls currently enrolled in school. That is a disgrace, an embarrassment.

The minimum wage has never been high enough to keep someone out of poverty, so minimum wage proves nothing. Unions, which I am typically not very in favor of, but they did effectively, for a while push wages up to a reasonable rate and our middle class grew, and so did our prosperity and our economy. Later, the unions got too greedy, took it to far and we are now in a bad spot, but management is too greedy also. But, now I am on a tangent.

If we pulled all the money there would be even a worse situation in my opinion. Look around the world, find me a country that lets their poor live in the streets, no health care, no decent education, that is a prosperous, successful, industrialized nation? I can’t think of one, but there might be one.

I understand the argument of not giving someone a free ride, that they fail to learn to earn for themselves. But, those who work every day, try to do everything right, and barely have a pot to piss, I think that is just awful. I was watching the show Undercover Boss a couple of nights ago, and this girl who was a floor supervisor, worked hard, and wanted to do the right thing for her and her daughter, sometimes had to work a second job to make ends meet. That should not be the case in my opinion. The company is very profitable, it is just more money in the owners pocket, and if it is a public company the investors pockets, but she is the one working her butt off. She is not working the system. If decent wages were paid, maybe welfare would not be so attractive.

And then there is mental illnesses. We must take care of our mentally ill, we need to pony up the money, it might just end some of the cycle of it going from generation to generation. Might save money in the end. My grandfathers generation had a lot of mental illness in my family. Thank God they ended up in NYC where education was emphasized, many good programs to take advantage of, and free college. My fathers generation took advantage of those opportunities, and is a productive part of society.

@JLeslie no JLeslie, I didn’t mean it like that. It is an expression and a poor form of speech on my part as I re-read it and realize how you could take what I said. Geez, I’m sorry. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that anything I said or anything in the discussion made you see anything or come to some sort of revelation. Thanks for the discussion.

@bkcunningham If I asked you before, forgive me, but where do you live?

@I live in the Northeast US.

If there were utterly no chance of violent crime, I’d ditch it in a second. Mine is slightly heavy and restricts comfort to a small degree, and influences fashion choices to a high degree. Hell, I would probably just get rid of it entirely, and stick to rifles and shotguns for other shooting stuff.

Since I answered initially before reading the long list of responses, and am working my way through…

According to Gary Kleck, a criminologist from Florida State, 550 rapes are prevented EACH DAY from a woman simply pulling a gun on an attacker. That’s just in this country.

@bkcunningham When this question popped up for me again, I was reminded that gun laws in DC mean nothing, because Virginia is basically wide open. And, I Think Arizona is wide open also. All I want in terms of gun laws are the checks and no semiautomatic weapons. I know gun people think that is the first step towards outlawing guns altogether, some sort of slippery slope, but I don’t hear that among the people I know who want the laws I talk about.

I’ll bet this event and the country talking about this has caused a bunch of guns and amo to sell this week. People afraid they won’t be able to buy in the future. The gun retailers must love it.

@JLeslie The problem with your idea of gun laws is that it will only restrict law abiding citizens. It’s just like the drug problem. Drugs will come into this country no matter what we do. Guns will too. If we were to make my pistol illegal because it is semiautomatic, what chance do I stand against someone with a 10 or 20 round clip? I will be the one to ditch my weapon for a legal one and the criminal will not. If we could somehow eliminate all semiautomatic weapons in the country and with 100% certainty not allow another one in, I’d say go for it. It won’t happen just like we can shut down every meth house in the US and it will still walk across our borders or be flown in from countries like Columbia.

@JLeslie Yep, Glocks are flying off the shelves. It happens whenever anyone is worried there will be a ban. Same thing happened when Obama was elected. I was pissed, since I was gun shopping at the time anyway, and the run on ammo was even more annoying. I couldn’t buy more than two boxes of rifle rounds at a time. It was supreme overreaction; Obama’s biggest funders were military contractors, including firearms manufacturers. He wasn’t about to ban guns.

@bkcunningham Planned Parenthood has been around for 90 years and hasn’t been effective. Look at the unplanned, underage pregnancies.

Underage pregnancies are at their lowest rates since the 70s. There has been a steady and drastic decline for the past 20 years. I don’t know why people cite underage pregnancy statistics to talk about “look at how bad it is” when they only prove the opposite.

@all

Carrying a gun with you in your daily life is something I will never understand. For me, there is no level of training you can have to make it so that you’re not going to be stupid at one point. That you’re not going to get drunk. That you’re not going to get mad, or scared for no reason.

It makes a difference how much penalty there is for using a gun in those situations…but not much. If you’re pissed off and drunk, in a bar, and someone shoves you…when the guns come out, shit’s going to happen some of the time.

The idea that there is any way to have a gun and go about your daily life in a responsible way is simply beyond me. I’m all for having it be legal – but it’s because I’m for choice. And being for personal freedom of choice entails a reduced amount of general safety.

But I don’t see how anyone can advocate for a responsible concealed carry attitude for the general population. It’s like safe sex – just as the only surefire way to make sure that you don’t get anyone pregnant or don’t get a disease is to abstain from sex, the only way to make sure that you’re not going to shoot some asshole is to leave your gun at home.

@missingbite You think someone in the crowd would have needed a semi-automatic weapon to stop the Arizona shooter?

@JLeslie They are, in fact, more reliable, speaking purely from a ‘more likely to fire when you want, less likely to fire when you don’t want’ angle. That hammer on the back of revolvers sometimes gets caught on things, which is why I don’t use them.

I think one good lessons learned, having heard that there was another armed person around, is that a gun doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be able to use it to defend. Sometimes you just can’t take a good shot, or you don’t get to it in time, etc. Weapons are only a part of defense.

@iamthemob In fact, every single concealed carry person I know carefully changes their behavior based on the fact that they are carrying. They don’t pick fights. They don’t drink while carrying. They don’t antagonize cops (particularly those that carry without legal permits). They always know where it is. I think your inability to conceive of it has more to do with your own behavior than that of others.

@incendiary_dan And, you think it is ok for everyone to be walking around with semi automatic weapons?

Oh, and to my knowledge revolvers don’t have safety devices in them. I could be wrong, though, but I’ve never seen a revolver with one.

@JLeslie I’ll think about responding when you don’t use straw man arguments.

@incendiary_dan Sorry if it came out badly, my apologies. My point is I don’t see why any citizen, civilian needs a semi automatic weapon for protection? But, yet there are people against making that illegal. I don’t understand it. How do they imagine the country? With people walking around with weapons at their side like the military or a SWAT team? I can understand the argument for wanting to be able to defend oneself. Guns can be the great equalizer. An average man and an average woman in an alley, the man has a really good chance of overpowering her, simply because of his size, stregnth and feet flat on the ground, the gun might give a woman the chance. But, I just down see an America with people walking around with automatic weapons, so I cannot understand why people cannot agree to outlaw them. Even if the criminals have them.

@incendiary_dan – Again, I was talking about carrying a gun whenever, wherever, and by everyone. ’

You can modify your behavior to make it safer. That won’t make it safe. And you can’t pre-determine when you’ll run into a situation that will make you irrational.

Again, it’s the same with having sex. One thing can go wrong, and you’re screwed. The more people that carry guns more places more often, the more you increase those instances.

@iamthemob 90 years and more than $5 billion in taxpayer dollars (not including corporate and individual donations) since just 1970, and the United States has the highest number of teen pregnancies in the industrialized world.

If you want to look at all of the stats, you will see that between 1960 to 1990, premarital teen pregnancies in the U.S. doubled, and the teen illegitimate birth rate almost tripled. Teen abortions rose over 400%. In 2007, the incident of teen pregnancies saw an increase and only in 2010 was there a trend toward another decline.

Sources: William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 74, 72. Among all births, the illegitimate rate increased more than 400%, p. 46. See p. 47.

Michael Schwartz, Ph.D. and James H. Ford, M.D., “Family Planning Clinics: Cure or Cause of Teenage Pregnancy?” Linacre Quarterly, May 1982, p. 143. The 500% figure given by Schwartz and Ford has been adjusted to 400% due to a 30-year time period application.

@bkcunningham You will never convince me that having OBGYN related services available to women has anything to do with teen pregnancy. There are many factors that contribute to our teen pregnancy rate. We, compared to the rest of the industrialized nations are way more uptight about sex. I wonder if those other countries systematically teach planned parenthood?

We have a huge portion of our population who want to bury their heads in the sand. There is a big difference in the industrialized world between us and most countries, in that our religiousity has maintained its fervor. We also have a portion of our population who probably feels they are going to be poor and be a single mom anyway, because that is what they see around them, so what is the big difference if it happens at the age of 15 or 20? We also have many more immigrant populations, coming from poor uneducated backgrounds, compared to other countries, and in fact it is our minorities who tend to have babies at younger ages, and more babies in general.

If pregnant, we should want prenatal care available, even on our dime, because an unhealthy baby is way more expensive. I will go as far to say that many people I know who are pro-life, also don’t want to pony up tax money, it is hard to have it both ways. And they will even fight to keep babies born very preterm alive, who will have serious disabilities, costs us a fortune.

Leave your gun at home? Where did that go…;-)

@JLeslie “You think someone in the crowd would have needed a semi-automatic weapon to stop the Arizona shooter?”

If some one is going to carry a CW or even open carry, I think they should carry a semiautomatic weapon. Why do you think the police carry them? I hear about people all the time that take several shots and walk away. Some of the victims of the AZ shooting were hit multiple times and lived. A crazed drug induced shooter may be so amped up on drugs that it takes several shot to bring them down.

“And, you think it is ok for everyone to be walking around with semi automatic weapons?”

If someone is going to carry, yes, I think it out to be a semiautomatic weapon.

But, I just down see an America with people walking around with automatic weapons,

Do you know the difference between automatic weapons? A semi-automatic weapon fires one round per pull of the trigger. Automatic weapons continue firing rapidly until the magazine is empty or pressure is removed from the trigger and these weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934. Link
Legally owned automatic weapons have only been used in crimes twice, to my knowledge, and one of the shooters was a cop.

37 states are undisputed “shall-issue” states that allow Americans to “walk around with automatic weapons” as you say. There are at least 120 million Americans who take advantage of this and carry regularly. Between 2007 and 2008, the Violence Policy Center (an anti-gun lobbying group) claims that 117 licensed carriers were involved in gun crimes. This is out of a total of 25,000 total gun killings that occurred during this same period. That means licensed, law-abiding “automatic weapon packing” Americans committed less than 1% of all firearm killings during that time. On top of that, the FBI Uniform Crime Report and several local law enforcement jurisdictions estimate that there were 108,000 and 23 million lawful uses of guns in self defense annually. And most of these didn’t even require the gun to be fired.

Additionally, the number of citizens licensed to carry a handgun for self defense has been increasing yearly. With the DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago Supreme Court decisions, gun laws have been liberalizing (and by that, I mean becoming more lax) across the United States…. and guess what? Violent crime has continued to drop. More citizens are lawfully packing heat than they have in a hundred years, and the United States hasn’t collapsed into anarchy and blood isn’t flowing in the streets.

so I cannot understand why people cannot agree to outlaw them. Even if the criminals have them.

So what I get from this is that the unarmed, gun hating, defenseless civilian shot dead on the ground is somehow morally superior to the armed criminal who just shot them? ...The same armed criminal that you admit would probably be armed no matter what anyway? So if my friend’s ex boyfriend that I mentioned before manages to track her down and rape her again, her raped and battered body is somehow morally superior to her being alive and well and explaining to the police why her ex has a hole in his chest? You said you don’t have a problem with self defense, but you are quick to deny law abiding citizens the right to do so efficiently and effectively. Not everyone is a karate master. Like you said yourself, not every 100 lb girl can subdue every PCP-addled body building man. Why vehemently deny the small, the weak, and the infirm the means to fight those that would hurt them?

No offense, but you are completely missing the point. Even if the criminals have them you say. If you understand the argument for wanting to be able to defend oneself and that guns can be the great equalizer then why do you vehemently want to deny their potential targets the ability to fight back?

I’ve tried to help you understand where people like @incendiary_dan, @missingbite, and I are coming from. I’ve tried to be polite and to help you understand the mindset we, and hundreds of thousands of other Americans have and that it isn’t about cowering in fear, or a desire to harm others, or because we want to feel strong in an uncertain world, or boost our egos, or any other of the memes that are thrown around by those opposed to self defense. I’m seriously afraid that I have failed.

@JLeslie No worries, people make mistakes and improperly structure arguments all the time. I just like to guide discourse back to usefulness.

If we can understand carrying a gun for protection, why can’t we extend that understanding to wanting to be as well armed as possible? And it’s not like we’re talking about carrying machinepistols. It’s not SWAT gear. A handgun, even semi-automatic ones, are actually pretty mediocre weapons.

Tangent 1: Have those people talking about semi-auto pistols fired one? I’m thinking about the Churchill quote I put in another of these threads, about how lack of knowledge about the physical functioning of firearms leads people to be afraid of them and hold certain incorrect beliefs about them.

Tangent 2: Teen pregnancies also correlate higher to evangelical and fundamentalist Christian populations, who in effect bar teens from both functional reproductive knowledge and proper birth control through cultural means.

Ok, I am not knowledgeable about guns. What I understood was this Arizona shooter with on pull back on the trigger could fire 30 shots. Why would someone need to do that, except to kill a lot of people?

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard why do you say I want to deny the target/victim from fighting back? I said I am not opposed to self protection.

I still deep down prefer to live in a community that is not gun oriented, but I understand people who live and think that way have a different perspective.

@JLeslie A semiautomatic weapon is as simple as this. One trigger pull, one shot. 30 trigger pulls, 30 shots. The difference between a single shot pistol and a semiautomatic is that a single shot pistol has to be cocked prior to pulling the trigger. Two motions for one shot. What you have described with one pull back on the trigger and 30 shots is an automatic weapon. (MAC 10) What the shooter in AZ had was a semiautomatic pistol.

I was going to say that I’d already answered why someone would need that, but then realized it was on another thread. Haha, there are too many of these right now.

I shall repeat what I said on that thread:

..increased capacity magazines are not necessarily intended for killing more people faster, though they certainly have that potential. Any combat expert these days can point to the fact that most shots miss, because staying moving and finding cover is more important than aiming, and pumping adrenaline usually means you panic and just start shooting (I was just talking to an ex-cop about this). I’ve been reading the book and blog of Fernando Aguirre, who writes about observations of the Argentinian economic collapse, and particularly about defending oneself from increased crime. All of the people he’s talked to, and in his own experience, being able to fire more shots to dissuade your attackers is the biggest factor in staying alive if shooting starts (that and body armor). Hitting is a “bonus”. I believe Robert F. Williams, a black civil rights activist and armed self-defense proponent (or ‘armed self reliance’, as he referred to it) who was mostly active in the ‘50s and ‘60s, said something similar, and that guy was a veteran and defended his home and family from the KKK with a submachinegun.

And hell, let’s not have any illusions. I want guns that are really f-ing good at killing people for defense. I’d rather not shoot anyone, but if I’m going to defend myself it’s going to be damn effective. This is particularly true because armed attackers often aren’t alone, and frankly I won’t take the chance they would be (except my cheap handgun only holds ten rounds at most, so I guess I would a little. I think if I get the chance to upgrade, it might just be a Glock).

Although I haven’t mentioned it elsewhere (at least on this site), one of my big reasons for arming myself and my family is that collapse in the sense mentioned in Argentina is not only possible here, but likely. We’ve shown many signs similar to those of many different collapsing empires. Arming isn’t my primary concern when thinking about this, but since economic collapses do sometimes increase violence, it’s one of them.

@JLeslie, okay then, if the bad guys will still have guns, and even if they didn’t, how should would-be victims protect themselves?

Calling the police? Too bad the police often take several minutes to arrive (by which time you may already be dead) and according to a recent court decision, police are not obligated to protect you.

Fight back with fists? Like I said before and you said yourself, not all fights are fair or evenly matched, and not everyone has ninja skills. I can’t find the statistic right now, but if you want me to, I’ll try and locate it, but the DoJ (if I remember correctly) determined that female rape victims have a much higher survival rate if they are armed with a firearm.

Knives and clubs are not an effective self defense tool and require a great deal of skill to use, and you may actually get into a great deal of trouble for using a club or knife, even in a justified self defense case, as opposed to a firearm.

Pepper sprays and tasers are also potentially ineffective, depending on your target.

So if guns aren’t an option, what do you suggest potential victims defend themselves with, if you aren’t against the idea of self-defense. If someone is determined to cause me, my family, or an innocent bystander harm, I want to use the most effective tool available at my disposal to be sure that the threat is completely neutralized. Bear in mind that this doesn’t mean “dead.” The idea of using a firearm for self-defense is typically not to kill your target, but to stop them so they can’t continue their attack.

Why would someone need to do that, except to kill a lot of people?

@incendiary_dan pretty much answered this. The guy I’m acquainted with who I mentioned in one of my previous posts was carrying a Colt 1911. This is a .45 caliber pistol that typically holds 7 or 8 rounds. After the smoke cleared, he had only hit his attacker twice after emptying the magazine. His attacker was still able to flee and hide in an attic until the cops finally showed up. When you’re under attack, you are typically scared, and your adrenaline is flowing. Like Dan said, even if (actually, especially if) you are well prepared for a scenario like that, you will be focusing on seeking cover, etc., and all of your shots may not hit or even faze the target. What if you only had a gun with a nice, non-threatening 5 shot magazine, and you emptied all you had into your attacker, or missed with every shot and he was still coming after you? In that case, I’d much rather have more ammo on me and the capability of putting more lead on target. If someone is dead set on hurting me or my family or someone else very badly, or worse, as I mentioned before, I want the most effective tools available to defend myself.

…but I understand people who live and think that way have a different perspective.

I’m glad. That’s what I’m trying to do here. There is a huge difference between the so-called gun culture and thug culture that I’m trying to convey here. (Hint, the people like Dan, missingbite, and I aren’t the ones you should be worried about). My goal is to break down any faulty preconceptions you may have. Not to be pendantic, or whatever. There are plenty of great people in the gun culture that you probably would never hear about in the media. It’s not some monoculture… we have gay rights activists, ministers, liberals, professors, and so on. I’m at the top of my class, active in my community, and I happen to own 12 guns and plan on carrying once I’m of legal age (oh yeah, I also happen to support gay rights, and I consider myself a feminist). It’s just something some people enjoy. Like stamps. Or jet skis. Or fast cars.

Ok… sorry for the slight rant.

If you’re still with me, there is a book I think you might be interested in. Photojournalist Kyle Cassidy basically traveled around the US photographing gun owners in their homes and asking them the simple question: Why do you own a gun? You may find it enlightening.

And again, I apologize if I came off like an asshole in any of my retorts. I get fired up in this kind of debate sometimes, and being a douche isn’t my goal.

Speaking of feminism and gender empowerment: I’m sitting at a coffee shop with two friends, a straight woman and a gay man, both of whom I have talked about learning to shoot, and who I’ve offered to help out. I have a standing offer to all women I know (who I trust) that I will teach them to shoot and help them buy a gun for protection. I’m an extremely radical feminist and all around radical anti-autoritarian. While I work to prevent systemic violence, I also encourage defense both as practical defense against that systemic violence, and politically empowering. This is maybe more true for homosexuals like my friend here, because elements of our culture are still violent towards gays.

I don’t want to appear rude or ignorant, just curious. So please don’t take this the wrong way. I’m just trying to understand . Why would you both mention being feminists?

I can only speak for my own case, but I think @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard‘s reasons are the same as mine, which is to point out that gun rights advocates aren’t all the same, are not all conservative, and that there are motivations for gun rights that go beyond simple defense.

I know many conservatives who are feminists. Just saying. Okay, thanks for the answer. I’m a woman and a sharpshooter, an avid archer and skeet shooter and I have a deep respect for the art of shooting and weapons. I don’t think it is based on your politics. I know people with very liberal views who own guns for a variety of reasons.

@bkcunningham, @incendiary_dan is right. I know that a lot of people typically think of the gun culture as a bunch of rednecks or military wannabees who patrol the woods poaching critters while fantasizing about killing gays and blacks. I’ve been called “conservative scum” and a “supporter of the white male hegemony” many times because of my pro-gun views. That’s why I’m always certain to emphasize those views in debates like this… because part of my goals are to convince people of what I already know: that the “gun culture” isn’t a malevolent monoculture of gang bangers and potential murderers and that it is actually very diverse and in some cases, what some people would call “progressive.”

There was a time when I was actually a raving big-D Democrat before my conversion to classical liberalism, and even then, I was as pro-gun as pro-gun gets. I believe that the Second Amendment, gun ownership, and self defense are not left vs. right issues, or conservative vs. liberal issues, but a liberty vs. authoritarianism issue.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I’m glad you are trying to inform and break the stereotype. To be honest, I realized that to an extent. My confusion came in seeing someone I assumed to be a man using the feminist moniker and I was trying to determine if you were a female, like me, or a man using the phrase to show he supports the cause. I know, I know. The gender neutral thing and all that. Just being honest.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I never said guns are not an option, I said the opposite.

@missingbite Thank you for explaining. I see I need to understand better the different terms being thrown around. It explains why there might need a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding between what appears to be the two side of the hun control issues, but I really believe there are many people in the middle trying to come up with reasonable solutions. People on both sides are making too many assumptions about the intent and thoughts of the people on the other side. I see this with many things. One example is religion in school down here in the south where I live. I hear all too often people accusing the liberals of wanting to secularize everything, and their kids can’t have Christmas or prayer in school. That the evil liberals want to take God away. It is just the opposite in the minds of liberals. We want to protect everyone of their religious freedom, and not have a government institution influencing a childs religious beliefs. We want to respect the parent, and how they want to raise their child.

@JLeslie, really? Where?

@bkcunningham, yeah, I’m a dude. But I’m a feminist dude.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard some of the things I have said on this question:

I am not talking about laws on this question, I am talking about a mindset. I am in favor of the right to bear arms…

I can understand the argument for wanting to be able to defend oneself. Guns can be the great equalizer. An average man and an average woman in an alley, the man has a really good chance of overpowering her, simply because of his size, stregnth and feet flat on the ground, the gun might give a woman the chance. But, I just down see an America with people walking around with automatic weapons, so I cannot understand why people cannot agree to outlaw them. Even if the criminals have them. As you see in a post after this, I was misunderstanding automatic weapons, and really meant being able to fire 30 bullets in one clip.

I also said above…

The gun law has nothing to do with how the people think.

I have said over and over again I am not trying to oulaw guns. Just looking for a reasonable look at guns, and was interested in understanding better.

@JLeslie but you did say this:

My point is I don’t see why any citizen, civilian needs a semi automatic weapon for protection?

So does that mean you’re okay with civilians using revolvers for self-defense, but not semi-automatic handguns?

I have said over and over again I am not trying to oulaw guns.

What about this:

I cannot understand why people cannot agree to outlaw them

or this

But, yet there are people against making that illegal. I don’t understand it. How do they imagine the country?

What exactly are you ok with civilians using as a self-defense weapon then?

Can you answer that?

…and really meant being able to fire 30 bullets in one clip magazine. (there is a huge difference between magazines and clips just thought you should know)

@incendiary_dan and I have already covered this.

Just looking for a reasonable look at guns, and was interested in understanding better.

I’m really trying to help you with that. Bear with me.

——————

If you are still following me, I want you to play along with something for a moment, if you don’t mind. I’m going to post links to a few pictures of weapons and I want you to tell me in your next response which are suitable for self defense and which are not, according to your own opinion. Since you assert that you are not against self defense, or even self-defense with a gun, I really want to know what kinds of guns you think are ok for self defense. Hear me out… I’m going somewhere with this and I’m trying to understand you better.

Ok… now which of the following, in your own opinion and based on your own knowledge (since you said you are not opposed to self defense) are suitable for civilian use in self defense scenarios?

Pistols

Glock 19

Snub-nosed .38 revolver

Shotguns

Mossberg 590

Double barreled shotgun

Semi-automatic rifles

Ruger Mini-14

AR-15

Still with me? There is one more set I want you to look at…

Long-range rifles

.308 Deer rifle

Accuracy International .308

There is a reason I posted these. I want you to tell me which of these you are ok with civilians using in self defense situations, and I want you to tell me why you think so as well. I’m going somewhere with this, so your participation would be wonderful. You said you wanted to understand the gun toting/self defense mindset more, and if you play along with me here, you might just be able to do that.

I eagerly await your response.

I am tired. You are twising my words. One last time. I thought automatic weapons meant firing off 30 clips at a time, what I meant was I want to outlaw people being able to fire off excessive amounts of bullets with one trigger and no reload. @missingbite explained to me that I misunderstood some of the terminology and I thanked him. I also admitted I, and people like me, are ignorant on many of the gun terminology, and the two sides of the argument are miscommunicating. Thank you for proving my statement. You choose to cherry pick parts of my sentences, rather than listen to my overall thoughts, and my interest in understanding. I don’t have an immediate opinion on what gun or amo is ok. I am not an expert. I probably would be more curious to know which guns gun carrying people think should be outlawed, since they know more than I do.

If you are going to fight against people like me on the left, who are moderate on the issue, and willing to consider your values and thoughts, you will continue to shut down the conversation. Nothing will ever get solved.

If you are going to fight against people like me on the left, who are moderate on the issue, and willing to consider your values and thoughts, you will continue to shut down the conversation. Nothing will ever get solved.

Excellent point. It’s why I’m close to giving up on the issue.

@JLeslie I’m not trying to shut down the communication here. That’s why I’m asking these questions here. Because I’m curious. I want to see how you really think about the issue. If you think that certain weapons are okay or not okay, I just want to know why because that’s the direction our conversation was starting to take.

I don’t know how I’m twisting your words, either. Could you please point out where I did that? I’m trying to help you understand where I’m coming from here and I’m trying to understand things you have asserted previously better. You say you are interested in understanding, I apologized in advance for coming off as snarky at any time (which was never intentional, if it happened), and you’re just dismissing me now? Again, I apologize if I’m misunderstanding you here, but I’m having a hard time following you here.

If you are going to fight against people like me on the left, who are moderate on the issue, and willing to consider your values and thoughts, you will continue to shut down the conversation. Nothing will ever get solved.

I’m not interested in fighting. I’m trying to help you understand why I think the way I do. I explained how I and my community treats the idea of gun ownership, and how it came to be that way. I’ve provided a link to a book that I thought you might be interested in. I answered as many of your questions that I thought I could, and addressed you when I thought you were incorrect or didn’t understand something adequately. I really feel like you ignored a lot of things I brought up and questions I asked because you never really replied to them. If you actually did, and just didn’t feel like replying or didn’t feel you had a reason too, I understand, but I do kind of get that feeling. Please hear me out. I’m not interested in pushing you away or attacking you or anything of that nature. I wouldn’t be here this long if I was just looking to be antagonistic. Go get some rest and get back to me, if you like. I’ll be around.

@iamthemob, with all due respect, what have I done wrong here? I tried to answer @JLeslie‘s questions to the best of my ability. I had no intention of “cherrypicking” any of Jeleslie’s words. The quotes I used were to show where I thought I found contradictions. Did you read every one of my responses? What exactly did I do that is “shutting down the conversation?” Once again, I was not intent on fighting here. That would be pointless. Wherever JLeslie had a misunderstanding or a misconception that I perceived, I addressed it. How could I have done this better without completely sacrificing my own point of view on the subject? Would you feel differently about me being in this thread if my opinions completely matched JLeslie’s and I was just affirming what they had to say? I disagreed without being disagreeable, as far as I can tell (feel free to point out to me where I didn’t) which is one of the requirements on Fluther. What exactly do you expect from me?

The only people I see trying to shut down communication are those that continually deflect and distract by changing lines of argument. @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard has been perfectly direct and asked straight-forward questions. He hasn’t insulted anyone, or belittled them. Despite frustration I’m sure he feels, he’s remained open and has attempted to fill in some gaps so we can have even more robust and abundant discourse. This all seems far more reasonable than I, personally, have patience for.

P.S. ‘Clip’ is also not a round of ammunition. Also, ‘automatic’ does mean that you can fire many rounds with one trigger pull. It was ‘semi-automatic’ that @JLeslie misused before.

Carry on.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard – My sincere apologies as this was less directed at you personally, although I think that your argument style on this topic plays into my personal exhaustion at dealing with Second Amendment advocates.

I am an advocate of the Second Amendment. I’ve come to this position because I’ve realized that I cannot advocate a truly liberty-focused idea of government without supporting support of general gun ownership.

But I find that in discussions with many who argue from a “pro-gun” stance, that gets lost, even though I say it repeatedly, as I am also in favor of spreading cost and personal responsibility based on choice. The arguments I have with you and others arguing from a similar ideological standpoint seem to be inevitably a game of me trying to give more and more, and the pro-gunners I’m talking with arguing against any regulatory points I make. Arguing against any idea that guns are dangerous (I’m sorry, they are). Arguing against comparing them to anything else that is dangerous and regulated. Arguing against the idea that we are not in danger from government takeover because we don’t have as many guns (which I think is a paranoid argument) but rather we should be more concerned with economic control from a corporatist environment.

There’s simply no give, it appears, from the other side. I will point to my back and forth with @incendiary_dan above. I was already frustrated at that point, so if I seem shut down, it’s because I didn’t expect any give on his side. I didn’t get any. I will point to @incendiary_dan‘s statement directly above. The problem is that all you do is question the opposing side rather and state why your position may be reasonable. Shouldn’t we be looking at solutions for the issue? The fact that one gets to own a gun doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be responsibilities for owning one. Part of that is a monetary cost, as far as I’m concerned, for keeping it safely. This should either be up-front or on the back-end, but more than likely both so that cost is spread evenly.

In a perfect world, we’d have no guns. This isn’t a perfect world. So, we should have guns. For Christmas, my dad just got my mom a gun. I thought that was awesome. But I want to figure out the best ways to shift the cost for the damage done by guns to those who choose to own them, rather than those who choose not to.

I think that’s the most fair. But every conversation I’ve had seems to be “Oh, then you just want the rich to have guns” or “why should I pay because someone else fucks up with their gun?”

I’m tired of the dead ends. That’s it. And it’s where you all appear to dig in your heals when there seems to be a lot more give on the other side…well…I may be wrong in how I’m looking at how either side approaches the argument, but my frustration is hardly my own…

@iamthemob I won’t argue or debate the issue of cost structure on gun ownership. That is for another time and place. The one sentence in your above post that spoke out to me was ”Arguing against any idea that guns are dangerous (I’m sorry, they are).” makes me ask a question that someone brought up to me. If a gun can be responsible for the death of someone, is it also true that the pencil can be responsible for the mis-spelled word?

This can not be answered as asked in a truthful manor as there will always be crime. Before fire arms there was crime. Before the invention on hard alloys there was crime. When there was only body, sticks and stones there was crime.

Based on FACT of history if someone told me there would be no more crime I would still carry as history of thousands of years proves your “no more crime” theory to be flawed from the very first breath it was uttered.

@missingbite – No. But if the pencil or another tool did not exist, the word would not have been misspelled in a manner by that person writing it that would have been set to see by others.

If the printing press did not exist, the mistake could not have been printed on paper for many, many more to see.

If the internet did not exist, then it wouldn’t have been made for nearly ALL to see.

The question redirects the argument in the manner that I find most troubling. Guns are dangerous. That doesn’t mean that they are responsible for the harm they cause. But, tools that are dangerous must be looked at differently than those that are less dangerous or not dangerous at all.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That’s fine. We’re not talking about the regulation of gun’s rights. We’re talking about examining people’s rights. And people with guns can kill a lot more people than people without them.

So I believe that answers your question.

@iamthemob Have you considered the fact that I gave no give on that thread (did you realize it was another thread? I’ve been getting confused myself) because you gave no reasonable response to my objections? If you have questions or want clarification about a comment, instead of instantly going for personal attacks, which you did on that other thread, you could ask to have them clarified. Instead, you deflected and played the part of victim, just like you’ve done here. Just learn to carry on a debate, actually read what others write and not what you want to argue, and stop trying to pin your personal lack of use of formal logic on the supposed reticence of others.

Secondly, you’re completely full of it. @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard has repeatedly and thoroughly given explanation of his arguments, in addition to asking questions in order to allow us to carry on conversation intelligently and with proper information. Questions, in case you are unaware, have a major role in coming to logical conclusions in logical discourse. For the most part, all of this conversation has included people asking questions, answering them, and using that to update their information to go on asking more, better questions and refine the conversation to fit. @JLeslie has updated her frame of reference several times, and then asked better questions based on that. I would really like to see a return to that.

Claims that anyone here is “fighting against.. the left” are not only unfounded and off base, since nobody was being attacked until @iamthemob started railing against fictitious persecution. They also point clearly to the fact that some people haven’t actually bothered to read the posts of @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard, since he talks about classical liberalism as a big part of his influence in terms of gun rights (whereas I might be called a super Leftist, I prefer to think of myself as a “post-left” anti-autoritarian). Either way, slightly disengenuous to frame it as if leftism is a part of the target (and before anyone denies that was the intent, it was the effect), as we’re clearly coming from the left and could easily be defined as “moderate left”.

If you’re incapable of debating an issue without feeling attacked, simply don’t. Whether it’s because of an inability to adhere to formal logic, or some sort of emotionalistic reaction, I think that warrants some sort of introspection. I’m perfectly happy to leave room for that in conversation, or wait until that’s examined. I’m not, in any way, going to expend any more of my energy on illogical, ignorant, abusive, and completely useless bickering from someone who is simply pissed off that they can’t defend their own position reasonably, or more likely is probably pissed off that someone made them get out of their narrow box.

I’ll carry on with any trains of this conversation that actually have to do with the use of firearms, whether they’re logistical, motivational, or whatever. We had a good, informative conversation going for awhile. I’m going to ignore any more deflectionary attacks on the people participating from people who take well-articulated and constructive disagreement as personal insult. I fear that means I’m done with this conversation.

And really, I have to wonder why none of this was a problem until we sidetracked to gain a grounding in terminology and technological information. What about that subject is so objectionable?

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I don’t mind you asking me a question, but I kept feeling like you want to believe I am against you. You chose a part of my words “I cannot understand why people cannot agree to outlaw them” I have no idea exactly where I wrote that, and don’t feel like hunting for it, but if I had to guess it is about, again, being able to fire off a weapon 30 times with one pull. You seem to be wanting to say by pulling that quote that I want to outlaw guns period. That is what I mean by cherry picking.

@all Is there anyone else on this thread who thinks I want to outlaw all guns? Or, anyone who thinks I am just trying to rail against gun owners and the NRA? Or, doesn’t understand that I can understand why some people feel the need to be able to defend themselves?

I am curious to know from all of the people on the side of guns, who own guns, who are knowledgable about guns, are there any restrictions you are in favor of?

@incendiary_dan – Most of the back and forth was on the other thread, you’re right. But characterizing my arguments as you have is the reason why I’m officially giving up. I merely stated ways to potentially make the cost of gun ownership more fair. You jumped straight to “guns for the rich only.” Of course, that’s a simplification, but you don’t seem to want to deal with the nuances of the argument.

I was talking about where the frustration comes from. That’s not about whether or not you make good points. It was about why someone who was fairly pro-gun ownership, or willing to listen to the other side, might give up. That’s what I was commenting on. I used our back and forth as an example, and stated out loud that I was already kind of on lockdown by that point.

I’m not “railing against fictitious persecution.” I’m saying you all aren’t being careful in how you’re presenting your argument to potential allies. But as @JLeslie just posted, there’s a reactionary nature to your debate that makes some, including myself ask, “are there any restrictions you are in favor of?”

I get the impression the answer is “no.” Therefore, I feel less and less like I want to talk to you.

Now, I’m not really advocating anything but “people should have access to guns, but gun ownership entails certain responsibilities and monetary costs.” The more I talk to you, the more I feel like I’m banging my head against the wall. And when those who are moderate on the issues feel like the conversation is being shut down because of that, and raise concerns about that, you respond “No, YOU’RE shutting down the conversation.”

Way to go. You win. Conversation shut down on my end.

I really don’t want people to get angry or frustrated with each other. I’d like to think everyone has good intentions and wants to have a discussion. Maybe we are just misinterpreting each other.

@iamthemob By your rational, we should outlaw speech. I assure you the internet and lack of freedom of speech is far more dangerous than any gun ever made. See, just because something is written with a pencil, typed and printed with a press, or linked to the internet…does not make it so. Think of all those hurtful thinks written and distributed. We would be so much better off without them.

@missingbite – Nope. Words are not inherently dangerous. A word cannot kill, because there is always an intermediary. If there is no intermediary (i.e., a secondary will to interpret the word and make a decision) then the word is merely acting like a trigger – as on a gun.

Also, speech is regulated. As guns should be. Speech that is considered to be inherently harmful (e.g., defamatory speech) is considered criminal. Guns are much the same. As are some prescription medications. As is toxic waste.

There are certain things which even when used properly can create harm that is unintended. Guns are some of those things.

Please understand how that by my rational, we should regulate speech – and we already do. I never, ever advocated “outlawing” anything, simply recognizing that one thing is more dangerous than another. So, you’re making your own argument – please do not attribute it to me.

“Give me 26 lead soldiers and I’ll conquer the world,” Karl Marx.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The_Craven Joseph Goebbels

“Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”
Adolf Hitler;

How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words. Samuel Adams.

“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition…But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas…that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Can we stop the quotes now?

@iamthemob I believe we are on the same page and agree more than we think. You are correct that a word without an intermediary cannot kill. My argument is that a gun without an intermediary won’t kill anyone either. My theory is that a US without guns would lead to more “words” killing people. I may be wrong. IMHO

One last quote…or saying…The pen is mightier than the sword. (Or gun)

@missingbite Amen – Jesus Okay, okay….just kidding. No, I’m finished – Antwone Fisher

@missingbite – I can’t say whether you’re right or wrong about a U.S. without guns. I just don’t think that many, and never myself, at this point are arguing that guns should be outlawed on this thread. I think guns are awesome.

But we can’t compare them to words, but rather we need to think of them like other products on the market. If we do not, and consider them solely in a constitutional sense, then any regulation limiting purchases to someone over X age would be considered wrong. I think that age regulation for purchase of gun, as well as the ancillary rights of ownership, are good.

So having a gun is not like having speech in a constitutional sense, as it is a concrete thing. Therefore we must look at it like other concrete things. Outlawing it is silly and constitutionally radically dangerous. But let’s all be honest – a gun is not a spoon. It is not a couch. It is not even a knife. It allows people to do great harm at great distances. That is something that warrants concern.

@iamthemob Well said and I agree with you. I don’t believe everyone should have a gun. I do believe that, especially in todays world, we can’t or shouldn’t regulate the types of guns that are available. I do believe it is my 2nd Amendment right to own a gun and I do view it as the same as having a 1st Amendment right. I guess that is where we disagree.

What I do fear is a government that wants to limit my rights. I believe that when we try to say, limit magazine rounds or rifle styles, we open up a door for a government to do as they wish. I am against that.

@JLeslie asked if we would leave our guns at home. Being from Louisiana and knowing that N.O. police were walking into the homes of citizens and taking there firearms after Katrina worries me. It has been done! That is a government that has too much power over its people.

@missingbite – I feel like regulating the type of weapons is problematic – I agree. Attempting to make one type legal and another illegal is, again, the surefire way to make sure that the better, more deadly gun will only be held by a criminal.

But I do think that there are regulations that should accompany the more dangerous weapon, some that may affect cost, that will help to spread the cost of properly. I do not attempt to state what it should be…but that’s my starting point. It’s like with all other products – if you want a better one, pay more – if it’s more dangerous, then be prepared to have costs built in that you won’t be happy about.

@missingbite Never heard that before about NOLA after Katrina? Were they taking guns from abondoned, or unlocked homes? Were the guns were out for anyone to find? Or, guns that were not registered? I would be ok with that, because people are looting and were out of control. If they were removing weapons from people who had a license, that troubles me.

@missingbite – Real quick – where are you getting that information? I moved back up north from NOLA in 2008 – I don’t remember anyone I know getting a gun taken from them.

And there was a lot…a lot of bad stuff going on there at that time. That’s a fairly radical example.

@JLeslie here’s one of many stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2r4MkcMBdQ

Here’s a CNN report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_kv2Y0ofI&NR=1

Last one I promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=related

@bkcunningham Thank you. That was the link I was going to post. Here is the story with video embedded.

On a tangent here but I would also like for people to think about why it is that this got very little media attention. Could it be that the main stream media is also against guns?

The main stream media are generally idiots. But again, living in New Orleans during that entire event…I’ll say this is a bad example in that there was a lot to be concerned about – vigilante justice just the beginning. Particularly when the mainstream media was reporting a whole lot of insane shit that wasn’t really happening (OMG three year old babies are getting raped nonstop!).

I lived in NYC during 9/11 and New Orleans during Katrina. I really wish people who weren’t there would stop pointing those events out unless they were there to see what was going on.

I had trouble with the video, because my laptop is a nightmare, but read the article, I will try again later. Not sure what to think. I don’t think it ok for people who have a permit to have their gun taken. About people needing a receipt to get fireams back, that seems ridiculous, but if the gun was registered, then with ID, you would get it back, right? The article says some of the guns were handed down generation to generation, but it is still supposed to be registered. I know people don’t want to register guns, because they think the government will know who has guns and how many. Seems like a Catch 22.

@iamthemob Yeah, that is why I asked, because I have been through many hurricanes in FL, and I know what the aftermath is like: living with curfews, possible crime, and NOLA was just so much worse than what I ever even dealt with.

You guys stayed through the storm to protect your property? Wow. I’ve only known three other people who have done that. Remarkable.

@bkcunningham Who is you guys? Do you mean me? I was not in NOLA during Katrina, maybe I did not write it clearly, although we did get Katrina first in FL, but it was not a very strong storm there. But, I went through pretty bad ones in FL. Most people stay in their homes during hurricanes, unless you live by the coast.

@JLeslie yes you and @iamthemob . (You guys is plural in the South.) He said he was in Katrina. Sorry I forgot the @ thing. I lived in Florida for seven years on the Atlantic coast across the street from the ocean. I and was evacuated once. Mandatory. It was very frightening. You couldn’t have paid me to stay, but I was renting and terrified.

@bkcunningham LOL, I knew you meant more than one person :), and I knew you must mean @iamthemob I just was not sure if I was one of the two, or if you meant multiple people in NOLA. Since you lived by the ocean, usually within a mile of the ocean the area is evacuated. I was more west, between 7–15 miles depending which house I was living in during what year. I did have a condo 1.5 miles from the beach for one hurricane that I had rented out. The tenant stayed there during the storm.

I thought you live in the northeast

Well the way I see it, if crime suddenly ceased to exist, then I could not commit any crime with my gun. I would continue to carry it, as it would then become a tool instead of a weapon. You never know when you might need to pop a balloon or put a .45 caliber hole in a piece of wood (is quicker, easier, and sooo much more fun than a drill).

Since crime no longer exists, either through total anarchy, where there are no laws to break, thus no crime, or through a sci-fi utopia where crime cannot be committed because a special force stops bullets from hitting people, knives from stabbing people, evil penises from raping people, prevents money and valuable from being taken without a fair, agreed upon price, or speeding, then stray bullets would either hit someone who was going to kill and rape (in that order) your pregnant wife, or just vanish in thin air after perforating your coffee table in progress.

In a crimeless society, there’s really no great reason to not carry a gun. It’s be like not carrying that swiss army knife that you open mail and stab violent drunken homeless people with.

@JLeslie “lived” in Florida. Past tense.

@bkcunningham Your said, you guys is plural in the south. That to me means you are in the south and I am in the north. So you are a southerner? Are you including FL as the south? Part of FL, especially north FL, is south, but southern FL is pretty northern atitude at this point.

Only when my home was in the boondocks outside of civilization with no police and no one else who could protect me from dangerous animals or criminals. Otherwise, no. I would not even want to own a gun.