Diane Sawyer's Sensationalist Crap

So anyone who was spent any time watching ABC this past week may have noticed the ads they've been running for a 20/20 special hosted by Diane Sawyer and called "If Only I Had A Gun", which aired at 10 tonight. A few friends and I decided to watch it since we were sitting around bullshitting with not much to do. Well, it turned out to be a bunch of irresponsible fear-mongering and BS (surprise!)

The program got off to a rocky start when it had Diane Sawyer say that there are "over 250 million rifles, pistols, and assault weapons" in the United States. Oof. I guess "assault weapons" comprise their own class of firearms, distinct from categories such as "rifle" or "pistol". Obviously she said "rifles, pistols, and assault weapons" because it sounds scarier than "rifles and pistols". Which should surprise no-one, since as we all know, the very purpose of the term "assault weapon" is to sound scary rather than to actually mean anything. Of course the reality of the situation is that all so-called "assault weapons" are actually either rifles or pistols; they are rifles or pistols that happen to fit a certain set of criteria dreamed up by gun control advocates to separate firearms into meaningless categories for the purpose of getting them banned. Anyhow, on to the meat of the program:

The first segment of the program addressed the question of how easy or difficult it is for a regular person to defend themselves with a handgun. Okay, a fair enough question. Unfortunately, their "investigation" of this issue consisted solely of this experiment: They went onto a college campus, picked a half-dozen ditzy college students with no firearms experience (but they did take pains to point out that one of the kids "liked action movies" and was an airsofter!), let them run through a few mags of Simunition at the police range, and then had them try to defend themselves in a simulated school shooting situation. I might also add that they had them all wearing long, baggy, untucked white t-shirts that they predictably got tangled up in when they tried to draw. It should also be mentioned that their opponent in this simulated scenario was a police officer with police weapons and tactics training. Unsurprisingly, none of the college students did very well. This was the ONLY treatment that the program gave to the question of whether self-defense with a firearm is a practical proposition for the ordinary person, and then they concluded with a sort of "Well, there you have it" attitude as if they had seriously addressed the issue and reached a meaningful conclusion. No mention of the fact that their scenario is not representative of the most common sort of self-defense situations; no mention of the fact that most CCP holders aren't giggling college sophomores with essentially zero firearms experience/practice (and essentially zero serious-mindedness about the prospect of self defense), and no mention of the fact that ~2,000,000 Americans do somehow manage to defend themselves with a firearm every year, and that the use of guns to defend against a criminal is therefore roughly fifteen times more common that the use of guns to commit a crime.

The next segment of the program focused on a low-income, crime-ridden, predominantly African-American community where the people are afraid to go out at night because of the street gangs. It discussed the weapons that the gangsters have, and had some really heart-wrenching moments with young children talking about the people they knew who had been shot. The implication that guns are to blame for this community's problems was obvious. No mention was made of the complex set of interconnected social, cultural, economic, and educational problems that actually create crime-ridden communities such as the one featured. If you were paying attention, you would have been able to surmise from the statements of one of the gangsters that all the guns were obtained through entirely illegal channels (obviously these guys aren't going to be showing two forms of ID and filling out a form 4473 when they pick up their next murder weapon), but the voiceover never acknowledged this fact. Nor did it divulge that because of this fact, in conjunction with the number of guns already in criminal circulation, the gangsters' ability to purchase weapons would be totally unaffected by even the most all-inclusive gun ban.

The next segment of the program focused on the problem of kids finding guns. It was basically a series of scenes showing how young children tend to play with guns if they find them in their house, and showing that kids are often able to find unsecured guns in the household even if the parents think the guns are well-hidden, and showing that even teenagers often display dangerous recklessness when handling guns that they find (especially if peer pressure is involved). Throughout the entire segment, no mention--not even the slightest or most indirect mention--of secure storage was ever made. "Gun safe", "gun locker", "secured", "locked up"... None of these phrases or words was used even once. It was honestly baffling. I would have been perfectly okay with it if they ended the segment with something like "And this is why it's important to keep your gun locked up securely if you do have one in the house", but there was nothing like that... just endless montages of toddlers peering innocently down the barrels of revolvers, calculated to be terrifying to any parent and create a mental link between "gun in the house" and "danger to your kids!". It also talked about an incident at a machine gun shoot where an 8-year-old boy lost control of an Uzi and managed to shoot himself in the head. Obviously tragic.... but if you let your 8-year-old kid drive a motorcycle and he crashes it, it's your fault for being a shitty parent, not the motorcycle's fault. I don't really see how fully automatic weapons are different. This father let his son handle a piece of potentially dangerous machinery that the kid was obviously not physically capable of controlling, and that should have only been handled by a capable adult. What does the tragic result have to do with the broader issue of gun control, gun rights, or the usefulness of guns (which is what this program was supposedly examining)? But, they brought it up anyhow, to add a bit more fuel to the fire I guess.

The last segment of the program focused on the "gun show loophole". Hoo boy. It centered around a young man whose sister was killed in the VT massacre, and who had made it his personal crusade to spread awareness of the "gun show loophole" by going around to gun shows and seeing how many guns he could buy without being subjected to a background check. He proceeded to go to a Virginia gun show and walk out with a number of firearms that he had bought from non-FFL sellers. Unfortunately, the program utterly neglected to explain that he was able to buy these firearms not because there's some "gun show loophole" that voids background check requirements at gun shows, but because non-FFL sellers NEVER have to conduct background checks, whether or not they sell at gun shows. The guy could just as easily have bought those guns, without a background check, if his neighbor or friend was getting rid of them and offered to sell them to him. Or if he had followed up a "for sale" ad posted at his local range. The program reinforced the deceptive effect of this omission by showing clips of anti-gun protesters yelling about how gun shows are places where background checks aren't required. The ultimate effect was to create, for the viewers, the completely false impression that you ordinarily have to get a background check to buy a gun, UNLESS you go to a gun show, in which case all bets are off and you can just had over cash and walk out with the gun. I also had to wonder whether this guy realized that closure of the "gun show loophole" wouldn't have prevented the VT massacre and wouldn't have saved his sister's life, because the VT shooter bought his guns at an FFL gun store and passed background checks in order to do so. He even had to abide by the 1-month waiting period that VA law requires between handgun purchases. The reason the VT shooter was able to buy guns wasn't that he could somehow evade background checks by going to a gun show, it was that insufficient mental health reporting procedures allowed his history of mental illness to be kept out of the database that it should have been in. Gun shows and non-FFL background check requirements really have absolutely nothing to do with the VT massacre, but Diane Sawyer spent 10 minutes of her show creating the utterly false impression that closing the "gun show loophole" would have prevented that massacre.

I wouldn't generally describe myself as a conservative, and I have to roll my eyes when people of any political affiliation complain about the media is biased in favor of the opposite political affiliation, but damn... this really made the phrase "liberal media bias" sound reasonable. In conclusion, Diane Sawyer is a lying bitch who shamelessly distorts the facts in order to make effective self-defense seem infeasible, to blame violent crime on the tools used by the criminals, to make people terrified to keep a gun in their home, and to demonize gun shows and blame them for tragic crimes that they had nothing to do with.

/rant, I just had to get it out of my system.

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but the media has been using half truths and lies to push their anti-gun agenda for decades. 99.9% of the time when I see a "report on guns" I end up screaming at the talking heads on the idiot box.

I didnt get to see it, but Ive already heard about it. Word travels fast when it was a stupid as Ive heard it was.

Did you see the MSNBC special on Kids and Guns? That one was bad.

The "conspiracies" section of my brain wonders if the spate of "mass killings" that seem to pop up every other day is really a statistically significant increase in the frequency of such events, or if the media is simply reporting more of them, longer, and with greater fanfare now that there's a possibility the government may do something to get more gun control enacted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Galt

The "conspiracies" section of my brain wonders if the spate of "mass killings" that seem to pop up every other day is really a statistically significant increase in the frequency of such events, or if the media is simply reporting more of them, longer, and with greater fanfare now that there's a possibility the government may do something to get more gun control enacted.

---

I wouldnt be surprised if its the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Galt

The "conspiracies" section of my brain wonders if the spate of "mass killings" that seem to pop up every other day is really a statistically significant increase in the frequency of such events, or if the media is simply reporting more of them, longer, and with greater fanfare now that there's a possibility the government may do something to get more gun control enacted.

---

Well, it's definitely a fact that mass killings of this type (massacres, shooting sprees, whatever you want to call them) only account for a small percentage of gun fatalities; the overwhelming majority of shooting deaths occur one at a time, in normal old-fashioned murders, gang shootings, burglaries/robberies gone wrong, and so forth. But of course "Crazed gunman kills sixteen people and himself" makes for a much more gripping news item than "Man kills other man in drug dispute" or "Homeowner shot by burglar" or "Jealous wife kills unfaithful husband" or whatever, so yeah, the media definitely does disproportionately over-report on the mass killings, creating the false impression that they represent a significant portion of gun crime. And the resulting public fears are definitely used to justify silly crap like "assault weapon bans", limits on magazine capacity, etc., because people don't realize how irrelevant that stuff is to 99% of gun crime. The reality of the situation is that if even if stricter gun controls could prevent these occasional shooting sprees (a dubious assumption to begin with), the effect would be that the annual murder rate would fall from ~17,000 people per year to something like ~16,960 people per year. Whoop-de-doo! Not that a few dozen human lives per year are insignificant, but in comparison to the overall murder rate in the US, it really shows you how much of a gap exists between the actual scale of the "shooting spree" problem and the degree of importance that many people assign to it in terms of crime-fighting priorities. Another triumph of fear, hysteria, and emotion over facts; thanks, US media.

I don't really give a crap about it simply because of those who understand that segment is all bullshit and I know they are out there also being amazed at how false the whole thing is. If you are stupid enough to believe that shit, then I feel sorry for you being so fucking dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick2.1

I don't really give a crap about it simply because of those who understand that segment is all bullshit and I know they are out there also being amazed at how false the whole thing is. If you are stupid enough to believe that shit, then I feel sorry for you being so fucking dumb.

---

Only problem with that is that alot of the people in power beleive that crap too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Only problem with that is that alot of the people in power beleive that crap too.

---

True, but it will never come to a point where we aren't given the right to protect ourselves with firearms. It would be an act of tyranny if it did ever happen and that shit probably wouldn't go through. There are a few states(not my queer ass state) that still express the 2nd amendment to it's fullest(maybe not so much, but do you really need mini-guns and RPGs?)

I wouldnt mind having a minigun. :D

I think everyone wouldn't. Maybe the ones on the wrong end, but meh.

Whoever neg rep'd me for my opinion, way to be a woman instead of typing an argument.

wow this is really pathetic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MX3QtumSuE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxNRLMWkjc8

I honestly don't see what's so surprising about all of this.

The right-wing press have been doing extreme stories predicated on fear like this one for as long as there has been a right-wing press. They routinely distort facts and issues to prove their point and, more importantly, sell papers/get viewers.

And then on the occasions that someone on the left dares to do the same kind of thing for an opposite viewpoint any hint of an actual discussion on the subject is drowned by the cries of "LIBERAL-BIAS!!! LIBERAL-PANSY-WUSS-ATHEIST-UNPATRIOTIC-MEDIA!!!!".

Grow up. In this day and age news is based on fear. Whether it's coming from the right side or the left, they want you to be outraged and angry and, above all, afraid. If you haven't realised that yet then I urge you to not pay attention to the mainstream news sources at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I guess "assault weapons" comprise their own class of firearms, distinct from categories such as "rifle" or "pistol".

---

Well that's because it is. I'm pretty sure it refers to a separate type of weapon, such as your AKs and your M16s and your UZIs and stuff like that. Weapons whose prime function is to kill. Not ke a rifle for hunting or sport or a generic pistol for self-defence but weapons that exist solely to kill (whether that is how they are used is a separate matter altogether).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

I honestly don't see what's so surprising about all of this.

The right-wing press have been doing extreme stories predicated on fear like this one for as long as there has been a right-wing press. They routinely distort facts and issues to prove their point and, more importantly, sell papers/get viewers.

And then on the occasions that someone on the left dares to do the same kind of thing for ,an opposite viewpoint any hint of an actual discussion on the subject is drowned by the cries of "LIBERAL-BIAS!!! LIBERAL-PANSY-WUSS-ATHEIST-UNPATRIOTIC-MEDIA!!!!".

Grow up. In this day and age news is based on fear. Whether it's coming from the right side or the left, they want you to be outraged and angry and, above all, afraid. If you haven't realised that yet then I urge you to not pay attention to the mainstream news sources at all.

---

I never said I was surprised or shocked about any of this; just annoyed. And yeah, I'd agree that right-leaning news organizations are just as prone to fearmongering as left-leaning ones. And I'm perfectly aware that the modern commercial news media is governed by a business model based on running stories that get people angry or frightened; but why does that fact mean that people shouldn't express their displeasure, and discuss the issue, when they see coverage that they feel misrepresents an issue they care about?

And I'm perfectly open to actual discussion of the topic; you should know that. I'm certainly not trying to quash discussion by yelling about liberal bias (and I'm an atheist myself). My rather lengthy OP was spent almost entirely on explaining why I thought the coverage was misleading; only at the very end did I mention "liberal bias", and then what I actually said was that I don't believe in a systemic liberal media bias but that I do see how programs like this lead people to believe in one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

Well that's because it is. I'm pretty sure it refers to a separate type of weapon, such as your AKs and your M16s and your UZIs and stuff like that. Weapons whose prime function is to kill. Not ke a rifle for hunting or sport or a generic pistol for self-defence but weapons that exist solely to kill (whether that is how they are used is a separate matter altogether).

---

This doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons, though.

Firstly, I was saying that it's ridiculous to talk about "rifles and pistols and assault weapons", because all "assault weapons" ARE either rifles or pistols; they don't constitute a separate class of weapons distinct from rifles or pistols, no matter what their prime function is. Civilian AK clones and AR15 clones (what people often call "M16s") are rifles even if we accept that their prime function is to kill (more on that in a minute). A civilian version of an Uzi is either a rifle (albeit a pistol-caliber carbine) or a pistol, depending on whether it is fitted with a shoulder stock. So it simply doesn't make any sense to say "rifles and pistols and assault weapons". It's like saying "fruits and vegetables and apples".

Secondly, it is nonsensical to draw a distinction between "weapons whose prime function is to kill" and weapons whose prime function isn't to kill, and then claim that the former group of weapons are "assault weapons" while the latter group is not. A hunting rifle's prime function is to kill. The prime function of a self-defense handgun is certainly to kill, or to threaten/exercise lethal force. Yet you apparently exclude both hunting rifles and self-defense handguns from your definition of "assault weapon". The fact is that if you sit down and systematically classify guns according to whether or not their "prime function" is to kill (presumably meaning they were designed primarily for a role that includes killing), the resultant division is not going to line up at all with the division between so-called "assault weapons" and other weapons. You will find that there will be plenty of non-"assault weapons" that fall into the group of weapons designed primarily for killing, and plenty of "assault weapons" that fall into the group that wasn't designed primarily for killing (because the gun-control advocate's definition of "assault weapon" actually includes lots of sporting rifles that happen to look mean).

And what does it even mean for a weapon to "exist solely to kill?" Can you explain that characterization? I can understand how you might talk about a weapon's "prime function" being killing, if the weapon was designed for military use or self-defense or hunting (even then I think it's not a very good way to phrase it, but I at least know what it's supposed to mean). But I don't at all understand what it means for a weapon to "exist solely to kill".

There is no federal or generally-accepted definition of "assault weapon".

What's more, all three of those general firearm types you mentioned.. are verbotten for civilians. You can purchase "clones" of them; that is, firearms that are similar in APPEARANCE to the real, full-auto deal, but that's it. Unless you want to go the illegal route.

I contend that the only person who decides what the primary function of any given weapon is is the one in control of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunker

You can purchase "clones" of them; that is, firearms that are similar in APPEARANCE to the real, full-auto deal, but that's it.

---

I assumed that was what he meant; semiauto AK clones/builds, semiauto ARs and clones, semiauto Uzi carbines, and so forth. Those still fall under the gun-control advocate's definition of "assault weapons".

Lol. Pitting random untrained college kids against a trained professional. The guy shooting will more than likely NOT be a pro like him, and they will usually be just as nervous as you.

On a side note, Id love to be able to find somewhere like that where I can take high stress training like that. It would be fun and good training.

Heh, you guys don't live in the UK. Anytime I suggest the gun ban in 1998 was ineffective and took power away from the lawful citizen I get shouted down and am expected to explain how a gun is effective when someone comes up behind you with one. Then they yell 'QED!', ignore everything I say about freedom of self-defence then point to the Hungerford massacre and say 'well, that hasn't happened again has it?'

Yeah, you guys don't have it that bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Heh, you guys don't live in the UK. Anytime I suggest the gun ban in 1998 was ineffective and took power away from the lawful citizen I get shouted down and am expected to explain how a gun is effective when someone comes up behind you with one. Then they yell 'QED!', ignore everything I say about freedom of self-defence then point to the Hungerford massacre and say 'well, that hasn't happened again has it?'

Yeah, you guys don't have it that bad.

---

Oh yeah, I definitely agree that American anti-gun bullshit is nowhere near as awful as British anti-gun bullshit. You have my sympathies. Damn I'm glad I don't live in the UK.

I wouldn't mind but for the complete lack of any statistical evidence, and any realistic political justification for blocking ownership and not letting the victim choose the manner of his self defence. It's not helped by the fact that most Brits who don't serve in the forces or don't live in the countryside are totally ignorant. Not their fault I guess, Britain never really had a gun culture to speak of, but it's hardly the point.

Anyway I'm just ranting because I just got out of a very trying argument with a bunch of people who assume that if you own a gun, you're going to kill people with it. *grumble*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunker

You can purchase "clones" of them; that is, firearms that are similar in APPEARANCE to the real, full-auto deal, but that's it. Unless you want to go the illegal route

---

Well, from what I've been able to deduce from the trigger assembly of my semi-auto RPK, all it would take is grinding off a quarter-inch of metal to make it full-auto from a legally-purchased firearm. But then I don't think that would be the "legal route." (Though I really, really, really want to try it just to see if I'm right...)

Just think, that quarter-inch of metal is all that stands between you and ten years of non-sensual sodomy in the federal penitentiary system!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Just think, that quarter-inch of metal is all that stands between you and ten years of non-sensual sodomy in the federal penitentiary system!

---

I know, it's a tough call, isn't it?

Oh you plebeians and your firearms.

Shouldn't you be robbing a liquor store?

Rich people like guns too.

I never said they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

In conclusion, Diane Sawyer is a lying bitch who shamelessly distorts the facts in order to make effective self-defense seem infeasible, to blame violent crime on the tools used by the criminals, to make people terrified to keep a gun in their home, and to demonize gun shows and blame them for tragic crimes that they had nothing to do with.

---

Great write-up but really Diane Sawyer has nothing to do with this, it is the producers of the segment. She just is the reporter who gets paid to report whatever her producers put together. It's her job... it's wrong and not truthful, but she didn't come up with the idea for the segment I'm sure.

+rep though for a good write up about it, I was hoping to have time to watch it but won't bother wasting my time any more.

Okay, good point. Thanks for the rep though! I'm glad my writeup was informative. To be honest, I mostly wrote it for cathartic reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Okay, good point. Thanks for the rep though! I'm glad my writeup was informative. To be honest, I mostly wrote it for cathartic reasons.

---

100% of all opinion pieces are written for cathartic reasons, so no need to give full disclosure on that point :)

I thought the OP was so well-written I submitted it to Digg, if anyone wants to digg it up: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Di...Only_Had_A_Gun

Yessssssssss, publicity

I edited the OP to make a few things a bit clearer, such as explaining why it doesn't make any sense to say "rifles and pistols and assault weapons". Wouldn't want diggers to be confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

Great write-up but really Diane Sawyer has nothing to do with this, it is the producers of the segment. She just is the reporter who gets paid to report whatever her producers put together. It's her job... it's wrong and not truthful, but she didn't come up with the idea for the segment I'm sure.

---

I'm not sure how accurate this is. My impression was that the reporters, especially the more senior ones (like, for example, Diane Sawyer) are able to exercise a great deal of control over the stories they air. I know this was a big to-do with Dan Blather during the Clinton-Lewinsky thing and, later, with the Bush-National Guard-forged memos thing. One of the reasons there was a lot of pressure to fire him was because (at least, for the Bush memos) he had the control over what stories got to air. I'm not saying this is always the case, or that it was the case in this particular story, but it's the impression I got from how Danny did things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Secondly, it is nonsensical to draw a distinction between "weapons whose prime function is to kill" and weapons whose prime function isn't to kill, and then claim that the former group of weapons are "assault weapons" while the latter group is not.

---

no

a weapon that's legal to own and operate on a regular basis should be designed to do one of two things

- defend yourself (imo in a humane way, but this is arguable and i'm not going to include it)
- hunt game

weapons that liberals dump in the "assault rifle" category consist of weapons designed for one thing

- military/tactical use

anybody who claims that an "assault rifle" should be used for self defense is kidding themselves. there's no fucking reason, you aren't scarface, you're not going to get run over by a squad of cubans. you don't need a gun capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan. a handgun is more than capable of defending both your house and your person if used properly.

that being said, i think an outright ban on "assault rifles" is the wrong way of approaching the concern that the liberals have. something along the lines of stricter licensing and tighter control on that particular category would be more than ideal.

Just a couple of comments.

1. I think most of us know what is meant by assault weapons. Although in the technical sense they may be classed as rifles amongst all kinds of other rifles, the average person is generally thinking of a single shot or semi-automatic long barrelled weapon, typically designed for hunting, when you say rifle. They are generally not thinking about fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers with in a short space of time - i.e assault weapons. To claim that categorising them seperately is somehow deceptive requires that one deliberately ignores a clear distinction in category based on functionality and capability that separates the common (and hence the audience's actual) understanding of the terms pistol, rifle and assault weapon.

2. After the admittedly convincing arguments to the effect that mass killings are really actually blips on the radar when it comes to actual homocides going on, I realise that the fact that the last mass killing I can recall in Australia was twelve (12) years ago is actually irrelevant. What I should remember is that the total murder rate is roughly identical in the U.S. and Australia....for all other kinds of homocides other than firearm homocide. But the firearm homocide rate alone is roughly 8.5 times higher in the U.S than Australia, meaning you're ultimately about 4.3 times more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than you are in Australia.

Maybe those extra murders all take place in the worst part of the cities, but hey, I've lived in the worst parts of cities for a good 15 years when I was younger. To this day I've still never seen any person with a gun anywhere in any of the major cities of Australia who wasn't a police officer. The only times other than that I've ever seen guns in my life is the odd rifle ( the single shot type, not AK47s) on the farm, police officer's sidearms and at army bases.

And maybe that's not very exciting and sure, guns are cool. I'm happy for you guys in the U.S. to feel safer having firearms, and I'd probably even feel safer myself if I were living in the U.S. if I was armed to protect myself under those circumstances, but give me a choice, personally I'll take our restricted access to guns over here and you guys can keep your 4 and a half times the murder rate.

Yeah, and let's face it, Australia is full of criminals so if you don't get murdered the most there then there's something going wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Just a couple of comments.

1. I think most of us know what is meant by assault weapons. Although in the technical sense they may be classed as rifles amongst all kinds of other rifles, the average person is generally thinking of a single shot or semi-automatic long barrelled weapon, typically designed for hunting, when you say rifle. They are generally not thinking about fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers with in a short space of time - i.e assault weapons. To claim that categorising them seperately is somehow deceptive requires that one deliberately ignores a clear distinction in category based on functionality and capability that separates the common (and hence the audience's actual) understanding of the terms pistol, rifle and assault weapon.

---

Not to bash, but you don't seem to realize what the term "assault weapons" really refers to. So-called "assault weapons" ARE semiautomatic rifles; they are NOT fully automatic weapons. Whenever gun control advocates talk about assault weapons in the US, this is what they mean. It is this sort of weapon (certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols) that was prohibited under the 1994-2004 "assault weapon ban", and are currently prohibited by the state AWBs of places like California, and would be prohibited again under new versions of the federal AWB that many gun control advocates want to instate. The term "assault weapons" definitely does not refer to "fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers within a short space of time". The gun control advocates wouldn't be making such a big deal about "assault weapons" if that meant "fully automatic weapons", because fully automatic weapons are already extremely difficult to purchase and own in the US (they require a special registration process, notification of local police, etc., and are extremely expensive--the process is so rigorous, and ownership of such weapons so rare, that many people don't even realize it's legal to own one at all and believe they are totally banned).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

2. After the admittedly convincing arguments to the effect that mass killings are really actually blips on the radar when it comes to actual homocides going on, I realise that the fact that the last mass killing I can recall in Australia was twelve (12) years ago is actually irrelevant. What I should remember is that the total murder rate is roughly identical in the U.S. and Australia....for all other kinds of homocides other than firearm homocide. But the firearm homocide rate alone is roughly 8.5 times higher in the U.S than Australia, meaning you're ultimately about 4.3 times more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than you are in Australia.

Maybe those extra murders all take place in the worst part of the cities, but hey, I've lived in the worst parts of cities for a good 15 years when I was younger. To this day I've still never seen any person with a gun anywhere in any of the major cities of Australia who wasn't a police officer. The only times other than that I've ever seen guns in my life is the odd rifle ( the single shot type, not AK47s) on the farm, police officer's sidearms and at army bases.

And maybe that's not very exciting and sure, guns are cool. I'm happy for you guys in the U.S. to feel safer having firearms, and I'd probably even feel safer myself if I were living in the U.S. if I was armed to protect myself under those circumstances, but give me a choice, personally I'll take our restricted access to guns over here and you guys can keep your 4 and a half times the murder rate.

---

That's fair... I just think it's important to bear in mind that given the particulars of the US situation, restricting access to guns in the same way that Australia has done would probably not reduce the murder rate or the crime rate in general. It would make it much harder for people to defend themselves, though.

For the record, I live in the US (obviously) and have spent time living in several major US cities, and have never seen anyone other than a cop with a gun in those cities either. The availability of guns in the US doesn't mean everyone goes around with a pistol hanging off their hip like it's the Old West. Especially not in cities. You are more likely to see someone with a gun if you are out in a rural area, but even then, 99.9% of the time it's some guy with his deer rifle (not an AK47!) or shotgun in the gun rack on his pickup truck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

no

a weapon that's legal to own and operate on a regular basis should be designed to do one of two things

- defend yourself (imo in a humane way, but this is arguable and i'm not going to include it)
- hunt game

weapons that liberals dump in the "assault rifle" category consist of weapons designed for one thing

- military/tactical use

anybody who claims that an "assault rifle" should be used for self defense is kidding themselves. there's no fucking reason, you aren't scarface, you're not going to get run over by a squad of cubans. you don't need a gun capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan. a handgun is more than capable of defending both your house and your person if used properly.

that being said, i think an outright ban on "assault rifles" is the wrong way of approaching the concern that the liberals have. something along the lines of stricter licensing and tighter control on that particular category would be more than ideal.

---

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said in the post you quoted, which was that it's absurd to claim (as simonj did) that an "assault weapon" is a "weapon designed solely to kill"; because there are weapons "designed solely to kill" (various military and self-defense weapons) that couldn't possibly be called "assault weapons, and there are also weapons that get labeled as "assault weapons" but were certainly NOT designed solely to kill (various sporting rifles that happen to have pistol grips rather than old-style rifle grips, for instance). Your definition of "assault weapon" (weapons designed for "military/tactical use") doesn't make any sense either. Are you saying that an "assault weapon" is any weapon whose design is of military origin? Is that the only criteria? I assume not, since that would mean that any military rifle, including old WW2 bolt-action surplus rifles and even older stuff (single-shot Trapdoor Springfield military rifles from the 1870s?) would be "assault weapons". So other than being of military origin, what criteria can be used to describe an "assault weapon"? Also it's worth noting that a lot of the weapons that are included under "assault weapon bans" were NOT designed for military/tactical usage.

For the record, "assault weapons" (typically semiautomatic rifles) are definitely not "capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan"; you are probably thinking of machine guns or something like that. An "assauan alt weapon" fires one shot per pull of the trigger and is capable of hitting targets only as fast as you cim and fire accurately, just like any other semiautomatic rifle. And in fact, many so-called "assault weapons" make perfectly good home defense weapons. You say handguns are okay for home defense but "assault weapons" would only be useful if you're getting attacked by a mob of Cubans or whatever; why is a semiautomatic handgun with a 16-round magazine just fine for home defense, but a semiautomatic carbine with a 20-round magazine is total overkill that no one really needs? Does that extra four rounds in the magazine push it over the limit between "perfectly okay home defense weapon" and "killing machine that only Scarface needs"? Also, many "assault weapons" are pistol-caliber carbines that fire the same rounds as normal semiautomatic pistols; the only difference is that they sometimes have a somewhat larger magazine, and, more importantly, are easier to fire accurately and controllably while under stress (definitely a useful trait for a home defense weapon, I think we can agree). Why is this sort of weapon so wildly inappropriate for home defense? Why is it okay to have a 9mm pistol but not a 9mm carbine?

Also for the record, the 5.56mm round (which is used by many semiautomatic rifles/carbines that fall into the "assault weapon" category) is pretty close to ideal for home defense usage. With the right ammunition, it's terminal effects (i.e. wounding ability, ability to stop an intruder) are better than any handgun round, yet because of it's ballistic behavior, it's actually LESS likely to penetrate interior walls (thus endangering other people in the house, etc.) than most handgun rounds. While a 9mm hollowpoint will punch through several thicknesses of drywall before stopping, many 5.56mm rounds will break up and basically disintegrate as they passes through the first thickness, and then not penetrate a second thickness.

And the term "assault rifle" is totally inappropriate here. "Assault rifle" is a military term with a specific meaning and definition. An assault rifle is a military rifle with the following traits: It is chambered in an intermediate-powered cartridge, and it is selective-fire (i.e. capable of fully automatic fire in addition to single shots). The weapons we are talking about here are not "assault rifles". "Assault weapon" is the phrase you are looking for. The "assault weapon" is stupid and made-up and basically meaningless, but at least it's not a total misuse of a real term that has a real meaning.

If guns are outlawed than only outlaws will have guns. That works for me. Let em go to jail if they can't be decent enough to not use a gun. Government regulated daily rentals for hunting, no personal ownership. Guns are unnecessary in civilian life and have never truly helped anyone who wasn't face-to-face with someone else who had a gun. Eliminate guns, eliminate the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

If guns are outlawed than only outlaws will have guns. That works for me. Let em go to jail if they can't be decent enough to not use a gun. Government regulated daily rentals for hunting, no personal ownership. Guns are unnecessary in civilian life and have never truly helped anyone who wasn't face-to-face with someone else who had a gun. Eliminate guns, eliminate the problem.

---

This is trolling, right? Please tell me you don't really believe that guns are only used in self-defense against criminals who also have guns. Hint: The number of gun crimes committed in the US is about 140,000 per year, the number of times people use guns for self-defense in the US is about 2 million per year.

Yes. I am impressed that no one is biting though. It takes the fun out of it :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

This is trolling, right? Please tell me you don't really believe that guns are only used in self-defense against criminals who also have guns. Hint: The number of gun crimes committed in the US is about 140,000 per year, the number of times people use guns for self-defense in the US is about 2 million per year.

---

I don't want to argue this point or anything, but can you tell me what source you're using for those figures? Just for future reference

What is the ratio of justified defense to unnecessary force defense? Also, how is armed defense data collected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

I don't want to argue this point or anything, but can you tell me what source you're using for those figures? Just for future reference

---

Gladly. Actually, looking into it, my numbers may have been a bit off when it comes to the number of gun crimes per year. I gave the 140,000 figure based on the fact that the overall US violent crime rate is 1.4 million incidents per year (you should be able to find this figure pretty easily on any number of statistics-reporting websites, but here is where I got it from), while the US government estimates that approximately 10% of all violent crime involves a firearm of some kind (Dept. of Justice's figures here). However, you'll note that the same DOJ page says that firearms are involved in roughly 400,000--not 140,000--"incidents" per year. This is strange... using their own percentage, that would mean that there are over 4 million violent crimes per year in the US, which hasn't been the case in decades. Perhaps they are using the term "incidents" in a way that doesn't mean the same thing as "violent crimes". Well, either number works for our purposes, because either number is much lower than the number of defensive gun uses.

The figure on defensive gun uses per year comes from a study by Gary Kleck, a criminologist at FSU, whose work is generally regarded as being pretty authoritative in this field. It has been challenged numerous times by other academics who dispute his findings, but they've never been able to debunk them. If you want data to support a pro-gun-rights argument, Kleck is really a godsend--he's ideologically unimpeachable too (a liberal Democrat who thought his research would prove that guns did more harm than good, and was surprised by his own results), so the gun-control advocates can't really accuse him of being some shill for the NRA or whatever. I would definitely recommend reading up on his work if you want to debate people about this stuff. Incidentally, it's actually 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, not 2 million--that was a typo in my previous post. There are also a bunch of other studies examining the number of defensive gun uses per year in the US, which got results ranging from 700,000 to above 3 million. Kleck's is generally regarded as the most accurate figure, though. Here is a table listing info on a bunch of other studies examining the same issue if you want to track them down too, though. Here is more info about Kleck if you want to follow up on some of that. Obviously it's not a good idea to try to use info from a website called "Guncite" in a gun control debate--the other side will just accuse you of using biased info from pro-gun groups--but these pages provide citations that you can use to find the same information in other sources that the opposition can't dismiss so easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Yes. I am impressed that no one is biting though. It takes the fun out of it :(

---

Hah sorry man. I didn't mean to spoil it. I was afraid you were serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

What is the ratio of justified defense to unnecessary force defense? Also, how is armed defense data collected?

---

The data is collected by a variety of methods, depending on the study. Generally, the same way other statistical data is gathered from a population--by questioning/interviewing a randomly chosen sample of sufficiently large size. Sometimes it's done over the phone, sometimes in person, sometimes with written questionnaires.

As for ratio of justified defensive gun use to unjustified use, that's hard to estimate. If you mean the ratio of defensive gun uses to the number of people who are prosecuted for unlawful use of a gun in a self-defense situation, then it's very high (as I mentioned above, millions of defensive gun uses per year), but an argument could of course made that some number of people who unjustifiably defend themselves with a gun (for instance, in a situation when there isn't actually a clear threat to their lives) aren't prosecuted for it. However, it can definitely be said that the number of defensive gun uses is far, far greater than the number of people who unjustifiably kill someone in self-defense. Also, bear in mind that the vast majority of defensive gun uses don't involve any shots fired at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Gladly. Actually, looking into it, my numbers may have been a bit off when it comes to the number of gun crimes per year. I gave the 140,000 figure based on the fact that the overall US violent crime rate is 1.4 million incidents per year (you should be able to find this figure pretty easily on any number of statistics-reporting websites, but here is where I got it from), while the US government estimates that approximately 10% of all violent crime involves a firearm of some kind (Dept. of Justice's figures here). However, you'll note that the same DOJ page says that firearms are involved in roughly 400,000--not 140,000--"incidents" per year. This is strange... using their own percentage, that would mean that there are over 4 million violent crimes per year in the US, which hasn't been the case in decades. Perhaps they are using the term "incidents" in a way that doesn't mean the same thing as "violent crimes". Well, either number works for our purposes, because either number is much lower than the number of defensive gun uses.

The figure on defensive gun uses per year comes from a study by Gary Kleck, a criminologist at FSU, whose work is generally regarded as being pretty authoritative in this field. It has been challenged numerous times by other academics who dispute his findings, but they've never been able to debunk them. If you want data to support a pro-gun-rights argument, Kleck is really a godsend--he's ideologically unimpeachable too (a liberal Democrat who thought his research would prove that guns did more harm than good, and was surprised by his own results), so he gun-control advocates can't really accuse him of being some shill for the NRA. I would definitely recommend reading up on his work if you want to debate people about this stuff. Incidentally, it's actually 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, not 2 million--that was a typo in my previous post. There are also a bunch of other studies examining the number of defensive gun uses per year in the US, which got results ranging from 700,000 to above 3 million. Kleck's is generally regarded as the most accurate figure, though. Here is a table listing info on a bunch of other studies examining the same issue if you want to track them down too, though. Here is more info about Kleck if you want to follow up on some of that. Obviously it's not a good idea to try to use info from a website called "Guncite" in a gun control debate--the other side will just accuse you of using biased info from pro-gun groups--but these pages provide citations that you can use to find the same information in other sources that the opposition can't dismiss so easily.

---

That's a lot of stuff, thank you. And about the 'incidents' thing... it has been noted that in the UK gun incidents have gone up, but gun crime and homocides involving shootings have stayed the same. Generally this is put down to people literally shooting themselves in the foot... self-inflicted injuries and the like. Even things like criminal damage. So perhaps a similar idea could apply over there also.

I wouldn't be able to tell you *why* 'incidents' have risen, though. Increased paranoia and/or ignorance? No idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

That's a lot of stuff, thank you. And about the 'incidents' thing... it has been noted that in the UK gun incidents have gone up, but gun crime and homocides involving shootings have stayed the same. Generally this is put down to people literally shooting themselves in the foot... self-inflicted injuries and the like. Even things like criminal damage. So perhaps a similar idea could apply over there also.

I wouldn't be able to tell you *why* 'incidents' have risen, though. Increased paranoia and/or ignorance? No idea.

---

Good point. In addition to accidents, I suppose "firearms incidents" might include stuff like cases in which firearms are stolen during the course of a burglary--not a "violent crime" but it does technically involve a firearm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Guns... have never truly helped anyone who wasn't face-to-face with someone else who had a gun.

---

I will tell that to my 5'1", 105lb cousin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunker

I will tell that to my 5'1", 105lb cousin.

---

Boo-hoo, tell him to go to the gym or learn proper self-defense. Self-defense that takes more than the intelligence of a two year old to pull off.

Keep 'em coming, Mr. E

Quote:

---

Also for the record, the 5.56mm round (which is used by many semiautomatic rifles/carbines that fall into the "assault weapon" category) is pretty close to ideal for home defense usage. With the right ammunition, it's terminal effects (i.e. wounding ability, ability to stop an intruder) are better than any handgun round, yet because of it's ballistic behavior, it's actually LESS likely to penetrate interior walls (thus endangering other people in the house, etc.) than most handgun rounds. While a 9mm hollowpoint will punch through several thicknesses of drywall before stopping, many 5.56mm rounds will break up and basically disintegrate as they passes through the first thickness, and then not penetrate a second thickness.

---

bro a handgun is "ideal for home defense" BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING GUN. you don't need a rifle over a handgun to defend your home, period. if you're shooting your gun into walls or think you might miss and hit your children, you probably shouldn't have one anyway~

incoming political rant about rights and statistics and shit that i won't read

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

bro a handgun is "ideal for home defense" BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING GUN. you don't need a rifle over a handgun to defend your home, period. if you're shooting your gun into walls or think you might miss and hit your children, you probably shouldn't have one anyway~

incoming political rant about rights and statistics and shit that i won't read

---

good one! :cooler:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

bro a handgun is "ideal for home defense" BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING GUN. you don't need a rifle over a handgun to defend your home, period. if you're shooting your gun into walls or think you might miss and hit your children, you probably shouldn't have one anyway~

incoming political rant about rights and statistics and shit that i won't read

---

Well, I already explained perfectly clearly why carbines are useful home defense weapons and that obviously went right over your head, so this time I'll skip the rant and just say that you're a moronic kid with no fucking idea what you're talking about. "If you might miss and hit a wall you shouldn't have one anyway"? Jesus that's dumb. What kind of nitwit honestly thinks it's reasonable to expect homeowners defending themselves to score a 100% guaranteed hit rate. SWAT cops don't have a 100% guaranteed hit rate. Delta Force hostage-rescue commandos don't have a 100% guaranteed hit rate. I guess this is what happens when people with no firearms knowledge, experience, or understanding try to form opinions about guns.

tl;dr: Get out of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I'll skip the rant and just say that you're a moronic kid with no fucking idea what you're talking about. "If you might miss and hit a wall you shouldn't have one anyway"? Jesus that's dumb. What kind of nitwit honestly thinks it's reasonable to expect homeowners defending themselves to score a 100% guaranteed hit rate. Delta Force hostage-rescue commandos don't have a 100% guaranteed hit rate. I guess this is what happens when people with no firearms knowledge, experience, or understanding try to form opinions about guns.

tl;dr: Get out of this thread.

---

i don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect someone confident enough to bring a gun into a home with children to have 100% hit rate. if you shoot and miss your shot you could potentially end your child's life which completely defeats the purpose of having the gun in the first place. even if statistically speaking it will very rarely if ever happen, do you like playing chance with your family?

but then again i'm of the opinion that guns aren't needed to defend homes, rather higher security features and a stronger structured house (doors/windows/locks etc), so naturally my opinion directly contradicts what your opinion is and thus arguing and raging (on your part) will surely ensue!

prevent the invader from gaining entrance, dont react to it imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

i don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect someone confident enough to bring a gun into a home with children to have 100% hit rate. if you shoot and miss your shot you could potentially end your child's life which completely defeats the purpose of having the gun in the first place. even if statistically speaking it will very rarely if ever happen, do you like playing chance with your family?

---

It is an unreasonable expectation, whether you think so or not. It's just not realistic. I can tell that you definitely wish it was realistic--believe me, so do I--but it's not. No one, no matter how competent, can guarantee that they'll never miss. That's just a pipe dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

but then again i'm of the opinion that guns aren't needed to defend homes, rather higher security features and a stronger structured house (doors/windows/locks etc), so naturally my opinion directly contradicts what your opinion is and thus arguing and raging (on your part) will surely ensue!

prevent the invader from gaining entrance, dont react to it imo.

---

I agree that these things are all good ideas for defending a home, and will prevent more burglaries than a gun in the home ever will. So no your opinion doesn't contradict mine. I'd add that a home-security alarm system, those exterior lights that turn on when they sense motion, and (if practical) a dog with a nice, loud bark are all good security features to have on your house as well, and all are more likely to stop an intruder than a gun is. No-one is denying that the gun is a last resort.

Prevent the intruder from gaining access but be prepared to react if one does get in and is posing a threat that justifies lethal force. It's not an either/or question. I try not to start fires in my kitchen while cooking, but I do have a fire extinguisher in the house anyway, just in case a fire does start. The fire extinguisher isn't a substitute for safe behavior, and the safe behavior doesn't guarantee that the fire extinguisher will never be needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

It is an unreasonable expectation, whether you think so or not. It's just not realistic. I can tell that you definitely wish it was realistic--believe me, so do I--but it's not. No one, no matter how competent, can guarantee that they'll never miss. That's just a pipe dream.

---

i know it's unrealistic, but by me saying what i said in my last post i'm trying to illustrate a certain level of recklessness involved in using guns in general, especially in the home, that people ignore. i dont hate guns and i think they're great and dandy, i hate the gun user who turns a blind eye to what firearms are capable of tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Prevent the intruder from gaining access but be prepared to react if one does get in and is posing a threat that justifies lethal force. It's not an either/or question. I try not to start fires in my kitchen while cooking, but I do have a fire extinguisher in the house anyway, just in case a fire does start. The fire extinguisher isn't a substitute for safe behavior, and the safe behavior doesn't guarantee that the fire extinguisher will never be needed.

---

the fire extinguisher can't kill your family by some freak accident though, which is my entire point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

i know it's unrealistic, but by me saying what i said in my last post i'm trying to illustrate a certain level of recklessness involved in using guns in general, especially in the home, that people ignore. i dont hate guns and i think they're great and dandy, i'm more focusing on the gun user when saying what i'm saying

---

Well, I mean, I agree with you that people shouldn't be reckless or cavalier about gun use in any setting, including in the home. That doesn't really have anything to do with your original point that pistols are the only acceptable home defense weapon, and carbines are only useful for Tony Montana. Again, using a carbine for home defense makes stray shots LESS likely. Using a 5.56mm carbine for home defense makes stray shots less likely, and also makes it less likely that any stray shots that do occur will penetrate very far through interior walls. But the 5.56mm carbine is "an assault weapon" (a term you still haven't defined) so you say that no-one has any possible reason to use it. I'm saying that the fact of the matter is that, contrary to your original claims ITT, so-called "assault weapons" do have legitimate uses like any other gun--they are not just murder machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

the fire extinguisher can't kill your family by some freak accident though, which is my entire point

---

Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with the point of the analogy, which was that it's good to try to prevent bad things from happening, but it's also good to be able to react to them if they do happen despite your best efforts. It's not an either/or situation. You don't have to choose between prevention OR reaction. You can have both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Well, I mean, I agree with you that people shouldn't be reckless or cavalier about gun use in any setting, including in the home. That doesn't really have anything to do with your original point that pistols are the only acceptable home defense weapon, and carbines are only useful for Tony Montana. Again, using a carbine for home defense makes stray shots LESS likely. Using a 5.56mm carbine for home defense makes stray shots less likely, and also makes it less likely that any stray shots that do occur will penetrate very far through interior walls. But the 5.56mm carbine is "an assault weapon" (a term you still haven't defined) so you say that no-one has any possible reason to use it.

---

an assault weapon i define as a weapon with tactical intent when forming my opinions

and yea my original point was based on the definition above, however i suppose i can surrender that it makes more sense to use a weapon deemed as an "assault rifle" (in any sense) than a handgun if it has less chance to potentially put someone in danger. lines should be drawn at logical points rather than just categories of guns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with the point of the analogy, which was that it's good to try to prevent bad things from happening, but it's also good to be able to react to them if they do happen despite your best efforts. It's not an either/or situation.

---

yes, this is something that anybody could agree with. if you had two ways of avoiding a situation, you'd take both of them. that analogy is great, however it doesn't fit with home security solely due to the fact that with one of the options there is a very small chance you could potentially hurt or kill a family member, which isn't something most people could justify if they thought about it.

countering that point with "well if you don't have a gun, your ENTIRE family could be killed!" doesn't make any sense if you think about it, because you're basically trading one astronomically low chance catastrophe for another when you should focus resources on preventing BOTH from happening

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

an assault weapon i define as a weapon with tactical intent

and yea my original point was based on the definition above, however i suppose i can surrender that it makes more sense to use a weapon deemed as an "assault rifle" (in any sense) than a handgun if it has less chance to potentially put someone in danger. lines should be drawn at logical points rather than just categories of guns

---

That is a reasonable viewpoint. But it's worth pointing out that this gun and this gun were designed with "tactical intent", while this gun and this gun weren't designed with any "tactical intent". So I really don't think that the "tactical intent" definition works for assault weapons. All that means is that a weapon was designed for military or police use, and again: There are plenty of weapons that were designed for military/police use and aren't "assault weapons" by any stretch of the imagination, and there are also weapons that clearly fall into the "assault weapon" category but weren't designed for "tactical" (military/police) use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

yes, this is something that anybody could agree with. if you had two ways of avoiding a situation, you'd take both of them. that analogy is great, however it doesn't fit with home security solely due to the fact that there is a very small chance you could potentially hurt or kill a family member, which isn't something most people could justify if they thought about it.

countering that point with "well if you don't have a gun, your ENTIRE family could be killed!" doesn't make any sense if you think about it, because you're basically trading one astronomically low chance catastrophe for another when you should focus resources on preventing BOTH from happening.

---

I think most people who keep guns in the home are aware of the possibility that, if they aren't careful, there is a risk (however small) of a stray bullet striking a family member; but they recognize how slight it is if they aren't totally reckless. I mean, every time you get behind the wheel with a family member in the car there is a slight chance you could hurt or kill that family member; that doesn't mean you don't drive, it just means you exercise appropriate care while driving. So basically, if you have kids in the house, be aware of where in the house they are and don't blast away while facing in their direction.

I hear you that you wouldn't be comfortable keeping a gun in the home for self-defense due to the risk of perhaps hitting a family member. That's a legitimate concern and if it makes you reluctant to keep a gun in the home, that's fine. But I don't think it reflects on the efficacy of home defense with a gun in general.

Also, I don't have any kids, so that's not really a worry for me to begin with.

(in reality buddy i really dont give a fuck about any of this it's just 6 in the morning and there's nothing constructive to do)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

if you have kids in the house, be aware of where in the house they are and don't blast away while facing in their direction.

---

couldnt help but to reply to this

"hold up man who's robbing my house can you please stand with your back to this wall instead of that one, my kid's sleeping in the room behind you and i'm afraid i may miss you and hit him!"

^_^

That's fine, you can still talk about the issue even if you don't care that strongly about it; we won't kick you out for not caring enough. Some of the points you've raised are valid ones (even if I don't agree with them for reasons I've explained), so you're doing an okay job of discussing the issue whether or not you're just doing it to pass the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Boo-hoo, tell him to go to the gym or learn proper self-defense. Self-defense that takes more than the intelligence of a two year old to pull off.

---

I think it's scary that some people actually think like this.

I've met them :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

couldnt help but to reply to this

"hold up man who's robbing my house can you please stand with your back to this wall instead of that one, my kid's sleeping in the room behind you and i'm afraid i may miss you and hit him!"

^_^

---

Uhh, yeah, basically. I mean obviously you don't ask the guy to move, but yes, if you think there is substantial chance that you might hit an innocent bystander (especially if it's your own kids!), then you don't shoot. That's common sense, and basic firearms safety practice ("Be aware of your target and what's behind it" is one of the four cardinal rules of gun safety) and it's kind of sad that you find it humorous. Not that it's often much of an issue in real life, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunker

I think it's scary that some people actually think like this.

I've met them :(

---

People survived hundreds of thousands of years without guns, and if they all vanished tomorrow I'm pretty sure we'd still be ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

People survived hundreds of thousands of years without guns, and if they all vanished tomorrow I'm pretty sure we'd still be ok.

---

Cut it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Cut it out.

---

Well that statement was serious. I have no reason to believe that if all ballistic weapons were to vanish things wouldn't be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Well that statement was serious. I have no reason to believe that if all ballistic weapons were to vanish things wouldn't be better.

---

Hmm, alright... taking it seriously, then, I think it would actually shift the balance of power substantially in favor of criminals, and lead to an increase in the violent crime rate. As has already been pointed out, firearms prevent far more crimes than they are used to commit. They are used in only a small fraction of violent crimes, but are by far the most effective way for a person to defend themselves. If you like, I can delve into all manner of statistics--mostly from the DOJ and other government sources--about the immense crime deterrent role that is played by armed citizens.

EDIT: Of course we've gone hundreds of thousands of years without guns; but I don't think anyone was making the argument that guns are or have been essential to the evolution or continued survival of the human race, so I don't see what that has to do without something. The question of whether our species could possibly survive without guns is just a wee bit different from the question of whether they offer a net public safety benefit. Yeah, obviously "people" would "still be okay" without guns insofar as it wouldn't be some kind of catastrophe for our species if guns disappeared. It would lead to a lot more individuals being victimized in violent crime, though, and in that sense a lot of people wouldn't "still be okay". They'd be robbed, raped, assaulted, injured, and murdered.

This may just be my personal narcissism and a combination of a highly regimented physical training and martial arts experience, but I'd rather have to worry about disarming someone coming at me with a blunt or sharp weapon than someone coming at me with a gun. I know guns are used more for defense than for crime, but that isn't the case for me personally (I've been held up twice and never used a gun for defense).

People arent going to come at you with a gun. They are going to shoot you from a distance.

Ive been in two situations where I could have used a gun. Used it once, and possible saved the my life and 3 others. And I didnt even have to use it. Just pulling it, shooting the ground, and pointing it at them was enough.

I got come at with a gun....twice. I hate to rain on your parade, but I have defeated you with empirical evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

This may just be my personal narcissism and a combination of a highly regimented physical training and martial arts experience, but I'd rather have to worry about disarming someone coming at me with a blunt or sharp weapon than someone coming at me with a gun. I know guns are used more for defense than for crime, but that isn't the case for me personally (I've been held up twice and never used a gun for defense).

---

Okay. But surely any person with half a brain recognizes that their personal experiences, circumstances, etc., are totally and utterly irrelevant when making any sort of statement about how the world, society, any larger group of people, etc., should or does work or behave. Right? So how does it make any sense to say that "things would be better" if there were no guns? Unless what you meant was "Things would be better for me personally." If you meant that things would be better in general, which was the impression I got, then that would only be true if everyone had your kung-fu skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I got come at with a gun....twice. I hate to rain on your parade, but I have defeated you with empirical evidence.

---

And I the same with you. For you guns may have been invilved in the crime, and for me, they stopped the crime.

Like Syme said, personal experiences really have nothing to do with the way society SHOULD behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Okay. But surely any person with half a brain recognizes that their personal experiences, circumstances, etc., are totally and utterly irrelevant when making any sort of statement about how the world, society, any larger group of people, etc., should or does work or behave. Right? So how does it make any sense to say that "things would be better" if there were no guns? Unless what you meant was "Things would be better for me personally." If you meant that things would be better in general, which was the impression I got, then that would only be true if everyone had your kung-fu skills.

---

Well, in my opinion, what is good for me is good for America. I did say I was narcissistic after all.

If all ballistic weapons disappeared tomorrow, society would go back to carrying edged, blunt and thrusting weapons. Today's most advanced nations would be weakened by the lack of technologically advanced weaponry and soft citizens unwilling or able to protect their way of life through hand-to-hand combat. The less civilized peoples in the US and other countries would run rampant, realizing that strength through numbers is superior strength, law enforcement and other civil authorities would be overwhelmed, and martial law would have to be enacted, leading to mounted, armored military forces patrolling the streets with spears and poleaxes. Too many law enforcement agencies in the US claim to be outnumbered and outgunned now, but at least their officers have the modern-day equivalent to Sam Colt's equalizer. There have been firearms in the United States since before its creation, and projectile weapons here for thousands of years.

Back on topic, I've encountered angry men with guns and lived. Not everyone does, it is a fact of life (and death). No amount of martial arts training or physical prowess is going to give someone an advantage against a ranged and skilled gunman. That said, I would rather take my chances against an average person armed with a pistol across the street than I would against an average person armed with a knife within stabbing range. The pistol may malfunction, its firer may not know how to properly aim and I have room to maneuver and seek cover or retreat. Also, a firearm has a limited number of chances to get it right before becoming its own projectile (read: out of ammo). Even the least skilled person with a knife has a better chance of inflicting a serious wound at a close range.

Most people dont understand how hard it is to hit someone with a pistol over say 10 yards. Especially under stress. You move the barrel a CM to the left, and it will hit close to a foot left at a distance. (I didnt do the math, Im just guesstimating.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick2.1

True, but it will never come to a point where we aren't given the right to protect ourselves with firearms. It would be an act of tyranny if it did ever happen and that shit probably wouldn't go through. There are a few states(not my queer ass state) that still express the 2nd amendment to it's fullest(maybe not so much, but do you really need mini-guns and RPGs?)

---

Not so much to its fullest then. I don't see anywhere that is say's "keep and bear arms that you need".

If it comes the day you need to take out say a heavily armored vehicle you will probably need a mini gun or a RPG to make the job easier. I think we can all agree its better to have and not need that it is to need and not have.

Yes fm, because if all guns vanished everyone would instantly devolve into hedonistic thugs, because guns are clearly the benchmark of our society which holds us all together and keeps us from becoming the animals we once were.

Quote:

---

Yes fm, because if all gun laws vanished everyone would instantly devolve into hedonistic thugs, because gun laws are clearly the benchmark of our society which holds us all together and keeps us from becoming the animals we once were.

---

fix'd just to show you the opposite side of the argument

That makes sense to me.

You used the word 'benchmark' inappropriately.

It isn't the best word I could have used, but it isn't technically incorrect.

If guns vanished I'm pretty sure things would be better

But since they're here to stay it's quite an irrelevance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

If guns vanished I'm pretty sure things would be better

But since they're here to stay it's quite an irrelevance

---

In all honesty, if guns vanished in the US, violent crime victimization rates would increase significantly. Though I suppose other countries might have different experiences. But yeah, it is an irrelevance.