Thread: Diane Sawyer's Sensationalist Crap

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.