I bought a gun to prepare for WW3

[badmotogoozer]

Whew. Just finished Hacko's latest rant on gun control. Once again, a one sided discussion. Who'da thought.

 

Just a couple of questions. Do you agree that, statistically, one's odds of being shot by a gun kept in the house are far greater than if one has no gun at all? I'm sure you won't need any study quotes for that one. Add children to the equation and it gets a bit scarier. Forget about home defense and only contemplate that picture. I am a very responsible gun owner. Shot from a very early age and had some military training. Safety is always demanded, yet every once in a while, there is an oops. Just enough to keep dilligent.

 

Secondly, how many times have you felt that you have been threatened in your own home?

 

Thirdly, if someone were to force their way into your house, how long would it take you to a)get to your gun unlock gun safe c) unlock trigger lock d) load weapon e) aquire target.

 

OK, more than a couple of questions.

 

If you were in the intruder's shoes and saw your victim getting his gun together, would you not shoot him immediately?

 

I can't say that I am for gun control. I can't say that I support the "gun in every hand" philosophy either. Any time this subject comes up, both sides start quoting this study, that study. Statistics and studies almost always come up with proof of one side or the other depending on who is doing the studying and why. (please no Relativist drivel - you certainly pick and choose which studies to believe. Sorry, by your own definition that makes you a relativist. You choose your truths based on your own criteria of what is acceptable and what is not.) I cannot believe anything that either side quotes from statistics. Both sides have their points and flaws in thinking.

 

Here in Canada we have tried a few control measures. The latest cost us 2 billion dollars to reqister every LAW ABIDING owner and their guns. Didn't make any difference to two separate Mountie slayings since. The major flaw with gun control is that it controls the people who follow the rules and control themselves. It does absolutely nothing for the control of crime.

 

I do not believe that a handgun has any place in the house. If you feel scared in your own home, scatter some large dog shit on your front lawn and put up the beware of dog sign. You'll feel and be safer!!

 

Rj

[Bill Hagan]

Whew. Just finished Hacko's latest rant on gun control. Once again, a one sided discussion. Who'da thought.

 

 

I do not believe that a handgun has any place in the house. If you feel scared in your own home, scatter some large dog shit on your front lawn and put up the beware of dog sign. You'll feel and be safer!!

 

Rj

 

Howdy.

 

Interesting points.

 

But, if I may be so bold as to offer my own view, it is that what I think you and others who comment on the issue may miss--perhaps because you are blessed to live in more pastoral settings than I, at least, and I envy you--is not that I have a gun to repel the "classical" home invasion perp. Actually, I think there is little to fear from that.

 

Instead, at least in my neighborhood, a gentrifying (almost -ied) area see www.inmanpark.org only a mile from the city center and abutted on at least two sides by ... uhm ... "improving" areas, is civil disorder in the event of most any sort of excuse, whether a manmade or natural disaster.

 

If, e.g., some enterprising terrorist or madman (no need to parse the differences here and now) drops the overspan of Interstate 20 on top of joined Interstates 75 & 85 at the heart of downtown Atlanta, or if a tornado rips through, the first responders will be very busy. And, sadly, there will be armed mobs of pondscum roaming the streets, including my neighborhood, looking to redistribute wealth.

 

In such an event, I have no intention of relying on 911-dial-a-prayer. We might debate endlessly on what ordnance works best in such an instance, but I do not intend power of persuasion to be my sole choice. I have seen mobs in action and they are ugly and deadly. Accordingly, I will not gamble my wife's life or our property on the speculative benefits of unilateral disarmament in such circumstances. On the spectrum of possibilities, I see civil disorder as a probability-to-certainty, and that means be prepared or suffer the consequesnces. I choose the former without misgivings whatever.

 

Now, all of that said, I do not worship weapons and I do wish the world were otherwise. It's not.

 

In the meantime, life is good. Kathi just brought me a G&T, and we'll work around the garden, followed by an hour in the GarageMahalo trying to demystify things mechanical.

 

Regards from Atlanta,

 

Bill

[Guest ratchethack]

Do you agree that, statistically, one's odds of being shot by a gun kept in the house are far greater than if one has no gun at all? I'm sure you won't need any study quotes for that one. Add children to the equation and it gets a bit scarier. Forget about home defense and only contemplate that picture.

Ryan, evidently my philosophy of home defense has offended you in some way and seems to represent some kind of a threat to you?!?! Your questions are also quite personal. Alrighty, then.

 

I always find this kind of behavior so fascinating. . . . . . It's a bit of a pattern, isn't it? I say something unrelated to you, yet you seem to get threatend by it somehow and lash out in a very personal way. . . . . . Hmmmm. . . . .Incidentally, I couldn't care less what your insurance policies and/or home defense philosophy is.

 

Let me see if I've got this straight. You're challenging my posts here, where I've brought a lifetime of experience with guns, a half-dozen training courses on marksmanship and defensive gun handling, decades of keeping up to date on the subject of gun control, and a book I've read authored by the widely recognized foremost expert on the subject. To back up your challenge, you're bringing no experience, no knowledge, and no facts. But you ARE suggesting to me that a better solution for self defense for me than what I'm doing is a sign and dog shit? Have I got that right? Fascinating indeed.

 

OK Ryan - let's think about odds and statistics, since I sort of put my self-defense philosophy out there and you asked. I haven't been taking a poll on this my whole life, and my personal actuary is on vacation this week, so I don't have any numbers at hand. We'll just deal in generalities by my experience, if that meets your approval?

 

As I mentioned before, my parents' home and my grandparents' homes always had guns when I was a kid. Many of my relatives and friends were (and still are) the same. No one ever thought very much about it, I think everyone thought everyone had guns, and no one has ever been shot. In my entire life, I've only heard of people being shot with their own guns in some state far away. Occasionally I've read where drinking was involved while cleaning a weapon and somebody got shot, but no one I ever knew or heard about, even second, third, or fourth hand, etc....

 

Since everyone I always knew as a kid who had guns was responsible and intelligent enough to behave appropriately (again, this is still the case today), the risk has always been deliberately kept low by self-discipline and training. So it has been for centuries without a frequency of mishap significant enough to challenge the number of babies that drown in bathtubs, (as mentioned earlier) and I think that one's so remote it doesn't register either. When we approach zero statistically, the perceived threat vanishes altogether.

 

Statistically speaking, from the extensive reading I've done on the subject, the liklihood of being shot by an armed intruder is immeasurably higher than self-inflicted shootings and it becomes statistically significant. I'm about as well prepared for this as I think I need to be, and I don't much care who might or might not agree with me. So to answer your question, the liklihood of being shot has been well proven to be a great deal higher in homes not prepared for armed defense. The exception to this by the studies I've read are homes where criminal activity such as drugs, robbery, gang-banging, etc. is the source of the statistical numbers.

 

I've noticed that you don't seem inclined to read very much, and you also don't seem to be any too open to learning new things, Ryan. It seems likely from your posts that you may in fact be batting ZERO on both counts. You might consider working on that. If you read more, it would undoubtedly broaden your entire world view considerably. If you have anything approaching a sincere interest in what you've asked me about in your post and aren't simply interested in challenging me (what're the chances?), may I again recommend More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr. He covers the subject better and more credibly than anyone in his field.

 

Secondly, how many times have you felt that you have been threatened in your own home?

Ryan, I've never had my house catch on fire or be damaged by an earthquake or flood. But I carry insurance against all three, since it only takes one remote possibility to be fairly devastating. I've seen people who have been burned out (up close and pesonal), levelled by earthquakes, and flooded. The ones who weren't insured are usually devastated. Yep, though it hasn't happened yet, it's statistically significant enough for me to protect myself against the remote possibility.

 

None of my neighbors have been burned, earthquake-stricken or flooded either, but my next-door neighbors have been robbed twice in 20-some years when they were on vacation, both times at night, and both times they were cleaned-out. To me, that's statistically significant enough - even though it hasn't ever happened to me. I consider myself better insured against home invasion than fire, earthquake, and flooding, and I like it that way. If the perps who hit my next-door neighbors' house had tried mine, it may well've been the last thing they ever did.

Thirdly, if someone were to force their way into your house, how long would it take you to a)get to your gun unlock gun safe c) unlock trigger lock d) load weapon e) aquire target.

From flat on my back in bed, it takes me about 3 seconds to hit the 4-button combination on the purpose-built self-defense single handgun safe bolted to the wall that puts the Sig Sauer directly in my hand. Whenever it's in home defense mode in the safe, it's got a full mag in it. It takes me another 3 seconds to get to my feet while racking the slide. I can do this in absolute darkness and have practiced it many times until it's very fluid. Time to acquire the target depends on where it is and how long it takes me to determine the best approach. The sound of a breaking window or forcing of a deadbolt anywhere in the house would generally wake me immediately and give me plenty of advance warning to take up a proper defensive position. Yeah, I've thought about it as far as I think I need to, but I don't dwell on it either.

 

Anyone who knows the first thing about defense weapons knows that trigger locks are for people who prefer to convert their guns into clubs. I've thrown every one I've been required by law to buy with my guns in the trash.

 

My big gun safe is lag-bolted into the floor and the wall behind it in an upstairs closet. If anyone wants inside, they'll be chopping it out or chain-sawing it out and using a crane to get it on a truck to get it out to a remote location for some serious safecracking work.

I do not believe that a handgun has any place in the house. If you feel scared in your own home, scatter some large dog shit on your front lawn and put up the beware of dog sign. You'll feel and be safer!!

 

Ryan, you're free to do whatever you want to do and believe anything you want to believe without my blessing - and frankly, without my notice. No, I'm never scared in my home, quite the opposite. But I also happen to be far more secure and so are many of my friends than would be possible without what we consider proper self defense measures.

 

Have you considered why it is that so many of my posts seem to be so offensive and threatening to you that they somehow compel you to react the way you do? Could it be common sense that seems to be so threatening to you, Ryan?

 

You've shown a tendency to lash out irrationally in many of your reponses to my posts, and you seem very insecure to me. Now if you're also afraid of guns and wouldn't trust yourself to own one, and on top of this you also take such unusual offense toward others who own them, you might consider therapy. Just a thought.

[dlaing]

"It doesn't bother me. Obviously, me being a devout Catholic, it's a conflict of interest. Then again, God supported David when he killed Goliath," Wilson said. "I believe God supports what we do and I've never killed anyone who wasn't carrying a weapon."

 

[mike wilson]

This guy can shoot

 

Not as well as this guy:

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/Kill..._2430Metres.asp

[Guest SantaFeRider]

I read somewhere that the odds of being killed by doctor's error are far greater than being killed by a gunshot. Should we cancel our health insurance and join Christian Science?

[mike wilson]

As expected, a voluble response but not really a rebuttal.

 

A few generalisations: I would be more impressed with Mr Lott if he had formulated his title as a question. That would have shown some adherence to scientific method. I know his agenda before I have read the book. It might have been definitive in 1996 and again in 2000 but it is now way out of date and quite possibly not relevant any more.

 

I don't have an answer any more than the parents of the dead kids at Columbine but I'm prepared to at least think about the possibility of change and how that might be brought about. The status quo doesn't need to remain that.

 

The problem with quoting reams of statistics is that you get drawn into definitions. For example, in this paragraph from the Sowell article:

"Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media. "

 

Gun ownership - is he talking about legal ownership? Murder - murder by gun or what? How are the murder rates defined - by murders per square mile or by unit population? In a rural community, one would expect lower rates of pretty much anything as people have to travel further to interact. Fewer unplanned pregnancies? Guns are contraceptive! What about the correlation between level of wealth and murder rates?

 

So much that is unexplained and unexplainable. Unless you take the article at face value. Etc., etc., for all the rest of it. I don't think you do your arguments any favours by larding them with so many references. It might make people give up arguing but it certainly doesn't change their minds.

 

None of the above alters the fact that entirely innocent people are killed with firearms. My own theory is that it is because it is so easy. It is much easier to pull the trigger at a distance than it is to be right next to someone and kill them. To feel them struggling against you, smell their fear and still take the step of removing their life. Quite possibly the people doing the killing would not have the stomach for it if they had to do it some other way. Certainly, the after effects of such an act are likely to be similar for the perpetrator but by then it is too late. The hot-headed teenager who would have puched his friend is suddenly his murderer.

 

As you so very clearly point out, you are a strong believer in gun control. Proper training, proper personal control - it's not clear where you stand on licencing issues. It's just a matter of degree of deciding who is eligible for ownership. Here, I'm perfectly happy that people can own guns of certain types for sporting reasons. The licencing system (when it works - there have been at least two spectacular failures) is very good at weeding out the sociopath/psychopath/sadist/numbskull who wants to own guns for the wrong reasons. Firearms for personal protection are not necessary and, in the event of a dramatic change in society, I would expect that many other avenues would be examined before that option became a reality.

 

As an aside, governments don't want an armed populace because, when you are trying to organise the society you have been elected for, the last thing you want to have is every dissenting voice equipped with lethal force and the declared intention of using it. Common sense, really.

 

mike

 

 

 

 

 

I read somewhere that the odds of being killed by doctor's error are far greater than being killed by a gunshot. Should we cancel our health insurance and join Christian Science?

 

No but you should _definitely_ stop riding a motorcycle.....

 

 

(Damnation! - for some reason, the software seems to think that I want to add to the last post I made, rather than sending a separate one. Grrrr. Where's my gun?????)

[Guest SantaFeRider]

Governments who are afraid of legally armed citizens, are afraid of themselves.

 

...and I don't know why if you guys insist in having readily available such lethalities as steak and kidney pie and haggis we shouln't have a few guns of our own...

[Guest ratchethack]

A few generalisations: I would be more impressed with Mr Lott if he had formulated his title as a question. That would have shown some adherence to scientific method. I know his agenda before I have read the book. It might have been definitive in 1996 and again in 2000 but it is now way out of date and quite possibly not relevant any more.

Mike, it's been "easy", yet flat-out disingenuous for many to dismiss Lott's book, simply because it goes against the grain of popular delusion and propaganda that so many have swallowed for so many years. The title of the book is not a question, and is not intended so. It's an undeniable conclusion that summarizes the most comprehensive and unprecedented studies on the effects of gun control ever conducted, which are summarized in the book. You will undoubtedly continue to misunderstand the book any way you wish to misunderstand it unless you actually read it, if you're able to do so with something resembling an open mind.

 

You continue to make statements without providing anything behind them here. Last it was "alternatives" were better than gun ownership for self-protection, yet you didn't identify these or explain them and still have not, despite my asking. Likewise the "International response" of some unnamed sort that you suggested was required to "do something" -- likewise not described or explained, let alone shown to have been historically effective. Now it's Lot's "agenda" -- again, you've not described or explained what this is. Perhaps you think he's a paid pawn of "The Gun Lobby"? Do you have any idea how "large" the personal arms manufacturing business is? May I suggest looking it up and comparing it to any other industry and consider it's relative potential power and influence when you think about what "agendas" are actually at work surrounding the controversy.

 

As far as your suggestion that Lott's book is outdated, may I suggest that Lott's findings are not time-sensitive. The Scientifically-backed principles and conclusions that are properly drawn from the scientific work presented therein are in fact timeless. Many of the most comprehensive studies presented in the book had just been completed in the years prior to publication. Again, a great many of these studies were then and still are unprecedented in their scope and length, spanning decades. I submit to you that these studies are in no way "outdated" today, nor will they be many many decades hence.

I don't have an answer any more than the parents of the dead kids at Columbine but I'm prepared to at least think about the possibility of change and how that might be brought about. The status quo doesn't need to remain that.

If you were willing to read Lott's book and others instead of dismissing them out of hand because you "know" the unnamed "agenda" behind them without having read them, you might already be aware of tremendous positive change and how it IS being brought about today. NOTE: You will NOT read about the following in the usual liberal media sources (it's been "blackballed"), but you WILL find many references to it in Lott's book:

 

More than half of the US States today have recently introduced legislation, or are in the process of doing so now, that opens up previously restricted gun ownership in various ways, including concealed carry licensing. The "status quo" on gun control is in the process of being overturned in an unprecedented way here. It's a trend that has taken off dramatically in the last 10 years based on the continuing returns of studies such as those referred to by Lott and so many others supporting the positive results of legal gun ownership by Citizens reducing all forms of crime. May I suggest that a more open-minded approach is required to get you past your preconceived conceptions of "agenda" which are evidently keeping you ignorant of such positive changes underway now, and that a more accurate and up-to-date awareness level of the "status quo" of which you speak may be called for -- that is, if it's THE TRUTH that you seek. Of course, many with closed minds have no interest in the truth. Such is it always, and such has it always been. . . .

. . . I don't think you do your arguments any favours by larding them with so many references. It might make people give up arguing but it certainly doesn't change their minds.

I've noticed that you haven't referenced one single article, study or book in your posts to back up your point of view. I've copied one short article and made reference to one book. Are you overwhelmed by this? Perhaps such references to the leading scientific studies behind the debate pass for a lack of knowledge of the subject matter in your mind? I'm afraid I fail to comprehend your logic here. With all due respect, I don't believe you can speak for those whose minds may in fact be open enough to accept change, however closed your own mind may be.

None of the above alters the fact that entirely innocent people are killed with firearms. My own theory is that it is because it is so easy. It is much easier to pull the trigger at a distance than it is to be right next to someone and kill them. To feel them struggling against you, smell their fear and still take the step of removing their life. Quite possibly the people doing the killing would not have the stomach for it if they had to do it some other way. Certainly, the after effects of such an act are likely to be similar for the perpetrator but by then it is too late. The hot-headed teenager who would have puched his friend is suddenly his murderer.

Again, this is a subject that is full of speculation and theories not tied to any facts. The scientific side of the debate is headed up by the dozens of studies compiled in Lott's book. There has been NO "update" of comparable scope and size since. If you do not try to consciously remove the emotion behind your unscientific feelings, you will certainly continue to be easily led by propagandists with the motive of more effectively controlling populations for their own objectives at the ballot box.

As you so very clearly point out, you are a strong believer in gun control

You are again incorrect, sir. May I make a major correction. . . . . If you are able to learn anything at all here, you should understand this, if only to know which side of "the debate" you're on: I am NOT a proponent of gun control. I'm on the other side of the fence. It is YOU, despite all the steadily mounting recent undeniable scientific evidence to the contrary, who seems firmly and irreversibly planted on the side of gun control.

. . . . . . As an aside, governments don't want an armed populace because, when you are trying to organise the society you have been elected for, the last thing you want to have is every dissenting voice equipped with lethal force and the declared intention of using it. Common sense, really.

Yes, common sense indeed. The result of this kind of "common sense" has already been presented by Yours Truly in a previous post (#79 in this thread). To refresh your memory, it was the "common sense" and "organization" exercised against the millions by numbers I listed as history so clearly showed the world in the USSR, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, and so many many others.

[Bill Hagan]

As an aside, governments don't want an armed populace because, when you are trying to organise the society you have been elected for, the last thing you want to have is every dissenting voice equipped with lethal force and the declared intention of using it. Common sense, really.

 

mike

 

 

An interesting irony, that, i.e., your use of "common sense," which was, as you may recall, the title of a stirring work by Thomas Paine, a transplanted Englishman, that was of incalculable help in calling us to arms when we disagreed back in 1776.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/

[dlaing]

I read somewhere that the odds of being killed by doctor's error are far greater than being killed by a gunshot. Should we cancel our health insurance and join Christian Science?

We should just cancel @#$$#! Cheney and join the Communist Revolution

 

An interesting irony, that, i.e., your use of "common sense," which was, as you may recall, the title of a stirring work by Thomas Paine, a transplanted Englishman, that was of incalculable help in calling us to arms when we disagreed back in 1776.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/

It is also ironic that it is common sense to understand that the Iraqis have more reason to rebel against the US, then the US did to rebel against the Crown.

[Bill Hagan]

It is also ironic that it is common sense to understand that the Iraqis have more reason to rebel against the US, then the US did to rebel against the Crown.

 

Goodness, my friend, dlaing, have you read the Declaration recently?! http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

[Guest SantaFeRider]

We should just cancel @#$$#! Cheney and join the Communist Revolution

It is also ironic that it is common sense to understand that the Iraqis have more reason to rebel against the US, then the US did to rebel against the Crown.

 

every time I get drawn into a discussion where common sense is brought up, I have to keep reminding myself that, in this world, what makes no sense at all to some of us, makes a lot of sense to others.

 

[dlaing]

Goodness, my friend, dlaing, have you read the Declaration recently?! http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Define recently <_>

I am sure when Islam wins WWIII they'll have a similar document.

And their constitution will give them the right to bear arms and wear bombs

[big J]

Governments who are afraid of legally armed citizens, are afraid of themselves.

 

...and I don't know why if you guys insist in having readily available such lethalities as steak and kidney pie and haggis we shouln't have a few guns of our own...

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaah,haggis.I love haggis.

 

Just cant get it here at all.