Gun Control

[Phatscotty]

If you want to leave your life and the well being of your family in the hands of someone else, by all means, go right ahead. If God forbid something ever does happen and you do need to call for someone with a gun to help, I hope they aren't more worried about political correctness or more worried about their own jobs or pension or their own family than they are a complete strangers such as your own.

Let us know how that works out for you

[Phatscotty]

So you think more guns = more crime? How do you square that with these facts then?

in 1994, there were 192 million guns in America, and the homicide rate was 6.8/100,000
in 2010, there were 310 million guns in America, and the homicide rate was 3.2/100,000

America almost doubled the # of guns from 1994-2010, and at the same time the homicide rate dropped by more than 50%

[Night Strike]

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

It seems to me that your wife's gun should be stored in a gun safe. A gun safe will typically be more difficult to get into than a telephone.

How can you protect yourself if all your guns are locked away?

[Phatscotty]

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

It seems to me that your wife's gun should be stored in a gun safe. A gun safe will typically be more difficult to get into than a telephone.

How can you protect yourself if all your guns are locked away?

wtf Woodruff. First you are advising an unarmed person to charge a criminal with a weapon who is already in the heat of the crime, and now you think guns should be inaccessible when needed most.

And you don't seem to understand, just because you call 911 does not mean the police fix everything withing 2 seconds. Sometimes it takes the police 15 minutes to show up, sometimes more. even if the response time is 2 minutes, which is exceptional, I think someone can open their own safe in 2 minutes. x a billion

Luckily nobody lives in your world that is completely full of shit.

[Woodruff]

If you want to leave your life and the well being of your family in the hands of someone else, by all means, go right ahead. If God forbid something ever does happen and you do need to call for someone with a gun to help, I hope they aren't more worried about political correctness or more worried about their own jobs or pension or their own family than they are a complete strangers such as your own.
Let us know how that works out for you

So you as a responsible gun owner are advocating that people should NOT keep their weapons in a locked gun safe?

Yeah...let us know how that works out for you.

[Woodruff]

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

It seems to me that your wife's gun should be stored in a gun safe. A gun safe will typically be more difficult to get into than a telephone.

How can you protect yourself if all your guns are locked away?

So you as a responsible gun owner are advocating that people should NOT keep their weapons in a locked gun safe?

[Woodruff]

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

It seems to me that your wife's gun should be stored in a gun safe. A gun safe will typically be more difficult to get into than a telephone.

How can you protect yourself if all your guns are locked away?

wtf Woodruff. First you are advising an unarmed person to charge a criminal with a weapon who is already in the heat of the crime

I've done it myself. It's not as bad as cowards like you pretend that it is, when you act quickly and decisively.

and now you think guns should be inaccessible when needed most.

"What the f*ck, indeed"...Phatscotty, please tell me HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THEY WILL BE "NEEDED MOST" in advance? Because if you know that, then you've got the magic bullet. But if you don't know that, then you are advocating that people should leave weapons lying around the home where those who are untrained, and particularly children, can access them. Exactly what do you think is THE WHOLE POINT of a gun safe, Phatscotty...to keep your weapons from being stolen?

And you don't seem to understand, just because you call 911 does not mean the police fix everything withing 2 seconds. Sometimes it takes the police 15 minutes to show up, sometimes more. even if the response time is 2 minutes, which is exceptional, I think someone can open their own safe in 2 minutes. x a billion
Luckily nobody lives in your world that is completely full of shit.

I do understand all of those things. You see, unlike you, I live in the real world.

[Night Strike]

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

It seems to me that your wife's gun should be stored in a gun safe. A gun safe will typically be more difficult to get into than a telephone.

How can you protect yourself if all your guns are locked away?

So you as a responsible gun owner are advocating that people should NOT keep their weapons in a locked gun safe?

I do not yet own a gun, but when I do, until I have kids, I don't have plans to have it locked away in a safe.

[Woodruff]

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

It seems to me that your wife's gun should be stored in a gun safe. A gun safe will typically be more difficult to get into than a telephone.

How can you protect yourself if all your guns are locked away?

So you as a responsible gun owner are advocating that people should NOT keep their weapons in a locked gun safe?

I do not yet own a gun, but when I do, until I have kids, I don't have plans to have it locked away in a safe.

Plan to have any visitors, perhaps some with children? As well, folks do break into houses, as you mentioned, leaving them to find it. I mean, there really are a LOT of very bad scenarios that could be involved, though I will agree that most of them involve children.

I find it interesting that I own a gun, yet you do not. Not insulting you...I just think it's interesting, because I would not have expected it.

[kentington]

Plan to have any visitors, perhaps some with children? As well, folks do break into houses, as you mentioned, leaving them to find it. I mean, there really are a LOT of very bad scenarios that could be involved, though I will agree that most of them involve children.

I find it interesting that I own a gun, yet you do not. Not insulting you...I just think it's interesting, because I would not have expected it.

I think it is a requirement where I live to keep a gun locked up. Not that they are necessarily going to knock on your door and check, but it is a safe measure.

Also, they do have quick release gun locks. If you aren't awake enough to release the lock, then you probably shouldn't shoot either.

[Lootifer]

I think the original point was that any place where you would store a [protection] gun with a reasonable amount of common sense (quick release safe next to your bed or whatnot) would be equally if not less accessible than your 911 capable phone so the point about "what if your wife gets attacked and cant access a phone [but can access a gun]" is a fairly stretched situation.

[kentington]

I think the original point was that any place where you would store a [protection] gun with a reasonable amount of common sense (quick release safe next to your bed or whatnot) would be equally if not less accessible than your 911 capable phone so the point about "what if your wife gets attacked and cant access a phone [but can access a gun]" is a fairly stretched situation.

A 911 capable phone is not as effective as a quick release gun. A 911 capable phone is not as effective as a butter knife in a home invasion. A quick release lock can be stored in easily accessible areas in your home and would take less time than dialing 911 to release. 911 only connects you, it doesn't make a cop appear at your door.

[Juan_Bottom]

So what are Assault-Type rifles?? A 30-30 can be an assault type rifle. A BB could theoretically be classified as an assault-type rifle. or do mean those rifles that have those scary looking military-style parts on them??

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

An Assault-Type rifle is a military knock-off rifle that's sold to the public. Basically it's anything that has 2 or more military features for killing people, but no select fire for automatic and semi-automatic. So examples of those features could be a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, and high rate of fire.

Your scenario doesn't reflect what happens in real life.
If someone sneaks into my house, I suspect that they're going to be quiet about it and my wife won't know that they are in there, so she wont be able to open the gun safe or call the police. Bungling rapists don't do premeditated crime like that. You'll never know it's coming until it's too late.
But again, of all the gun-killings in the United States, ONLY 2.2% OF THEM ARE RULED JUSTIFIED.
Furthermore, I presume that I wouldn't marry an idiot, and she could defend herself with a shotgun just as well as with a hand gun. You'll note above that I said nothing about banning the sale of all guns. Even legal handguns would remain on the market for probably a few decades.

But also, again and again I am forced to repeat this; In your scenario it's actually statistically more likely that the woman would be raped by her own husband. And if there's a gun in the house, she's 6x more likely to be killed afterwards.

[Woodruff]

I think the original point was that any place where you would store a [protection] gun with a reasonable amount of common sense (quick release safe next to your bed or whatnot) would be equally if not less accessible than your 911 capable phone so the point about "what if your wife gets attacked and cant access a phone [but can access a gun]" is a fairly stretched situation.

Precisely the point, in fact.

I'm not saying that having the gun handy won't protect you in a more effective manner more quickly...I'm simply saying that the assertion that was made was pretty dumb.

[Woodruff]

Furthermore, I presume that I wouldn't marry an idiot, and she could defend herself with a shotgun just as well as with a hand gun.

I'm of the opinion that a handgun is easier to use in constrained quarters like a home than a shotgun is, although I will also say that there are advantages to the shotgun.

[Night Strike]

Plan to have any visitors, perhaps some with children? As well, folks do break into houses, as you mentioned, leaving them to find it. I mean, there really are a LOT of very bad scenarios that could be involved, though I will agree that most of them involve children.

I find it interesting that I own a gun, yet you do not. Not insulting you...I just think it's interesting, because I would not have expected it.

I would put the gun out of the reach of children or go ahead and lock it up at that point. And there's a good chance we'll get concealed carry, so one or both of us would have a gun with us if we leave home.

And we don't own a gun because we haven't had enough money to buy one (we could afford to buy one if we want to, but we haven't specifically went out shopping for one or set specific money aside for one).

[Juan_Bottom]

The police aren't immediately there to help a person, assuming that person can even call 911. If they have a gun on their person or nearby in their home, then they immediately have a tool to protect themselves. Furthermore, you are making it virtually impossible for people to protect themselves out in public because people can't readily carry their shotgun or rifle in public. A handgun can easily be concealed in a purse/bag or directly on the person.

You do NOT have the right to take away the ability of people to protect themselves. Furthermore, what other Constitutional rights can we take away? Why don't we ban you from voting? Or ban you from speaking freely? Why don't we save money by housing troops in your home or just knock down your door anytime we want to search your property? Why don't we put you in front of a secret tribunal for judgement instead of a jury? Why is the right to bear arms expendable in YOUR fantasy land?

I've shown you why statistics show that calling the police is the better option. And the only guns I propose to ban are NEW handguns, and NEW Assault-Type Rifles.

Furthermore, you are making it virtually impossible for people to protect themselves out in public because people can't readily carry their shotgun or rifle in public. A handgun can easily be concealed in a purse/bag or directly on the person.

Ok John Ringo, this is exactly what makes armed criminals so dangerous, and what makes you so scared for your life that you keep a gun in your purse. The ease of transport and concealment of hand guns has made criminals a lot more dangerous than they need to be.


And you did take away my right to vote. You cry "CONSTITUTION!" but you can't point to where it says that someone who commits a crime forfeits all of their constitutional rights until death.
And I've explained to you the history and language of the 2nd Amendment. Over and Over I always talk about the history behind the issues in this forum, and nobody has any idea what I'm talking about. So don't cry "2nd Amendment rights" when you don't know anything about the 2nd Amendment. Not only does the Constitution provide that the federal government can regulate weapons, the Supreme Court has upheld that right. So there is precedent.

How about foreign imports?

Care to comment on the drug war and your overestimated effectiveness of prohibition?

Would you bother to think about the difference in the prices of producing and distributing machine guns versus hand guns?

Ugh, the gun prohibition has worked in countrys around the world, providing fantastic examples for everyone to ignore. We've got Australians and Englishmen in this fora pulling at their hair because Americans are screaming that prohibition wont work, even though it's currently working elsewhere.

And I wouldn't dare compare the smuggling of guns to the smuggling of drugs. For starters, the illegal transport/manufacture/use of drugs creates dangerous criminals who then acquire weapons. And in turn, the public freaks out and buys weapons to protect themselves from the criminals they've made. So one industry is actually driving the other. Care to comment on that? It's not the same thing.

The US ARMY pays $586 for an M16. A fully-automatic AK-47 can be bought for a chicken in some parts of the world. Or you can buy one for $700 on the streets of America. There's really no big price difference between an Assault-Rifle and a quality sidearm.

[Lootifer]

I think the original point was that any place where you would store a [protection] gun with a reasonable amount of common sense (quick release safe next to your bed or whatnot) would be equally if not less accessible than your 911 capable phone so the point about "what if your wife gets attacked and cant access a phone [but can access a gun]" is a fairly stretched situation.

A 911 capable phone is not as effective as a quick release gun. A 911 capable phone is not as effective as a butter knife in a home invasion. A quick release lock can be stored in easily accessible areas in your home and would take less time than dialing 911 to release. 911 only connects you, it doesn't make a cop appear at your door.

You are entirely correct. But as Woody points out, I was pretty much specifically making the point that the situation described originally was a poor argument (since it only focused on one specific and rare situation when usually it is faaar more complex).

And dont get me wrong; it's fairly obvious and logical conclusion that liberal gun laws are good at disincentivising criminals from entering propperties uninvited. However it is also obvious and logical that giving criminals easy access to guns is also a bad thing. (I could also go on, theres plenty of pro's and con's surrounding this debate).

Each different culture is going to value both these aspects differently and come to their own preferred regulatory setpoint (the US is pro-gun, Aus/NZ are pretty anti-gun), and that is fine; what isnt fine is some idiot jumping into threads like this spouting shortsighted nonsense (this works both ways too, I dont really agree with much J_B posts either).

The gun issue is, as I kind of pointed out earlier, a known unknown (or more accurately unknownable). That is it is not deterministic; there is no right answer.

[Juan_Bottom]

The vast majority of children who are shot in this country are shot because their guardian didn't keep their weapon in a gun locker. A quick-release gun sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

[Woodruff]

The vast majority of children who are shot in this country are shot because their guardian didn't keep their weapon in a gun locker. A quick-release gun sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Not unless the child knows the access code, no. They really are safes in that they keep the gun out of unwanted hands, but allow you to access them quickly because of digital codes and such, as opposed to what we typically (or at least what I typically) think of with a combination-type lock.

[Night Strike]

I've shown you why statistics show that calling the police is the better option. And the only guns I propose to ban are NEW handguns, and NEW Assault-Type Rifles.

How can you logically state that calling the police is better when you're under assault from a criminal? Logic clearly dictates that it's easier for a person to protect themselves than it is for them to call 911, give their information to the dispatcher, and wait for the police to show up and cautiously enter the situation.

Why do you get the power to dictate that my 2nd amendment rights are removed simply because you don't like the 2nd amendment? Why do you not have to pass a Constitutional right to take away the 2nd amendment? Why do YOU get to make the choice for every person? I thought you were pro-choice.

And I've explained to you the history and language of the 2nd Amendment. Over and Over I always talk about the history behind the issues in this forum, and nobody has any idea what I'm talking about. So don't cry "2nd Amendment rights" when you don't know anything about the 2nd Amendment. Not only does the Constitution provide that the federal government can regulate weapons, the Supreme Court has upheld that right. So there is precedent.

For claiming to know the history of the 2nd amendment, you sure don't know much. The 2nd amendment was written to specifically forbid the federal government from interfering in the rights of the citizens to carry weapons. This was precisely to forbid the federal government from banning people from owning guns in order to prevent them from overthrowing the government. The 2nd amendment specifically codifies our human right to overthrow the federal government if we need to, and the federal government doesn't have authority to ban us from having weapons to do that.

[Juan_Bottom]

For claiming to know the history of the 2nd amendment, you sure don't know much. The 2nd amendment was written to specifically forbid the federal government from interfering in the rights of the citizens to carry weapons. This was precisely to forbid the federal government from banning people from owning guns in order to prevent them from overthrowing the government. The 2nd amendment specifically codifies our human right to overthrow the federal government if we need to, and the federal government doesn't have authority to ban us from having weapons to do that.

Please go on.

How can you logically state that calling the police is better when you're under assault from a criminal? Logic clearly dictates that it's easier for a person to protect themselves than it is for them to call 911, give their information to the dispatcher, and wait for the police to show up and cautiously enter the situation.

How often do people kill criminals with their guns VS how often do people get killed by criminals with guns?

hint: 2.2%
Defending yourself from criminals doesn't seem to be codified by the 2nd Amendment?

[Night Strike]

How can you logically state that calling the police is better when you're under assault from a criminal? Logic clearly dictates that it's easier for a person to protect themselves than it is for them to call 911, give their information to the dispatcher, and wait for the police to show up and cautiously enter the situation.

How often do people kill criminals with their guns VS how often do people get killed by criminals with guns?

hint: 2.2%
Defending yourself from criminals doesn't seem to be codified by the 2nd Amendment?

You assume the gun has to be discharged in order to be used for protection.

And since when does self-protection have to be codified? And even though it's not, the 10th amendment still exists. And YOU don't have the power to take away my Constitutional rights.

[Juan_Bottom]

Ok then. So long as your state is allowed by the fed to maintain a civilian armory, then the 2nd Amendment is being protected. It protects the right of the people to bear arms against the government (civilian armory), but it does not protect the right of the people to bear arms "just in case" against criminals.
The battles of Lexington and Concord were fought for this reason.

[Night Strike]

Ok then. So long as your state is allowed by the fed to maintain a civilian armory, then the 2nd Amendment is being protected. It protects the right of the people to bear arms against the government (civilian armory), but it does not protect the right of the people to bear arms "just in case" against criminals.
The battles of Lexington and Concord were fought for this reason.

By law, the militia was made up of the male landowners of the state who brought their own guns in times of war. That means the federal government cannot take away guns from the citizens of the country because the individual himself has the right to own and carry guns.