Firearms Education

[TheMason]

So I hear a great many posters on here advocating for "safety training" before someone is allowed to purchase a firearm. These posters, many of whom I have great respect for, propose firearms training as if it should be a pre-requisite to owning a gun. Furthermore, most of the time this would be in conjunction with a license to just own a gun. As shooter I object to this.

First of all, I know some may compare this to obtaining a driver's license. There is a fundamental difference between being able to drive and owning a gun. One is a priviledge while the other is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right. Furthermore, driving a car is a far more dangerous activity than owning a gun.

* First of all...about 45-50,000 Americans die a year due to automobile accidents. There are about 68 Million registered and unregistered (62/6) vehicles in the United States. Conversely there are about 200-250 Million guns in the US with many owned by 75-90 Million individual citizens. And yet there are only about 600 gun accidents a year. Despite the much-hyped (and distorted) epidemic of gun violence in the US.
* Yes a gun is primarily designed to kill or, in the case of military firearms, at least wound a living organism. It does this by firing a small projectile in a fixed, stable trajectory. On the other hand a car is designed to transport a person from point A to point B. This does this by consuming a petrolium product and then belching pollution into the air while propelling a heavy vehicle and its cargo/occupants down the road at a high velocity. While one activity may seem horribly dangerousit is rather simple and more safe than non-participants give it credit for. On the other hand the other activity is seemingly innocuous and exceedingly safe. Most everyone in the US uses some form of it multiple times everyday.
* While you are infinitely more likely to die or get severely injured just by getting in your car to go to work, a movie, school, Sunday drive, etc...driver's ed is not mandatory in every state. In my state I know many people who got their permit and learned to drive from lessons taught by their boyfriends or parents or whoever.

So at this point, given that a complex and deadly machine such as a car does not require formal education...then I ask those who favor this...why should a simple machine that is responsible for only a fraction of accidental deaths be held to a higher standard than a car?

Specialized Training
Hunting
When I was in the seventh grade an entire week of our science class was dedicated to hunter's education (my teacher was also a certified Hunter's Safety instructor). In fact in order to buy a hunting license in Missouri you have to complete this course (it is like 7-14 hours). I have no problem with this. I don't know how many times some city-slicker has driven up to my local game check-in station to check-in a "deer" that turns out to be a cow, horse or a rather large dog.

Furthermore, this is an opportunity to teach conservationist principles about wildlife management. However, much of hunting is experience and one should go into the woods for the first few times with an experienced hunter. They cannot learn where to shoot and how to track in an academic environment.

Concealed Carry
I firmly believe that someone wanting a concealed carry permit should have to attend a class. They need to be instructed in the legal responsibilities, liabilities and permissions that come with their permit. They also need to learn some tactics. Currently, all that is required on the practical side is how to hit a target.

Someone with a CCP needs so much more. They need to go through mock-up of a hold-up or a shoot-out in a fast food restaurant. They need to know the difference between cover and concealment. These, like hunting skills, are uncommon skills and with advancements in training such as Simunition...regular citizens can now be exposed to RL simulations.

Concealed Carry-University Edition
After the VT Massacre I was one of those evil bastards actually saying we need to put guns in the hands of University students. However, this would be an addition to a person's concealed carry permit. Just as a regular drivers license does not automatically qualify someone to drive a motorcycle, semi or even a tank...a regular CCP would not cut it.

There would, under what I like to call TheMason Act, be a thorough training regimine tailored to a university environment. Furthermore, 21 would not be old enough to obtain this special permit... one would have to be at least 25 (unless they had law enforcement or military backgrounds).

Closing
So in the end, there already are some training requirements. If you want to go hunting many states require a Hunter's Safety course before one can obtain a license. If you want to get a CCP you have to go through some sort of class (although the class could be beefed up a little).

So the challenge to those who think formal education for merely owning a gun is good public policy? Afterall, the same is not required of cars which statistically speaking are far more of a public health menace than firearm ownership.

Oh yeah, this topic is novel in that while there are many gun control threads on this site...none deals specifically with the issue of firearms education.

[poxpower]

At 5/9/09 08:09 AM, TheMason wrote: One is a priviledge while the other is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

Man, you like guns :D

See, that's totally irrelevant. Not only because we shouldn't pass laws based on what people 200 years ago thought, but also because cars didn't even exist back then.

Comparing guns to cars? I don't think that's really fair in any way.

driver's ed is not mandatory in every state.

Neither is it here. But there is a test.
Is there a gun test you can take?

So the challenge to those who think formal education for merely owning a gun is good public policy?

Wait what's the challenge?
:o

Do we think there should be less training for guns? More training? More training for cars?
I think there should be way more for cars. I mean that's all this whole car vs gun line of argument leads to IMO.

[TheMason]

At 5/9/09 08:49 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/9/09 08:09 AM, TheMason wrote: One is a priviledge while the other is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

Man, you like guns :D

For me it is one of the few public policy debates where it is black & white. The numbers show that, despite manipulation by gun control advocates, many of these policies such as education, licensure or pre-ownership education...are bad policy positions. They waste taxpayer money for little or no benefit.

See, that's totally irrelevant. Not only because we shouldn't pass laws based on what people 200 years ago thought, but also because cars didn't even exist back then.

No not really. If we are to abandon the very ideas that the US is founded upon then why is it not appropriate to compare a simple machine that existed back then with a complex one that exists now?

Why should a segment of the population have one of their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights taken away because it is no longer trendy with other segments of the population and Europe?

Comparing guns to cars? I don't think that's really fair in any way.

Really? Why not? Both are inanimate objects. Both are machines that if abused can cause death or serious injury. Once you take the emotion out of it and look at the numbers why do we as a society not impose car control?

* There are almost four times as many guns in the US than there are guns. And yet cars kill almost three times as many people as guns.
* The operation of cars cause far more pollution than the operation of a firearm. How much money is spent per year on respiratory ailments caused by smog?
* To put fuel in our cars has embroiled us in the tribal politics of the Middle East, causing us to sink blood and treasure into the region.

Now I am not arguing for a total ban on cars.
* But why does someone need a sports car to go to work/school and pick-up groceries?
* Why does someone who is not a farmer or mobile laborer need a truck?
* Why does a soccermom need a V-8 SUV instead of a four cylinder mini-van?

With all the fatalities, health expenses and national security implications why are we worried about the AWB and regulating the firearms industry? Why aren't we banning SUVs...a GGB...Gas Guzzler Ban?

Why is it unfair to compare two consumer goods? One that causes far more destruction and ruined lives than the consumer good that is demonized and sensationalized?

driver's ed is not mandatory in every state.

Neither is it here. But there is a test.
Is there a gun test you can take?

So the challenge to those who think formal education for merely owning a gun is good public policy?

Wait what's the challenge?

o

Sorry. :o

The challenge is...why should there be a test/training/license to simply owning a gun?
Why is the expense of setting up a bureaucracy and diverting money, time and manpower to it from other agencies to monitor/enforce/guide the execution of the program good public policy? Can you demonstrate that it is besides refering to the "it just makes sense" argument?

[poxpower]

At 5/9/09 09:20 AM, TheMason wrote:

Why should a segment of the population have one of their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights taken away because it is no longer trendy with other segments of the population and Europe?

What would you do if it said "everyone can own one slave!"?

I think times have changed enough so that we can make our decisions not based on 250 year old documents... I mean come on.

Every time gun proponents bring up the constitution, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Fuck I made a pun.

In fact bringing up the constitution is the single biggest flaw of a lot of debaters because to say that we should do what the constitution says is to say that instead of thinking about the issues in a modern context, we should find ways to interpret and amend old documents so they fit our own points of view.

Something ANOTHER group of people like to do a lot.... yeah... a group who shall remain nameless.

That being said, I was against guns originally, but now I'm for them, and at no point in time did I value the constitution argument.

I think it's enough to say that people should get to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't limit other people's freedoms and I hardly see how you owning a billion guns prevents me from doing anything. That's the strongest case I can make for guns... accidents happen on both sides of the issue. There's times where guns kill innocents and there's time where having a gun would have saved someone.

Really? Why not? Both are inanimate objects.

Every last gun could vanish tomorrow and it wouldn't really change anything unless you're in law enforcement or the army.

Why is it unfair to compare two consumer goods?

That's true. We should be able to buy nuclear weapons. More people have died from food poisoning than nuclear bomb blasts, yet we can buy all the food we want!
What a world!

See?

The challenge is...why should there be a test/training/license to simply owning a gun?

I think it's mainly because guns are probably the only such thing that has the potential to be much more dangerous for others than yourself.

To settle whether regulations are useful or not, you'd have to compare a population that is not regulated/trained and one that is for a couple years and see what happens. And even then, you could still debate the results ( probably ).

I don't really have the answer.

[therealsylvos]

At 5/9/09 08:09 AM, TheMason wrote:
Concealed Carry
I firmly believe that someone wanting a concealed carry permit should have to attend a class. They need to be instructed in the legal responsibilities, liabilities and permissions that come with their permit. They also need to learn some tactics. Currently, all that is required on the practical side is how to hit a target.

Someone with a CCP needs so much more. They need to go through mock-up of a hold-up or a shoot-out in a fast food restaurant. They need to know the difference between cover and concealment. These, like hunting skills, are uncommon skills and with advancements in training such as Simunition...regular citizens can now be exposed to RL simulations.

Which some may view as a chore but I view with anticipation.

I'm hopefully going to this 250 course in july, can't wait

However it is very expensive and there is no way you can reuire something that expensive and time consuming.

[LazyDrunk]

I think times have changed enough so that we can make our decisions not based on 250 year old documents... I mean come on.

Didn't little Jimmy use that logical landmine on the gangbanging Crips and Bloods in South Park, on television?

In all seriousness though, how do you build a monument to human achievement by ignoring the foundations that allowed such a hegemony to exist at all?

Do you not believe the US owes it's successes to the founding legal text that made it all possible?

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/9/09 08:09 AM, TheMason wrote: * First of all...about 45-50,000 Americans die a year due to automobile accidents.

//

And yet there are only about 600 gun accidents a year.

Your comparing apples to pears here. In the first example, you count the number of deaths, in the second the number of fatal accidents (i presume, since there would be FAR more non-fatal). While there is no risk of coming up in those numbers (50k), there could be a fair more deal of dead people than 600 in 600 accidents.

[TheMason]

At 5/15/09 05:35 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/9/09 08:09 AM, TheMason wrote: * First of all...about 45-50,000 Americans die a year due to automobile accidents.

//

And yet there are only about 600 gun accidents a year.

Your comparing apples to pears here. In the first example, you count the number of deaths, in the second the number of fatal accidents (i presume, since there would be FAR more non-fatal). While there is no risk of coming up in those numbers (50k), there could be a fair more deal of dead people than 600 in 600 accidents.

Not really. I'm comparing the amount of people who die as the result of accidents involving an automobile with those who die as the result of a an accident involving firearms. The reality is far more people die per year in the US due to automobiles than guns. Furthermore, there are more secondary negative consequences to driving than shooting such as non-fatal injuries and air passage illnesses that are caused by automobile emissions.

Furthermore, many may say I'm comparing apples to pears. And on the surface they are right. However, once you remove all of the emotional appeals on both sides of the argument you are left with fruit (ie: two consumer products). And the numbers reveal that gun control as a priority is bad public policy.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/15/09 07:07 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 5/15/09 05:35 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/9/09 08:09 AM, TheMason wrote: * First of all...about 45-50,000 Americans die a year due to automobile accidents.

//

And yet there are only about 600 gun accidents a year.

Your comparing apples to pears here. In the first example, you count the number of deaths, in the second the number of fatal accidents (i presume, since there would be FAR more non-fatal). While there is no risk of coming up in those numbers (50k), there could be a fair more deal of dead people than 600 in 600 accidents.

Not really. I'm comparing the amount of people who die as the result of accidents involving an automobile with those who die as the result of a an accident involving firearms.

I may have misunderstood your statistics, but do you mean that 600 people died in gun accidents or that there were 600 accidents in which at least one person died? I understood it as the second, but it may just have been weirdly written.

[Proteas]

At 5/9/09 09:20 AM, TheMason wrote: Why should a segment of the population have one of their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights taken away because it is no longer trendy with other segments of the population and Europe?

I think the better question would be... why is the second amendment the ONLY amendment that people tend to think of as being outdated and in need of revision and/or elimination? If you want to play the whole "intentions of the author's" or "250 year old document" argument, I want to see your argument for against the other amendments as well.

[TheMason]

At 5/15/09 07:17 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

I may have misunderstood your statistics, but do you mean that 600 people died in gun accidents or that there were 600 accidents in which at least one person died? I understood it as the second, but it may just have been weirdly written.

600 total deaths. Although, unless we're talking about a shoutgun or full-auto demonstration, I doubt that there are many fatal gun accidents that have more than one fatality.

[morefngdbs]

At 5/9/09 09:51 AM, poxpower wrote: That's true. We should be able to buy nuclear weapons. More people have died from food poisoning than nuclear bomb blasts, yet we can buy all the food we want!

;;;
I would like to point out, we NEED FOOD TO LIVE ! ! !
We do not need Nuclear weapons to live .

I don't really have the answer.

I don't believe in stupid gun laws.
Living in Canada with our very restrictive gun legislation has proven 100% that gun crime does not go down. Criminals will still get their hands on guns & will use them to commit crimes .
Instead of links posted, just go to any Canadian Cities Newspaper online & read about the latest shooting/murders.
Halifax Nova Scotia has had more than ten incidents in the last 2 weeks & 4 murders. (this is a city of about 360,000 persons) Although to be fair we don't know if all of the murders were gun related because they won't reveal the info on some & the victims are still in hospital & in one case hasn't dies or gotten any better YET !
Like Pox I don't have an answer either, just pointing out the fact that compared to the US we have strict gun & ammo controls & they are not working.

[poxpower]

At 5/15/09 12:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

If you want to play the whole "intentions of the author's" or "250 year old document" argument, I want to see your argument for against the other amendments as well.

That would be kinda long.

At 5/16/09 10:52 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I would like to point out, we NEED FOOD TO LIVE ! ! !
We do not need Nuclear weapons to live .

And we don't need guns be we do need cars.
so yeah :O

[Proteas]

At 5/16/09 11:19 AM, poxpower wrote: That would be kinda long.

Let's hear it, then.

[poxpower]

At 5/16/09 11:23 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/16/09 11:19 AM, poxpower wrote: That would be kinda long.

Let's hear it, then.

There's 27 amendments haha.

My argument is simple: it's dumb to say "it's in the constitution" as an argument. It's as stupid as "it's the law". You're just assuming that if it's the law, then it must be correct.
No one should use that argument for anything ever.

[Proteas]

At 5/16/09 11:37 AM, poxpower wrote: You're just assuming that if it's the law, then it must be correct.

So what's incorrect about the second amendment, and correct about the rest of the constitution?

Pro-gun control folks usually want to argue that because something is old that it is out of date and should be abolished or revised. If that holds true, then they should be for TOTAL revision/abolishment of the document itself, not just the second amendment.

That's MY point.

[poxpower]

At 5/16/09 12:08 PM, Proteas wrote:

So what's incorrect about the second amendment, and correct about the rest of the constitution?

No one said there was anything.
My argument goes for ALL of it.

Pro-gun control folks usually want to argue that because something is old that it is out of date and should be abolished or revised.

That's not the argument I made.
I said it's NOT an argument to bring up the constitution when trying to figure out gun laws.

[TheMason]

At 5/16/09 11:19 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/16/09 10:52 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I would like to point out, we NEED FOOD TO LIVE ! ! !
We do not need Nuclear weapons to live .

And we don't need guns be we do need cars.
so yeah :O

Actually no, we don't. In any kind of desperate environment a gun is far more useful, and in fact necessary, than a car. In the aftermath of a hurricane (any decent sized one) one's ability to get gas is curtailed because the gas stations are closed. Or any storm that knocks out power. Same thing with grocery stores. In the event of a natural disaster a car will do you jack shit to provide food for you and yours.

Also, according to a Canadian professor who came and spoke to faculty and grad students at my school last year we are going to reach peak oil around 2015. Which means while demand will sky-rocket due to increased drivers in India and China, the world's ability to produce crude will dramatically decrease.

Scarce oil...talk about a paradigm shift.

So unless we develop a personal conveyance that runs exclusively on an alternative fuel...that is cheap enough for the average family to afford...oh and invent the fuel and engineer the vehicle damn fast...cars are going to become even more useless.

[TheMason]

At 5/9/09 09:51 AM, poxpower wrote:

The challenge is...why should there be a test/training/license to simply owning a gun?

I think it's mainly because guns are probably the only such thing that has the potential to be much more dangerous for others than yourself.

Not really...that is why I bring up cars. One of the things they've found with drunk driving is that being drunk helps you survive the accident because your body is more relaxed and you don't tense up making you rigid and therefore more prone to injury. This makes your vehicle's safety features more effective.

On the other hand you're less able to react to an accident situation so when you plow into a family vehicle you're more likely to hit it at full speed causing more injury to the people inside.

Then there is just day-to-day driving. Especially with SUVs you pose a significant danger to other people. So while you're driving along protected by an above five star crash-survival rating the people in the hybrid are going to be toast.

With driving you are getting behind the wheel of a death machine. However, with a gun you are talking about a small projectile that means in order to use it maliciously you need skill and in the case of an accident you have probability on your side.

To settle whether regulations are useful or not, you'd have to compare a population that is not regulated/trained and one that is for a couple years and see what happens. And even then, you could still debate the results ( probably ).

I don't really have the answer.

Well, in the past haven't you argued for more training?

[Proteas]

At 5/16/09 12:27 PM, poxpower wrote: I said it's NOT an argument to bring up the constitution when trying to figure out gun laws.

Okay, fine.

Argue for Abortion without citing Roe V. Wade.

[IdentiC]

At 5/9/09 08:09 AM, TheMason wrote: First of all, I know some may compare this to obtaining a driver's license. There is a fundamental difference between being able to drive and owning a gun. One is a priviledge while the other is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right. Furthermore, driving a car is a far more dangerous activity than owning a gun.

The thing is, if your gonna kill someone you dont go grab your car, you go grab your gun. The main reason there should be license to have a gun is just because of that. If you wanna kill someone, just go buy a gun, and you'll have it within weeks, while in sweden our laws prevent it. For example, the type of activity you want to use a gun for dictates what type of gun you use. For hunting you usually only get a revolver wich can only have 1 bullet at a time.

So at this point, given that a complex and deadly machine such as a car does not require formal education...then I ask those who favor this...why should a simple machine that is responsible for only a fraction of accidental deaths be held to a higher standard than a car?

Yes! A car is a means of transportation, while a 9mm semi automatic gun is made purely to take human lives. Nothing more, nothing less. A kid using a gun at school are only using it for what its designed to do. Take human lives.

Specialized Training
Hunting
When I was in the seventh grade an entire week of our science class was dedicated to hunter's education (my teacher was also a certified Hunter's Safety instructor). In fact in order to buy a hunting license in Missouri you have to complete this course (it is like 7-14 hours). I have no problem with this. I don't know how many times some city-slicker has driven up to my local game check-in station to check-in a "deer" that turns out to be a cow, horse or a rather large dog.

Aww, you have to take a little test? In sweden you have to read 300-400 pages, and then take about 10 different tests leading up to a final test wich then permits you to hunt. After that you need to buy a weapon wich you then get a license for. You also need to have a special gun locker to be able to get the license. Thus canceling out anyone to just go grab a gun to put a cap in someone ass. Also, if you have any sort of history with drinking problems and or violence, your license is instantly withdrawn, and so is your hunting license. It takes about 6 month's, up to a year to get a hunting license. For the record i am a proud owner of a hunting license, and the stuff you learn is priceless.

Concealed Carry
I firmly believe that someone wanting a concealed carry permit should have to attend a class. They need to be instructed in the legal responsibilities, liabilities and permissions that come with their permit. They also need to learn some tactics. Currently, all that is required on the practical side is how to hit a target.

I find it sickening your even bringing this up. Why the hell does that even exist? What would be the main reason for carrying around a concealed gun? Protection? How many times do you think people have "protected" themselves, and it could have been solved without someone dying for it? The chanses of people getting blown away only increases with such weak laws against weapons.

And for the record, saying that "cars kills more anyway" is just twisted logic. If stronger laws would save the life of ONE person, wouldnt that be enough? Why do you guys fight so hard for it anyway? Its not saving life, its taking lives.

But as long you guys dont have to change your lifestyle its okay yeah?

[TheMason]

At 5/17/09 01:05 AM, IdentiC wrote: The thing is, if your gonna kill someone you dont go grab your car, you go grab your gun. The main reason there should be license to have a gun is just because of that. If you wanna kill someone, just go buy a gun, and you'll have it within weeks, while in sweden our laws prevent it. For example, the type of activity you want to use a gun for dictates what type of gun you use. For hunting you usually only get a revolver wich can only have 1 bullet at a time.

1) Do you mean a revolver can only fire one bullet at a time...or can hold one bullet? If you mean it can fire one at a time you're correct. If you mean it can only hold one bullet at a time...you don't know what you're talking about. By definition a revolver can hold multiple bullets.
2) The vast majority of revolvers are pistols which are not really good for hunting...you really need a rifle.

Now, as for the whole business of using guns to 'kill'. Most of our gun violence is due to Ethno-Linguistic Factionalization (ELF) or basically how racially diverse we are coupled with two disctinct and competing gang cultures. Furthermore, instead of being surrounded by European countries we are bordered by a country that has lost control of its military and police to drug cartels and are funneling drugs, guns and humans across this very porous border.

The problem is not the availability of legally available firearms to the civilian population.

Yes! A car is a means of transportation, while a 9mm semi automatic gun is made purely to take human lives. Nothing more, nothing less. A kid using a gun at school are only using it for what its designed to do. Take human lives.

There is no merit in this argument. It is an appeal to emotion. The truth is a firearm is used over a million times a year in the US for self-defense compared to only 16,000 firearm homicides. An even lower number is the amount of victims of sensationalized school shootings.

Aww, you have to take a little test? In sweden you have to read 300-400 pages, and then take about 10 different tests leading up to a final test wich then permits you to hunt. After that you need to buy a weapon wich you then get a license for. You also need to have a special gun locker to be able to get the license. Thus canceling out anyone to just go grab a gun to put a cap in someone ass. Also, if you have any sort of history with drinking problems and or violence, your license is instantly withdrawn, and so is your hunting license. It takes about 6 month's, up to a year to get a hunting license. For the record i am a proud owner of a hunting license, and the stuff you learn is priceless.

So? Why is all of that necessary? Hunting is a skill that has to be engaged in to become proficient...only the very basics of which can be taught in a classroom or by a book.

I find it sickening your even bringing this up. Why the hell does that even exist? What would be the main reason for carrying around a concealed gun? Protection? How many times do you think people have "protected" themselves, and it could have been solved without someone dying for it? The chanses of people getting blown away only increases with such weak laws against weapons.

We do have concealed carry permits have they have been proven to effectively reduce the rate of crime. In states that have concealed carry, crime rates have been shown to fall even when the national average is going up. The rise of which is usually fueled by the cities and states that have virtual gun bans such as New York City, Washington DC, Chicago and LA.

As for protection: over a million uses per year. And as for the emotive argument about solving problems "...without someone dying for it...": 2% of civilian defensive uses of firearms have resulted in injury...compared with 11% of police defensive uses of firearms.

So hate to break it to you, but your knee-jerk idea that 'such weak laws' only increase the chances of people getting 'blown-away' is actually proven to be wrong by the facts.

And for the record, saying that "cars kills more anyway" is just twisted logic. If stronger laws would save the life of ONE person, wouldnt that be enough? Why do you guys fight so hard for it anyway? Its not saving life, its taking lives.

We fight hard because we don't want to end up like Sweden. :)

But as for your emotive argument about saving ONE life. I'm looking at this from the perspective of public policy and what is good public policy decisions. See the government only has so much money, material and people to deal with problems. So they have to allocate these resources to do the most good.

Now things like education and other Socio-Economic factors are significantly more correlated with violent crime than the availability of guns. This means programs that increase education and affluence (such as economic development) do far more to save lives than gun control.

However, laws (like gun control) that only deals with rare occurences (such as assault rifles used in crime) drain money away from programs that will make more of an impact and save more lives.

Therefore, you may save ONE life but actually cause the deaths of THREE or FOUR others and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

But hey, whatever makes you feel like you've done something (even if what you've done has been counter-productive).

But as long you guys dont have to change your lifestyle its okay yeah?

When you run the numbers, European-style gun control (to include Canada) just isn't good public policy.

[IdentiC]

At 5/17/09 03:34 AM, TheMason wrote:

1) Do you mean a revolver can only fire one bullet at a time...or can hold one bullet? If you mean it can fire one at a time you're correct. If you mean it can only hold one bullet at a time...you don't know what you're talking about. By definition a revolver can hold multiple bullets.
2) The vast majority of revolvers are pistols which are not really good for hunting...you really need a rifle.

Im talking about a plugged revolver wich can only carry 1 bullet, alternatively a gun made to purely contain one bullet. And for hunting its used to execute (dont know the correct term) animals that has either been hurt by a car, or shoot in the wrong area and thus suffering. As in go up close and put a bullet to its head.

Now, as for the whole business of using guns to 'kill'. Most of our gun violence is due to Ethno-Linguistic Factionalization (ELF) or basically how racially diverse we are coupled with two disctinct and competing gang cultures. Furthermore, instead of being surrounded by European countries we are bordered by a country that has lost control of its military and police to drug cartels and are funneling drugs, guns and humans across this very porous border.

The problem is not the availability of legally available firearms to the civilian population.

So the solution is more guns? Even if that is the answer, a law that would force people to take a course to use the gun would be a good idea. As in learn how to properly defend yourself with one.

There is no merit in this argument. It is an appeal to emotion. The truth is a firearm is used over a million times a year in the US for self-defense compared to only 16,000 firearm homicides. An even lower number is the amount of victims of sensationalized school shootings.

Have you guys even trie to reduce the numbers of firearms in the US? And how many of those self defenses could have been solved WITHOUT a damned gun. The only thing im hearing here is how you think guns are the only good way to protect yourself. And again, better laws, and most importantly, better education wouldnt hurt anyone.

So? Why is all of that necessary? Hunting is a skill that has to be engaged in to become proficient...only the very basics of which can be taught in a classroom or by a book.

Really now? As the author wrote before, people coming in with shot cows, horses and large dogs. 60% of the tests concists of knowing WHAT to shoot, and WHEN you can shoot it. You also learn gun safety, how to properly handle your gun (keeping it clean etc etc) and ofcourse you need to be a decent shot to be able to get passed. Why is this good? Reduce suffering for animals in general. I agree, while hunting you need to be hunting to become really good at it, but knowing the basics such as how not to kill livestock is a good idea.

We do have concealed carry permits have they have been proven to effectively reduce the rate of crime. In states that have concealed carry, crime rates have been shown to fall even when the national average is going up. The rise of which is usually fueled by the cities and states that have virtual gun bans such as New York City, Washington DC, Chicago and LA.

I havent seen the numbers so i cant really comment on that. If you do respond to this, please attach a link to it aswell. Thanks.

As for protection: over a million uses per year. And as for the emotive argument about solving problems "...without someone dying for it...": 2% of civilian defensive uses of firearms have resulted in injury...compared with 11% of police defensive uses of firearms.

So off 100% trying to defend themselves, only 2% managed to hit their target? Clarify please. :P

So hate to break it to you, but your knee-jerk idea that 'such weak laws' only increase the chances of people getting 'blown-away' is actually proven to be wrong by the facts.

I still dont believe more guns is the answer to the problem. So far you seem to fancy the idea of terror balance. Everyone walk around scared, thus no one dares to jump someone. Sure, im wavering. You have made some interesting points, but i still dont believe its the answer. Atleast i wouldnt fancy the idea walking around scared all the time.

We fight hard because we don't want to end up like Sweden. :)

I find this funny, because since when did US try to become like Sweden? And was this a attempt to insult me, or what? The problem here is that were both grown up in two very different systems, and thus our views are very different. Ive been tough solving a problem can be done without displays of power, or violence. While you have been taught power and violence is the answer. Thats all im hearing atleast..

But as for your emotive argument about saving ONE life. I'm looking at this from the perspective of public policy and what is good public policy decisions. See the government only has so much money, material and people to deal with problems. So they have to allocate these resources to do the most good.

"Allocate these resources". The government doesnt own the money in your country, the banks do.

Now things like education and other Socio-Economic factors are significantly more correlated with violent crime than the availability of guns. This means programs that increase education and affluence (such as economic development) do far more to save lives than gun control.

Then we agree on something.

However, laws (like gun control) that only deals with rare occurences (such as assault rifles used in crime) drain money away from programs that will make more of an impact and save more lives.

So your saying its better to let the weapon dealers keep the power? And my biggest concern isnt only the numbers of guns, but also there are no real control over who gets hold of one.

Therefore, you may save ONE life but actually cause the deaths of THREE or FOUR others and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

I havent seen the numbers your refering to, only them "false ones" that sais you have insanely lots of gun accidents and homicides compared to most other countries.

But hey, whatever makes you feel like you've done something (even if what you've done has been counter-productive).

Attempt to ridicule me?

When you run the numbers, European-style gun control (to include Canada) just isn't good public policy.

I want numbers. Show me yours ill show you mine mmkay? ^^

[poxpower]

At 5/16/09 05:37 PM, TheMason wrote:

So unless we develop a personal conveyance that runs exclusively on an alternative fuel...that is cheap enough for the average family to afford...oh and invent the fuel and engineer the vehicle damn fast...cars are going to become even more useless.

Wow are you serious?
Your argument for "guns are more useful than cars" ( which is pretty insane to try and defend...) is "in some disaster scenarios, I'd rather have a gun!" and "the world will turn Mad Max in 10 years!".??

Anyway, remember: I'm not against people having guns, I just think it's dishonest to compare them to cars.

Then there is just day-to-day driving. Especially with SUVs you pose a significant danger to other people. So while you're driving along protected by an above five star crash-survival rating the people in the hybrid are going to be toast.

No one said cars aren't dangerous. But guns are JUST DANGEROUS TO OTHERS. That's what they're made to do.
Notice how cars aren't designed to ram other cars. Cars are dangerous just because of what they do, like an electrical current or an airplane. You can't travel fast without it being dangerous, that's the trade off. But cars are always designed to be safer, guns are designed to be deadlier.

Well, in the past haven't you argued for more training?

I have no idea.
Guns probably would require extra training because of their long-range capabilities. You can kill someone 200 feet away by accident, so you have to be more careful than when you operate a chainsaw and whatnot.

At 5/17/09 12:09 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/16/09 12:27 PM, poxpower wrote: I said it's NOT an argument to bring up the constitution when trying to figure out gun laws.

Okay, fine.

Argue for Abortion without citing Roe V. Wade.

Never heard of Roe V. Wade.

[Leeloo-Minai]

Guns have won more wars and provided more sustainance, and are thus more important, than cars.

One sought to replace sticks and rocks and sharp edges, the other to reduce horse poop emissions.

I think guns win on the historic, and future, "Which is More Important" scale.

Also, preferring firearms over cars can be a telling personality trait, dependent versus independent, infantile versus adult. While a car may indeed make it more efficient for you to drive to the grocer and petro stations, its essenceis identicle to firearms in one respect; owning a car makes obtaining food more energy efficient.

Add on the added bonus that firearms can also preserve your food stocks as well as assist in obtaining them, and you've got yourself a clearly superior tool.

The only superior tool I've seen so far is you, pox.

[poxpower]

At 5/17/09 12:38 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Guns have won more wars and provided more sustainance, and are thus more important, than cars.

Cheekan?

One sought to replace sticks and rocks and sharp edges, the other to reduce horse poop emissions.

CHEEKAN!

I think guns win on the historic, and future, "Which is More Important" scale.

LEELOO DALLAS, MULTIPASS

Also, preferring firearms over cars can be a telling personality trait, dependent versus independent, infantile versus adult.

MULTIPASS!

While a car may indeed make it more efficient for you to drive to the grocer and petro stations, its essenceis identicle to firearms in one respect; owning a car makes obtaining food more energy efficient.

ME PROTECT YOU! ME SUPREME BEING!

Add on the added bonus that firearms can also preserve your food stocks as well as assist in obtaining them, and you've got yourself a clearly superior tool.

Is this a joke?
If anyone here is somehow convinced by this "argument", please, PLEASE never buy a gun as you are clearly too subhuman to operate a complex tool with moving parts.
Just take your sharp stick and stand over there in the corner, far away from those who want to live in an actual society.

Also you forgot: grizzly ambush. That happens every week to most people, we'd be fucked without guns!

The only superior tool I've seen so far is you, pox.

LEELOO DALLAS, MULTIPASS

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/17/09 01:05 AM, IdentiC wrote: The thing is, if your gonna kill someone you dont go grab your car, you go grab your gun.

What a ridiculous argument.

If "your [sic] gonna kill someone" then what you eventually grab could be just about anything. You can kill a person with a can of soup and a tube sock. Hell, you can eat the soup for lunch and kill the person with just the sock. Sure, guns are pretty efficient at ending lives but it's wacky to try to suggest that's what every person with some sort of malicious intent is aiming to use, e.g. if I'M gonna kill someone I'm grabbing a garrote -- a lot less noise and a lot less mess. But anyway...

Yes! A car is a means of transportation, while a 9mm semi automatic gun is made purely to take human lives. Nothing more, nothing less.

One thing some of yall seem to ignore or maybe not even realize is that a gun can defend lives without even needing to be fired. Just seeing a gun or hearing it being cocked can bring an end to a confrontation. You really, really underestimate the deterrence factor. People aren't jumping at the chance to kill nor to be killed.

If stronger laws would save the life of ONE person, wouldnt that be enough? Why do you guys fight so hard for it anyway? Its not saving life, its taking lives.

<insert Benjamin Franklin quote about the value of liberty versus the value of safety>

And on the notion that guns don't save lives... it's either really presumptuous or really dishonest. Still bodies are easy to count so I imagine that there's all sorts of statistics for gun-related deaths... but that doesn't mean it's a closed book on the matter. You don't know how many lives have been saved due of firearms. You couldn't even get a reliable statistic for that because there's no way to count the number of mouths fed through the use of hunting firearms nor could you tally-up all the "could have wound up dead" scenarios that were avoided due to the use or simple presence of a firearm.

But as long you guys dont have to change your lifestyle its okay yeah?

People are never fond of getting their rights and privileges taken away because people other than themselves had acted irresponsibly with theirs. Imagine if you had a clean driving record but the government told you that you couldn't own a car because of all the accidents other people had caused. Imagine if the government made it illegal for ANYONE besides military/big industry to own automobiles and forced all civilians and private businesspersons to use mass rail transportation. Despite the ecological benefits that might bring, do you really think people would be leaping for the opportunity to change their lifestyle to something like that? To give up personal liberty for the promise of future safety?

[IdentiC]

At 5/17/09 02:47 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:
What a ridiculous argument.

If "your [sic] gonna kill someone" then what you eventually grab could be just about anything. You can kill a person with a can of soup and a tube sock. Hell, you can eat the soup for lunch and kill the person with just the sock. Sure, guns are pretty efficient at ending lives but it's wacky to try to suggest that's what every person with some sort of malicious intent is aiming to use, e.g. if I'M gonna kill someone I'm grabbing a garrote -- a lot less noise and a lot less mess. But anyway...

The topic isnt "how to kill a man". Its about gun control. And a gun is pretty efficient at taking someones life indeed. Its built for it.

One thing some of yall seem to ignore or maybe not even realize is that a gun can defend lives without even needing to be fired. Just seeing a gun or hearing it being cocked can bring an end to a confrontation. You really, really underestimate the deterrence factor. People aren't jumping at the chance to kill nor to be killed.

And if you had read my other post you'd see ive already explained my view on that. Im not underestimating it, im put off by the fact people think thats a good way for a society to work along. Instead of solving the problems, bring out more guns on the streets.

<insert Benjamin Franklin quote about the value of liberty versus the value of safety>

Im sorry but i have no idea what your talking about there so do post a link to what that is.

And on the notion that guns don't save lives... it's either really presumptuous or really dishonest. Still bodies are easy to count so I imagine that there's all sorts of statistics for gun-related deaths... but that doesn't mean it's a closed book on the matter. You don't know how many lives have been saved due of firearms. You couldn't even get a reliable statistic for that because there's no way to count the number of mouths fed through the use of hunting firearms nor could you tally-up all the "could have wound up dead" scenarios that were avoided due to the use or simple presence of a firearm.

So basically your not saying anything here. Its my statistics versus your statistics, wich brings us to different view points, and i can respect that.

People are never fond of getting their rights and privileges taken away because people other than themselves had acted irresponsibly with theirs. Imagine if you had a clean driving record but the government told you that you couldn't own a car because of all the accidents other people had caused. Imagine if the government made it illegal for ANYONE besides military/big industry to own automobiles and forced all civilians and private businesspersons to use mass rail transportation. Despite the ecological benefits that might bring, do you really think people would be leaping for the opportunity to change their lifestyle to something like that? To give up personal liberty for the promise of future safety?

When laws change (atleast in sweden) it doesnt effect those who once have been approved of something. Such as, if the gun laws change, your still keep your license, but if your to buy a new gun, you have to go thrue the new system. So i agree, thats only fair. Given is given.

What im concerned about is how EASY it is for you guys to get hold of guns, and how all your logic is twisted around guns, while you should be more concerned bout the social decent into violence. And this isnt me pointing a finger at the US, its happening here aswell, and to be frank, it frightens me. The US is a role model for many western countries, and your way of life will eventually spread over seas, and its proven ITS NOT WORKING.

This will also be my last post in this thread for a while to avoid a flame fest.

Also; Everything ive said here is in MY opinion. It all comes down to different raising, and circumstances.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/17/09 05:55 PM, IdentiC wrote: im put off by the fact people think thats a good way for a society to work along. Instead of solving the problems, bring out more guns on the streets.

It isn't that people think it's a good way for society to get along, it's that the problems which generate gun violence aren't actually caused by the presence of guns. Even if guns aren't available, the issues that create violent behavior would still exist... so instead of people shooting one-another, they'd be stabbing each other or hitting each other with blunt objects or running them over with cars or whatever. The point is that if you take away the #1 most efficient means to an end, then people who are really intent towards that end will just resort to #2 and #3 etc etc etc all the way down the list.

And it isn't about putting more guns on the streets, it's about not taking them away from the responsible people.

Im sorry but i have no idea what your talking about there so do post a link to what that is.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

So basically your not saying anything here. Its my statistics versus your statistics, wich brings us to different view points, and i can respect that.

LOL uh no, I'm saying that guns CAN and DO save lives, but considering the nature of what you're attempting to count (deaths avoided / lives preserved) I doubt you'd be able to find reliable figures concerning how many. It's possible that the number of lives saved actually outweighs the number of lives lost, but it's not something I think we can accurately gauge.

Consider for a moment the idea that dropping atomic bombs on Japan -- while causing an immediate, large-scale loss of life -- may have actually prevented more deaths than it created by way of precluding an even longer, more protracted war campaign. It might sound a bit preposterous but it's still possible, although like I said you can't place a real stat on "what could've been."

What im concerned about is how EASY it is for you guys to get hold of guns, and how all your logic is twisted around guns, while you should be more concerned bout the social decent into violence.

Violence is something that's always existed, and back in the day it got a lot gorier than what guns are capable of doing. People didn't wait around for guns to be invented before committing horrific acts. Removing one means towards violence doesn't remove violence. Gun control is a well-intentioned but terribly mislead attempt at bettering society: it focuses on trying to treat a symptom of civil disease but it does nothing to address the actual cause of civil disease.

[TheMason]

At 5/17/09 11:29 AM, IdentiC wrote: Im talking about a plugged revolver...

Okay, now I'm tracking. Over here we don't have plugged revolvers.

So the solution is more guns? Even if that is the answer, a law that would force people to take a course to use the gun would be a good idea. As in learn how to properly defend yourself with one.

And that is what we have if you go for a concealed carry permit.

Have you guys even trie to reduce the numbers of firearms in the US? And how many of those self defenses could have been solved WITHOUT a damned gun. The only thing im hearing here is how you think guns are the only good way to protect yourself. And again, better laws, and most importantly, better education wouldnt hurt anyone.

First of all you need to understand that I grew-up in a rural environment. While there wasn't too much crime, if you stayed away from the seedier element, there wasn't much police protection. You had about a 1,000 people who lived within 'city' limits and then another 1,000 who lived outside the city limits. For those of us who lived inside the 'city' limits we had two cops and a chief on duty during the day to write speeding tickets and one on nights. In fact one night a couple of the locals who had been busted for pot growing were able to set fire to the police station/city hall (the evidence against them was stored there) with the result of it burning to the ground.

For the people who lived 'in the country' they had to call the Sheriff which would have between one and two deputies on patrol. Now these guys had to patrol about 600 miles (966km) of roads. Now unless they were close by, their usual response time is 2-3 hours. Effectively these people did not have any police protection.

So you have to remember Sweden is a country with a landmass of 173,732 sq. mi (448,964 sq. km) while the US has a landmass of 3.8 Million sq. mil (9.8 sq. km). This has a major effect on things such as policing.

And yes the major cities have tried programs to ban guns and have people turn them in for various prizes. Doesn't work. In fact Chicago, with some of the toughest gun laws in the country, is struggling with gang violence.

Really now? As the author wrote before, people coming in with shot cows, horses and large dogs. 60% of the tests concists of knowing WHAT to shoot, and WHEN you can shoot it. You also learn gun safety, how to properly handle your gun (keeping it clean etc etc) and ofcourse you need to be a decent shot to be able to get passed. Why is this good? Reduce suffering for animals in general. I agree, while hunting you need to be hunting to become really good at it, but knowing the basics such as how not to kill livestock is a good idea.

BTW...that was me who talked about livestock being shot.

Cleaning a gun is simple and people can best learn how to do that through handling their firearm in the presence of the internet or a manual. In your class did you handle firearms...or just talk about it?

As for the being a really good shot...that is not something you can learn in a class. You learn by doing. Now having an instructor there to coach you is not a bad thing. Once you have your technique down it is always a good idea to have someone to talk about things to tweak the way you do something.

I havent seen the numbers so i cant really comment on that. If you do respond to this, please attach a link to it aswell. Thanks.

Linky First off, that is a pro-gun site. However, they do link to their sources so you can follow the links if you're in doubt.

So off 100% trying to defend themselves, only 2% managed to hit their target? Clarify please. :P

The problem is you're thinking that when you pull a gun in self-defense you are going to fire it. I've used a gun for self-defense, my ex-mother-in-law has used one before, I could go on and on about people I personally know who had to use a gun to defend their family (often because the police were unable/unwilling to respond). Do you know how many times those people pulled the trigger and shot someone?

ZERO.

That's right. What that 2% means is the presence of a gun actually resolves a situation peacefully without someone getting hurt because no shot is fired. A display of the gun is enough to end the situation peacefully.

Same thing with cops, only they fire more often than civilians.

I still dont believe more guns is the answer to the problem. So far you seem to fancy the idea of terror balance. ...

No that's not what I'm arguing for. There is a deterence value to having a firearm for protection. I grew-up in a rural setting where everyone had guns in their homes. Things like petty burglary was not a fear where I grew-up. Neither was stalking, mugging or murder. We didn't have drive-bys. Nor did we have effective police protection. However, when I moved to the city there was an illusion of police protection, fewer households w/guns but more violence and more fear.

We fight hard because we don't want to end up like Sweden. :)

I find this funny, because since when did US try to become like Sweden? ... The problem here is that were both grown up in two very different systems, and thus our views are very different. ...

Look at the smiley face. It was a joke. But like most jokes there is an element of truth. We grew-up in two totally different systems. I respect your point of view and what works in your country, and I don't want to meddle in your affairs. On the other hand I kinda resent the Europeans who try and meddle in US gun law.

"Allocate these resources". The government doesnt own the money in your country, the banks do.

*Sigh* I'm not going to get into an discussion of banking and monetary policy. That is irrelevent. The government raises money to spend through taxes. Then they spend that money on government programs they enact through law. Thus the government does allocate taxpayer provided resources in the form of programs such as education, job training/assistance, military, police, etc.

Now good public policy is taking finite resources and allocating them in the public's best interest.

However, laws (like gun control) that only deals with rare occurences (such as assault rifles used in crime) drain money away from programs that will make more of an impact and save more lives.

So your saying its better to let the weapon dealers keep the power? And my biggest concern isnt only the numbers of guns, but also there are no real control over who gets hold of one.

Who do you mean by weapon dealers? The guy selling illegal guns out of his car/house/whatever? Or the legitimate dealer who is licensed by the federal government and who runs a background check with the FBI to make sure the purchaser hasn't lied on his application?

I havent seen the numbers your refering to, only them "false ones" that sais you have insanely lots of gun accidents and homicides compared to most other countries.

We are a country of 300 Million people. Sweden: 9 Million. US: High ELF score, Sweden: 84% Swede.
We have: 16K murders/guns per year.
We have 600 fatal gun accidents per year.

While we may be higher compared to other countries, we do not fall outside what you would consider the normal range for a developed country. Furthermore, we are not the leader of the pack when it comes to violent fatalities (be they gun related, accidental or homicides).