Do you Really Need a Gun?

[Evan Thomas]

Bickering and off-topic posting WILL CEASE NOW, or there will be consequences.

[dakota.potts]

Nogun, when you return, please consider this.

The next time you ask somebody "when have you ever needed a semi automatic weapon with a standard capacity magazine to defend yourself" ask yourself the equally important question of "when have I ever been put in danger by a person with a weapon solely because it was a semi automatic holding more than 7 rounds?". If you have been put in danger (or injured) by a person with a gun, how many times would it truly have made a difference if they had 10 rounds instead of 15. What if it were a shotgun? A black powder revolver? A .308 hunting rifle? A .32 semi automatic handgun holding 6 rounds?

I think you will find that these deaths are highly publicized but not at all common. In fact, I'd wager there are far more people successfully defending themselves with these weapons than killing with them.

Not that we should even have to defend this because of our second amendment rights, but I'd like to see what you have to say about this after truly considering it since you've come here willing to do so.

[NoGun]

I would like to thank you all for your comments and replies. I am sorry if, and had no intention of, stirring the pot here. On the other hand, I am glad that I had this opportunity to discuss this subject with you. You have all been more than gracious.

I would like to "thank" Robert (Tickling) for pointing out:

is the fact that in the past he was a major player in a U.N. program that disarmed various insurgent or paramilitary groups in Africa.

I can answer questions on this program if people would like, but I do not believe it is necessarily relevant to the discussion at hand. I in no way, shape or form consider the problems over there to be comparable to our situation here.


Replying to all your posts would be impossible. And trying to do so, I'm afraid, made it look like I was ignoring new arguments. So I'll try to sum up the main ideas I gathered from all your comments and discuss them in a single posting sometime tomorrow. If I miss any arguments that I should have addressed, it was unintentional, so please bring them to my attention.

[Evan Thomas]

NoGun, thank you for coming here and engaging us in an excellent conversation.

As to stirring the pot, no worries. It just... stirs itself, sometimes.

[Frank Ettin]

Another thing to consider about the gun is that one's possession of same can serve to level the playing field. We can have some idea of how the world might work without guns by considering our history and the time before there were such things. One's ability to project force, for either aggression or defense, was then largely proportional to one's strength, fitness, skill at arms and/or ability to act in concert with others.

A group of strong, young men with malevolent intent would have an enormous advantage over one or even several old, infirm, frail and innocent people. A gun, however, gives the innocent who can't reasonably rely solely on muscle a chance to protect himself against the young, strong and malicious.

[chewie676]

Short answer
There is no nation in the world that can guarantee your life or physical integrity from criminal activities. So I will not trust my life to the government security systems. For as long as this stands true, I'm happy I have the right to defend myself or that of my loved ones and the right to choose what suits me better to do so weather if it is a firearm or a tablespoon....Now remember, a tablespoon could be dangerous too, it all depends of the circumstances AND THE PERSON WHO HOLD IT.
Take care.

[Rainbow Demon]

If they ever invent a Startrek phaser gun, even if its a stun setting only model, I'd sooner use one than a pistol, but no present day stun gun is that reliable at ranges past spitting distance and the charge from a dart can be short circuited away from the body by simply putting a layer of tin foil inside a jacket or shirt.
Just found that out recently.
A better way would be the ultra fine stainless steel mesh from the local Rayon manufacturing plant.
Some of the better grade Bikers leathers have fine weave chainmail panels that a dart would not be likely to penetrate.
I've taken some severe electrical shocks over the years, at least two of which were far more potent than a Taser, and was not down for more than a second or two. The resistence to the effects of electric shocks is cumulative. The more times you've been shocked the less electricity can affect your nervous system. Most electricians can vouch for that.

A five second till incapacitation interval is a very very long time. I could make a halloween mask from someones face in that length of time using only my Schrade Bear Paw.
Theres an old saying "any fight between two grown men that lasts more than eight seconds is a sporting event".

Mace is even more unreliable, some of the more dangerous types are almost completely immune to its affects. I've seen evidence of this with my own eyes.

A near lethal weapon would be as far down the road as I'd go, something that produces serious but survivable wounds unless the subject presses the attack.
One 12 ga Bean Bag to the sternum at close range is usually but not always survivable, a second hit to an already broken sternum may result in death.

If I have to hit someone with a club to keep them off me I'll most likely still be beating their cooling corpse into a bloody pulp when the paramedics get there.

[2damnold4this]

NoGun, thank you for coming here and engaging us in an excellent conversation.

+1 It's good to see different views.

[jnichols2]

Do I really need a printing press? (Hand cranked, circa 1790?)
Do I really need to vote?
Do I really need to be secure in my papers and possessions?
Do I really need a right not to incriminate myself?
Do I really need life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Do I really need a gun????????
At this exact moment, no.
If a thug with a club breaks into my house?
I'm 65 years old, I at least need a six shot revolver or double barrel shotgun.
Who needs a semiautomatic rifle at this time?
If four carloads of roving looters/rapists/killers surround my house.
I REALLY NEED my AR-15 !!!!!

If I don't have it now, I probably won't need it after the next 15 minutes.

My "arms" are a RIGHT, not a NEED.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by gaerek

Part of the problem is the media telling us that the mythical "one shot stop" happens all the time. Does it happen? Sometimes. But most of the time, you need at least several shots to stop an attacker. Now, multiply that by the number of people you have attacking you, throw in a conservative miss rate of 50%, and you can see why even a so-called "high capacity" (the term should be standard capacity, when it was designed for the gun) might not even seem like enough.

The "sometimes" and "most of the time" are the other way around, statistically.

Approximately 1 in 4 defensive uses of a firearm end with zero shots fired. When shots are fired, the average number is slightly over 2.

This is not to say that you can't/won't need more or that you shouldn't want/be allowed to have more, just that we should be accurate in our representation of the average incident.

[Gaerek]

Approximately 1 in 4 defensive uses of a firearm end with zero shots fired. When shots are fired, the average number is slightly over 2.

You're absolutely right. I should have clarified my point as being "when shots are fired." Also, you're right about the "slightly over 2" shots, average. I could have worded everything a bit better. Basically, I'm looking at the possibility of 3 or more hits on an attacker, with a (conservative) 50% miss rate.

The mere presence of a gun, most of the time, is enough to stop a confrontation in it's tracks.

[I'vebeenduped]

Tickling

"Holy! What have you guys been doing to my friend?... He's an economist and lawyer specializing in international law. Currently heads up numerous humanitarian efforts/missions, which is how we met. More importantly to us, is the fact that in the past he was a major player in a U.N. program that disarmed various insurgent or paramilitary groups in Africa. So he's sledgehammered more Soviet Bloc weapons than this forum probably owns."

Nogun, I appreciate that you have come here to understand our points of view. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but it is very wise to know your enemy. It is not that we are enemies at all. It is only that our opinions are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Your friend Tickling has given us a brief of your employment. I see that you have participated in disarming groups in Africa. You may read this as sarcastic, but I certainly do not mean it that way. I am inquiring a few questions for you in relation to your accomplishments.
1) How much safer are the areas that you disarmed?
2) Is there less violent crime in the areas that you disarmed?
3) Is the female population on a equal footing as the men are after this disarmament?
4) Have any armed groups been able to move into the areas that you recently disarmed?
5) To what level did you disarm this population?
6) How are you quantifying your answers?

I sincerely appreciate your being on our forum. I recently joined myself. Welcome!

[AZAK]

Tickling states:

is the fact that in the past he was a major player in a U.N. program that disarmed various insurgent or paramilitary groups in Africa.

NoGun adds:

I can answer questions on this program if people would like, but I do not believe it is necessarily relevant to the discussion at hand. I in no way, shape or form consider the problems over there to be comparable to our situation here.

I wonder why there is no correlation. In my reading you were part of a UN group, enforcing a "lawful effort", to disarm "the bad guys". However, here in the USA you are presenting an effort which limits/restricts/penalizes "the good guys".

Why the difference? Why not focus your attention on the criminals/bad guys/predators?

AZAK post #66

“[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.” - Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), Congressional Record, 5/16/68

Your reply to this quote:

I wholeheartedly agree with that quote.

For any long term difference in outcomes/behaviors, should not you be addressing a variable long before the incident? (It is not the store robbery, it is why is the person choosing to rob the store.)

One possible approach to your "problem" might be to consider some of the common factors in the US prison population; how many of the inmates have a high school diploma, what is the population like based on socio-ecomonic/goegraphic/ethnic background, what type of family do the inmates typically come from...

Then consider how to prevent the behaviors that you are "not liking".

I believe that it was the first United States Ambassador to France who said,
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

[JWT]

It's very difficult to participate in recreational shooting without owning guns.

[swcc22]

Well here is a little background on me.
I was in the navy from 1999-2005.
I was a swcc in the navy and was IED in Fallujah july 2005.
I met my wife in the navy she was an ma(Master at arms) and she is now a dallas police sergeant.
I have two beautiful lil girls and live 30 miles from the nearest police officer. (When my wifes not home)
I need a gun because the 95% stopping power of a tazer isn't good enough for my girls. I want to know that with all of my training I have a damn near 100% chance to protecting my girls with the stopping power or my .40s&w or my 12g.
But I thank you for you stopping by and saying hi

[Wyoredman]

One thing I think most urban folks forget when asking about guns and need is the fact that there are still large numbers of folks who live, work and play in very rural areas.

Areas so rural that any law enforcement presence may be hours or days away. Think about the need for guns in those situations. Not only to protect against the two legged animal, but also the four legged.

There are counties in Wyoming larger than many states in the east, with less population than a few city blocks of some cities. LEO may be 100's of miles away from a call (if the caller has phone service), and roads are not always paved and plowed. Sometimes, and it happens alot, a person must use the tools at hand to take care of themselves. Sometimes those tools are guns.

It is NOT like urban areas where there is a police station every five miles and a fire department with paramedics every three. Some of our first responders are stationed two to three hours apart.

I don't think anyone could argue that these folks "need" guns, literaly!

Take some time and look at some maps. Notice the large areas and distances without roads or towns. One would need a gun in these places, I submit.

[Csspecs]

I would say that a prime motivation of owning firearms is to prevent government oppression.. Sure we are an advanced country, however Germany was also very advanced in the 1930s.

I'd say the reason that the Nazis had as much success in mass murder, was because each person involved in delivering people to death got to tell themselves it was not happening.. If your involved in active shootouts with the people your trying to murder, odds are you have to face your conscience.

Sure the government here could use tanks and aircraft, but they still depend on people.. And those people are going to see first hand the awful things happening, and may refuse orders. Resistance groups did have an effect on the Nazis.

In a more localized view. A problem that has existed in history is road gangs, groups that attack people in out of the way places.. The existence on the AR-15 and similar firearms removes the strength in numbers aspect.

A semi auto is only more dangerous then a bolt action or pump shotgun if:
Your armed
Your wearing body armor
Or your outside of 100 yards.
Since most mass murders happen at close range, its likely that a sporting shotgun would increase death tolls rather then decrease them.

And the most deadly acts of mass murder committed in the US was done with box cutters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

My final point in the "need" concept.. I don't need to own a firearm, I own a full machine shop and can make one whenever I want one. Guns and ammo are 19th century technology and easily produced.

[Cowboy_mo]

I may never NEED a gun BUT the 2nd Amendment provides me the right to own one. Now, I've never done the history search to prove that I had any ancestors that fought in the revolutionary war to win me that right but I had a father who spent 3 years in Merry old England (his description) dodging buzz bombs and seeing to it that our planes dropped bombs on Hitler's factories and troops to defend that right.

NOGUN, hopefully you remember Hitler, the little dark haired German guy with a cheesy mustache who murdered some 6-7 million UNARMED civilians who didn't agree with his politics.

That little piece of history, is why I NEED guns.

Now a question for you. From your original post it would seem you support the proposed "assault weapons" ban. Which would mean that you believe this ban does not violate the 2nd amendment to the constitution. That being said, I ask: If Sen Feinstein proposed a ban on books by your favorite author, would that not violate your 1st amendment rights?

[Frank Ettin]

Getting circular and repetitive.