Do you Really Need a Gun?

[Wyoredman]

Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you gun prevail against its military.

Tell that to the Taliban and Al Quida, whom our military has been fighting for 12 years now.

Wars are much more than just shooting. Politics and world perception play major roles, also.

Our brave, well equiped, and technologicaly advaced military still hasn't fully defeted them in the STAN.

BTW, Thanks again to anyone who is over there or has been over there! You guys and gals are my personal heros!

[themalicious0ne]

Spats has it absolutely right, we as members of this forum may differ in many ways, come from different backgrounds, and may not always agree on the same things; however to those who do not get to see one of us from another, we all speak with the same voice and are pretty much lumped into the same entity. Its hard to see individuals from a different perspective. So together we make up what "they" see. We should conduct ourselves in a positive, unified, respectful manner and help "nogun" understand who we are.

[SPEMack618]

NoGun, in regards to the Constitution being framed in a different time. You are totally correct. Most of the heavy weapons used by the Colonists during the War for Independence were privately purchased.

The Colonial Navy, John Paul Jones aside, paled in comparison to the work of privateers, private merchant vessels armed at owner expense and ordered by Congress to go forth and raid British merchant traffic.

The argument could be made that the average Colonist was equally, if not better, armed than his British counterpart.

So yes, the Consitution was framed in a different time.

[AH.74]

I'm going to go a little further with something mentioned by Grizz and Dwight on p.2.

If you've never experienced a situation where all that is standing between you and an attacker who is intent on causing you harm or worse is a tool, be it a gun, baseball bat, hammer, or whatever else, I hope you never have to.

I have, and I am thankful I had a gun to stop it from happening. In that type of situation, you want the best tool available to you. For me it was my gun and it made a difference. Maybe all the difference.

NoGun- I will ask you- have you considered how you would deal with a home invasion? What would you do? It's not a pleasant thing to think about, but giving it some serious thought is worth the time.

[Sure shot wv]

Ok, after reading all this I feel I must chime in with a story of a situation I was in that has affected and changed my views and life ever since.

Now right now in life I am an avid IDPA competitor, collector, certified firearms instructor, reloader, and huge firearm enthusiast. I love everything about about firearms including having for defense. Now let me get to my defense story.

When I was 18 years old I moved from my parents house to my own in York, pa. I had a good job, I worked hard and had a good life for being 18. I had a neighbor who I had no trouble with. He lived there with his mother, wife, and 2 young daughters. Always waved when he saw you, would help you at the drop of a hat. Just a very nice person. Well one night I'm asleep with my girlfriend at the time and I get woken up at 2:30 in the morning to massive gun fire. Not just gun fire full blown full auto gun fire!!! At first I grabbed my girlfriend and pulled her off the bed to the floor and moved to a safer location in the house. I made my way to a safe viewing area where in front of my house stood my neighbor being shot ( 28 rounds total ) to the chest and head. Now before I could grab a gun the shooter hopped in his getaway car and was gone. And there layed my neighbor facedown in the road bleeding to death while his family screamed from the porch! Now after the fact we learned that the shooter had a mistaken identity and killed the wrong person. It also came out he used a full auto ak47. Now I happen to own a semi auto ak47. I have nothing against them. He purchased the gun illegally out of Baltimore. Maryland also happens to have one of the strictest gun laws in the nation next to California and New York.

Anyway my point is what if by chance that shooter saw me and wanted to kill me because I saw it happen. That taser would not have done squat for me. I may have died trying to defend myself but at least a gun would have made a better chance! A month after I turned 21 I got my ccw permit and I have carried everyday since! You never know when something is going to happen. I now have a wife and 19 month old boy that I will do anything necessary to protect!!!

I do not blame the gun or guns for crimes no more than blaming a car for a DUI accident! That is obserd. Bad people no matter what will do what they set out to do. They are criminals for a reason!

So that's my story and maybe someone can learn or just be aware from it.

[Gaerek]

Here's a good read:

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/n...#axzz2NQuUw9Ud

Your "tasers should replace handguns" argument is a poor one. This guy was pepper sprayed, and tasered three times before he went down. There's actually a video of part of it online, though I didn't link it because, well, the guy is truly naked. Alcohol can have a similar effect. If it's me against a PCP (or whatever chemical he is on) person, I want to know I have the ability to get out of the situation. Your three shot taser simply doesn't give me that assurance.

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.

As a father and a husband, I have a responsibility to protect my family from many unknown threats. A gun allows me to do that effectively. A gun allows my wife to protect herself against someone might want to assault her. There's a saying, "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal." It is the only tool that can effectively allow anybody to protect themselves from anybody else.

Let's also take a look at where most violent "gun" crime is located. (I put gun in quotes because it's not the tool that is violent, it is the person using that tool. We should lump all violent crime together, but unfortunately, the MSM, Brady campaign and others think there's a difference between someone being shot to death, and stabbed or beat to death.) It's almost completely centralized in areas that have the most restrictive gun laws. You mentioned that prohibition failed because we couldn't enforce it. What makes you think that a total gun ban would be enforceable? Some law abiding citizens will give up their guns, because they are law abiding. Some previous law abiding gun owners will make the decision to become criminals under the new law, but they aren't a threat...they primarily do it to protect themselves and family against other criminals and tyranny. Lastly, we have the criminals, who most assuredly will not give up the guns they have. And will continue to use those guns for the purposes of evil.

You might say, well, the supply will eventually dry up. And for the most part, eventually, it will. BUT, then we have the situation like we have in the UK now that has almost FOUR TIMES the violent crime rate that the US has. The US has a higher murder rate, but that's also mostly centralized in the areas with the highest amount of gun control. Why is the UK's violent crime rate so high? People have no measure of protecting themselves, and the criminals know it. In the US, you don't know who is carrying or who is not. So violent crime, in general is fairly low.

Lastly, you mentioned that rifles and handguns are no threat to tanks, and bombers, etc. Tell that to the Viet Cong. Tell that to Taliban insurgents. You also have to realize that the even the threat of an armed revolt (I am in no way shape or form advising this course of action, merely stating facts) is enough to prevent certain types of actions by the government. Do you know why Hitler never invaded Switzerland? It wasn't because they were neutral...it's because he knew almost every citizen was armed. Although the Yamamoto "blade of grass" quote is most likely bogus, it's still reasonable to assume that the Japanese didn't invade the US in a ground war (beyond an island in Alaska) because they knew they'd be fighting both the military, and the militia (what the founding fathers knew to be able bodied men with rifles...nothing organized beyond that).

The need of a gun isn't the point. There are many things we don't need, that we are allowed to have...even dangerous things (Bugatti Veyron, for example?). We have the right to own it. The Constitution gives us this right. SCOTUS affirmed this right. If you choose not to exercise this right, that is also your right. I, on the other hand, choose to exercise this right.

[SauerGrapes]

I'm going to look pretty silly hunting deer with a laser. Or shooting a pistol match with one.
Your whole premise is flawed. The genie is out of the bottle, 300,000,000 guns in this country.
Most important above all else, there's that little pesky matter of the constitution. You know the one I'm talking about, right?

I suggest you find a gun club near you, go watch a cowboy action match or a steel plate match. Look at the people who are involved in the shooting sports.
These are regular people from all walks of life.

You'd be surprised, you might actually like shooting. Some of the best people I know are avid shooters. WE ARE NOT THE ''BOOGIE MAN''.

[dajowi]

Why do I need a gun? Maybe a better question is why do we need the 2nd amendment? I think the answer lies not only in the founding father's intent to provide security against tyrannical rulers who would subjugate the people but to protect the sanctity of the remaining bill of rights.

As a matter of discourse it is always brought up that given the small arms that are available to us civilians how can we possibly imagine a victory over a government using tanks and drones. Well I'll tell you.

While under occupation by the Nazis my relatives suffered greatly. They died by starvation, by bomb and by bullet. But they didn't surrender. They used small arms and whatever they could to kill their oppressor. They blew up bridges and trains. Their children using sleds helped move millions of dollars of Norwegian gold over the mountains past Nazi guards. It is the availability of firearms which gave these people a chance to survive the horrific invasion. And how many times has this been repeated in the past?

Whether it is an invading force or your own government trying to oppress you, firearms may not give you final victory. But I'd rather stand on my feet and fight rather than on my knees in surrender.

[bazookajeff89]

First off Nogun, I applaud you for coming into a gun forum and having a rational debate for your side instead of just assuming we are all crazy.

The first thing i would like to address is the "civilian weapons vs. Military arsenal" argument. First off as a current member of the military on a CONUS base I can assure you that many people wouldn't even consider fighting the local town. The first reason being that a large portion are a PART of the local town. I don't think i'm prepared to start taking out people who have become my family and friends. Secondly, the purported idea that we would be fighting tanks, armored aircraft etc. etc. The resources you need just to position a tank somewhere is monumental and i guarantee they aren't everywhere and even if you were facing a tank, it's more likely you could just get away from it down an alley or through a house. Lastly, as a member of the US Military I took an oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Many more people that I serve with feel very strongly about that and wouldn't follow orders that go against that oath.

Next, I would like to give my viewpoint as one of the younger generation on this site as i'm 23. I have never had to face at gunpoint anybody, nor have I been robbed or threatened with physical violence to that extreme. However, I know that if the situation were to occur, I would need to put up as strong a front as a could, I have no personal self defense history or any crazy knowledge about how to protect myself. But, I do know that if their is even a modicum of rational thought left behind in the Bad Guy(BG), then looking down the chamber of a gun will get their attention. Less so with a taser. Also from conversations with police officers(and this may be outdated) I know that they are only stunned while the voltage is going through them, hardly a permanent solution. I understand the thought that a gun ban will keep you safer. That with less weapons around will be a lower risk that they will "fall into the wrong hands" but the reality is it's not about the tool, it's about the user, what we need isn't a ban on weapons or even a restriction, but an emphasis on training and personal responsibility.

[H.W. French]

Did those students at Kent State really need to protest their government?
A simple petition or letter to Nixon would have surely been less confrontational.
Lucky for them their benevolent government was there to keep everyone safe.

[alex0535]

So other than home defense, shooting is just plain fun, anything from a hobby to a variety of shooting sports. Hunting puts meat on the table. It is a constitutional right, rights that are not exercised are hardly rights at all.

On the topic of home defense. An air taser won't keep a large guy or 5 down for very long, certainly not long enough for the police to show up. Mace inside of a home is going to affect everyone in the home.

I know that shooting someone seems violent. But when someone takes a violent step towards harming me by kicking into my house. They get whatever they meet on the other side of that door. Whether that is a shotgun, or cracking their skull with baseball bat.

This kind of stuff happens, even to people that do not go out looking for trouble. A few years ago near a college campus, there was a party next door and there had been a confrontation. Some yelling, and these guys got in their truck and peeled off. Fast forward a few hours and it is 5am. These guys come back and kick in our front door. I was in the living room at the time and went around through the kitchen and just started screaming at 5 guys that had just kicked in our front door. After making it very clear that they had broken into the wrong house and a lot of explicative phrases they looked around and realized what I was saying and backed out the way they came.

They were lucky that I didn't have a gun in reach because there would have been a lot more shooting and a lot less yelling, but there was a shotgun and a pit bull upstairs so I just made as much noise as I could. If someone kicks their way into your home with the intention of hurting those inside, and these people seemed to have that in mind. They get whatever comes to them, their threatening actions make their lives cease to have any value inside my home.

When you find yourself unarmed with 5 intoxicated large men in your doorway. You won't be wanting an air taser, you want a 12 gauge shotgun. Whether you shoot them is up to you, the racking of a shotgun is a universally recognized bad sound to hear if you are somewhere you are not supposed to be and will probably back them out, but if they are persistent it will neutralize a threat against your life.

[NoGun]

Wow! I did not anticipate the number of responses. I would like to respond to all of them as they each made very good points. However I will lump them together instead of replying to each separately, if that is all right? I am not sure of the usual custom here in regards to replies.

I will quote your name when responding to your arguments.

Grizzly223 and AH.74,

Posted by Grizzly223,
If what you say about Tasers were true than I would not need a gun but we do not have a phaser set to stun yet. What you write is out of ignorance because you have never been on the pointy end of the stick as it were.

Posted by AH.74,
If you've never experienced a situation where all that is standing between you and an attacker who is intent on causing you harm or worse is a tool, be it a gun, baseball bat, hammer, or whatever else, I hope you never have to.

I understand that I am only "some guy on the internet." Maybe my colleague who is a member here can vouche for me. Anyway, I am an economist, amongst other hats that I wear and I work for several humanitarian organizations. So I have been in a few "hairy" situations. In regards to the U.S., I will freely admit to never being mugged, attacked or having my home burglarized. However, abroad, I have been robbed, at gunpoint and machete point, beaten, shot at and held against my will.

In most of these situations I don't believe a gun or even a taser in my hands would have done me or my group any good (I am NOT saying there is never a situation where guns can do good). On the flipside, good guys with guns probably saved my life at least once and definitely rescued us from molestation. In the spirit complete honesty, I've been protected by U.N. forces, various police/military and even private security while abroad. And I was very glad they were armed.

The difference in here versus there, is that these were unstable countries and the criminals (so to speak) were either military or paramilitary organizations. Because of the proliferation of guns here in the U.S., a person almost does have to be armed with a gun to go toe to toe with criminals. However, we have a stable government that could change that. If guns could be rendered prohibitively hard to obtain or use, then they would go the way of hand grenades and machine guns, their use in crime would be a statistical anomaly. And there are some very viable ways we could make that happen.

Posted by Grizzly223,
I carry a Taser and a firearm every day as I am a Deputy Sheriff. I can tell you from personal experience that A Taser does not work all the time no matter what you may have heard. If what you say about Tasers were true than I would not need a gun but we do not have a phaser set to stun yet.

Thank you for your public service A gun, also does not work all the time so I hear.

if you think that Tasing one of them will stop an attack you are wrong most of the time plus you will just make the rest of them angrier. However if you draw and point a gun at them all the bravado just goes away most of the time.

I admit that a taser is not ideal against a group of antagonists. However this same group is really no easier to subdue with a handgun. And a gunshot wound has been known to just "make people angrier" as well.

I will concede that guns trump the "intimidation factor." I remember that some of our Food Aid convoy escorts would load empty magazines(?) into their mounted machine guns and swivel them around to scare off problem groups. I will consider that point as it is a good one.

[spacemanspiff]

NoGun, based on your advocacy of less-lethal forms of self defense, do you have more than anectdotal evidence that such is better than lethal forms?

Do you have examples you can share of how you have first hand used less-lethal means to defend yourself?

If you have never had the opportunity to discourage someone with intent on harming you, with whatever means you choose, how can you really say that our choices are worse than yours?

My reason for feeling I 'need' a semi-auto firearm for defensive purposes is simple. My state has clearly defined laws outlining when lethal force is justifiable in defense of life. These laws were written by those who understand there are circumstances where fellow humans will try to do bad on others. Personally, I have respect for life, and I value mine, that of my loved ones, and even the life of a stranger highly enough that if anyone seeks to endanger those forementioned lives, this peaceable man is willing to do whatever it takes in defense of life.

[NoGun]

Posted by 4runnerman,
You say guns are meant to kill???..Where did you come up with that Idea?. Gun's can be used to kill,but where not made to kill,They are for self defense or preservation.

I didn't think guns' primary purpose was up for debate.. Just because a tool can be used for something else does not change its primary purpose. I can use my riding lawnmower (if I had one) for trips to the mall, but that doesn't change the fact that it's primary purpose is to cut grass.

Posted by 4runnerman,
God forbid that I ever have to use it in self defense,but I do still value my life and my Family's life very much.

I value my life and family's life as well. My daughter owns a taser and we went to a class together to learn how to use it.

Posted by WeedWacker,
And why should the law abiding civilian population not be permitted to possess these items? (The cynical side of me secretly thinks it's a good idea based on it will further human evolution)

Re: Mustard Gas - a few household chemicals and a bit of chemistry know how and you can make your own small scale chemical weapons ("Mustard gas" can be home made), even to the point of incendiaries and aerosols. It is easier to obtain legally than high explosive destructive devices per the NFA.

I think your cynical side answered your first question.

While it's true that you can make anything you wanted in theory, practical application is much more of a stretch. For an example, it's pretty easy to make a toxic gas, but to weaponize it and deploy it without killing yourself in the process is a whole other matter.

Posted by 2damnold4this,
I'm not sure on what the claim for Taser effectiveness is based.

Here is a study that puts tasers at 85% stop effectiveness: http://www.google.com/url?url=http:/...P2hT7Ydwc0VauA Some studies put it higher. Also, civilians can get tasers that fire up to three shots.

[BerdanSS]

I admit that a taser is not ideal against a group of antagonists. However this same group is really no easier to subdue with a handgun. And a gunshot wound has been known to just "make people angrier" as well.

really?

If I'm surrounded by a group of thugs, intent on killing me, raping then killing my wife and taking our valuables. My weapon I chose to carry will most defiantly be 100% better than a taser.

Think about what your saying.

When being confronted by a violent individual(s), the thought of being zapped with a taser, then recovering while their (now really angry) friends beat/stab you to death is much better to them than the though of, he's got a gun and can (will) at any second here kill me to protect himself and wife that we are attacking...or maybe he'll kill my buddy to my left.....or my buddy to my right, or kill me then kill two more of my buddys before we can stab him or grab his wife. That right there can end a conflict with NO ONE dying. A taser? that will get laughed at and you will get a front row seat to the death of your loved ones then yourself.

Have you ever experienced an event like that? Maybe just one person instead of a group? I have FOUR times in my life. Twice with just me and my wife, once with my wife while carrying my 18 month old son across a parking lot (in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY). And once in a CVS at the check out, with a clerk there, right in front of a security camera. BAD people DON"T CARE.

[AZAK]

AZAK posted:

“[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

Perhaps rereading the last quote may help you to understand.

It is always the person. Not the tool. A gal of gasoline and a box of matches can be very dangerous in the hands of someone with "bad intentions".

NoGun replied:

I wholeheartedly agree with that quote.Dynamite is a tool too, but last I checked I can't just buy some to blast stumps in my back yard... The risk of misuse, is not worth the benefits of allowing its free sale. The same I think, is something we are coming to in regard to firearms.

"wholeheartedly agree"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
"but"
An acronym: Behold the Underlying Truth
"The risk of misuse, is not worth the benefits of allowing its free sale."
A reoccurring theme in your argument; an agenda.

A short story:
A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

[Vurtle]

Nogun,

The Bill of Rights is clearly stated. Regardless of opinion (which I think yours is wrong), you cannot dispute the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No matter what any persons opinion is, you cannot change these rules. Anyone who attempts to undermine the Bill of Rights is a domestic terrorist. Everyone is free to an opinion, but those who create or support laws that are against the Constitution should be removed from their elected positions and charged with tyranny.

Your posts resemble other trolls who have visited other forums.

[NoGun]

Mr. Leake,

Thanks for not playing the stereotypical anti, being shrill, or blowing off reasonable answers. That's refreshing.

Thank you for not being the stereotypical "gun nut," spouting conspiracy theories or chest pounding my reasoning away. It's eye-opening

If the officer, with all those resources, needs all that gear AND still carries a handgun, then why should the rest of us feel that a taser will handle any issue?

Good solid reasoning and you're open to acknowledge the weak points of your argument. I like it, I shall enjoy parrying ideas with you.

One could say that Police Officers have guns because the criminals do and in a gun versus taser scenario the taser comes up short in several aspects. But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them. Also, there are drawbacks to guns as well.

Not all tasers have multi-shot capability. Not all tasers will penetrate heavy clothing. The dart type tasers need two good dart points of contact in order to cycle current through the body. Tasers are not non-lethal, either, as they have been known to kill people with heart conditions, cocaine or PCP users, and those in generally poor health at an alarming rate (at least, at an alarming rate for what was supposed to have been a "non-lethal" weapon).

Some guns also do not have much capacity, not all calibers will penetrate heavy clothing effectively. A rather small bullet needs to hit some rather small area(s) in order to ensure a "stop." People on drugs or with mental problems will be more likely to respond to a taser than pain caused by gunshot wounds, etc.

And while non-lethal weapons can cause death, you have to admit that it is the exception, not the norm. I think you will agree that your chances of surviving being "tasered" is so much infinitely greater than surviving being shot, that the comparison doesn't warrant discussion.

As far as states banning forms of non-lethal self defense, I'm aware of it, and I think it's the height of ignorance and silliness.

On the Constitutional Rights issue, how strong do you think the First Amendment would remain, if the people allowed their teeth (the Second Amendment) to be pulled? Quite frankly, I WANT the US government to feel at least some trepidation when it considers passing some particularly onerous piece of legislation.

On the matter of civil unrest, either a) the military does not support the government, in which case gun ownership is a mute point, or b) the military fully or partially supports the government, in which case you will be branded a terrorist and you are a mute point.

Without meaning to sound harsh, who are you to tell me what I need for defense of myself or my family? Are you going to race to our side should an attacker appear? Would you like me to decide what items in your life you really need?

I'm not, in fact I don't think it's the government's place to tell anyone what they need or want. But they can and do tell you what you can't have. I might think I need to snort cocaine, but the DEA will tell me otherwise. The government, whether we like it or not, is now in the business of public safety. They tell us what to buy in the form of regulating companies. The FDA and other departments tells us what drugs we can buy, what safety features we need to have on our cars, what kind of light bulbs we use, etc., etc..

[Spats McGee]

When I wrote my post earlier, I realized that I could have gone on for quite some time. Time of which I am woefully short these days. Nonetheless, I'm back to make a few points:

1) Initial design -- NoGun, a few times in this thread, you have mentioned that "guns were designed for killing." My query: Even if you are correct in that, how much difference does the initial designer's intention really matter? If dynamite were designed for the purpose of destroying large sections of rock, say to make railroad tunnels, would that mean that I should be able to buy dynamite down at the 7-11? If not, then why would a firearms "design purpose" factor into this equation?

2) In a fairly recent post, you said:

Originally Posted by NoGun

In most of these situations I don't believe a gun or even a taser in my hands would have done me or my group any good (I am NOT saying there is never a situation where guns can do good). On the flipside, good guys with guns probably saved my life at least once and definitely rescued us from molestation. In the spirit complete honesty, I've been protected by U.N. forces, various police/military and even private security while abroad. And I was very glad they were armed.

(Emphasis supplied by Spats)

Why were you glad? If Tasers were the answer, should you not have been worried that the UN forces had firearms instead of Tasers? Those soldiers carried guns, because those are the most appropriate and effective tools for the job.

Your post highlights one of the things that really sticks in many gun owners' craws: elitism. There is a very strong push right now to limit access to firearms, and that push is coming from people who are surrounded by armed guards. If guns are such a bad idea, why do the rich and famous surround themselves with men with guns? Why is it OK for their security squads to carry firearms, but not OK for a single mother who can only afford an apartment in a questionable neighborhood? As gov't ramps up the requirements (education, training, licensing, etc.) to exercise the RKBA, that right gets further and further out of reach of the poor.

Originally Posted by NoGun

The difference in here versus there, is that these were unstable countries and the criminals (so to speak) were either military or paramilitary organizations. Because of the proliferation of guns here in the U.S., a person almost does have to be armed with a gun to go toe to toe with criminals. However, we have a stable government that could change that. If guns could be rendered prohibitively hard to obtain or use, then they would go the way of hand grenades and machine guns, their use in crime would be a statistical anomaly. And there are some very viable ways we could make that happen.

(Emphasis supplied by Spats)
Our "stable government that could change that" . . . Have you looked at the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports? Some of the highest per capita murder rates are in Chicago, NY and DC. Many of us do not think that it is an anomaly that those cities have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

The post quoted immediately above and here:

Originally Posted by NoGun

But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them. Also, there are drawbacks to guns as well.

also point out one other fly in the ointment. Even if we assume, but only arguendo, that making guns prohibitively expensive or hard to obtain would drive down "gun crime," the first people to be affected will be law-abiding citizens who purchase their firearms through legal channels. Criminals who steal guns do not have a "reserve price" which they must get back when they sell a gun. If Mikey Meth steals a Glock, he can sell it for $100. IOW, making guns more expensive only makes them more expensive for law-abiding citizens, and the long-term effect is to turn those folks into defenseless victims first. Criminals and violent felons will remain unaffected. Further, even if we make the above assumption, does that really improve matters? Is it really any better to be beaten to death with a crowbar than shot with a gun? Is the gun really the problem?

As for whether making guns hard to use, I have my doubts as to whether this could be done fairly easily, and I don't think it's a good idea.

[BerdanSS]

But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them.

what in the........wow


Also,
I get the feeling that you do not really understand what a taser is, or what it's primarily used for. I'd want to understand that before touting them as better than a firearm for the situations we're talking about here. Which is what your doing.

[globemaster3]

Nogun, as has been said several times, I'd like to reiterate my appreciation for your candor in this discussion. It is really refreshing to see someone willing to openly debate a point without employing the tactics so common in todays discussions.

We've made some good points along numerous lines, some which you mentioned you would meditate on.

I'm going to come at you from another perspective.

You believe that if we remove semi-automatic weapons from the landscape, that will make our world safer.

I disagree. Our world would be just as unsafe, and people would still be killed in senseless ways. It's not the weapons that cause our world to be unsafe. It's the people.

The same week as Sandy Hook, a Chinese man walked into a school and stabbed over 20 children. No gun was used.

People have driven their cars into groups of innocents, killing and maming countless people. No guns were used.

A woman stands on trial today for brutally killing her boyfriend by stabbing him multiple times and slashing his throat.

A disenfranchised American packed a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel and blew up an office building, killing not only adults, but the children in the daycare located on the first floor.

Based on your position, you feel that if there were laws which took away semi-automatic weapons, less people will die. They won't. People will still die.

The last semi-automatic and magazine ban did nothing to reduce the total amount of people killed. The results speak for themselves that the legislation targeted in this manner will not solve the problem.

There were laws in CT whereby the Sandy Hook shooter should not have been able to get a gun! It didn't matter. He broke the law and savagely performed his atrocity. It's already illegal to kill people, perform straw purchases, and have guns in gun free zones. However, these laws have done nothing to prevent criminals from wreaking havoc.

Now, I am not a nihlist. Are there things that could be done to improve the process? Sure! Lets begin with enforcing the laws we have, beginning with prosecuting those attempting to illegally purchase weapons who are thwarted by the NICS check. Last reported, most who make the attempt and are denied walk away. During the last debates I heard on TV, something like thousands/year and 20 are prosecuted. Lets also see some arrests and people held accountable for the "Fast and Furious" debacle that let loose 1,000s of firearms into the hands of criminals by our current administration.

How about making the family a priority in American culture again? How many of these criminals come from broken homes that lacked a good father figure? 42% of American children are born in homes without fathers. Was there this much chaos in the 50's when the percentage was in single digits?

How about mental health reform?

Bottom line, the only people impacted by any proposed semi-auto ban would be the law-abiding.

Your argument that the 2nd Amendment was written for a different time. That argument alone is a slippery slope!

Our rights are not granted by the bill of rights. They are guaranteed. We were endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to limit the power of government, not the people. We are also governed by law, which also guarantees due process and proper punishment for law breakers, and in certain cases will result in a loss of rights. But as a baseline, our rights are unalienable!

The gun community has already compromised in the interest of the public on several fronts. Background checks, Class III categorization and restrictions, waiting periods, etc. How much more compromising must we endure before we lose the right entirely? As has been mentioned before, to change an ammendment is a daunting task. To pass laws that should restrict the ammendment, much easier. But it should not be! "...shall not be infringed." has meaning! All of this is gone in the interest of compromise, and yet, people are still dying and it is clear where this vector is going.

If this were truly about saving lives, we'd see the top life taking issues tackled. They are not, as you mentioned! Cars, smoking, obesity, all take more lives than guns. Why do we have cars that will go over the speed limit? Why are sports cars street legal? Why do motorbikes top out over 100 mph? You dismissed previous arguments as apple/orange comparisons, but its not when you consider what the root cause of the argument is supposed to be: making us safer. If that were truly the motivation, why are we not seeing attempts in other areas?

But honestly, I don't want to see attempts in other areas! I appreciate my freedom! I hate restrictions placed on my rights. We fought too many battles to win our freedom and today see those freedoms supplanted by big government implementing a nanny state.

[Father Time]

But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil

This right here is simply impossible....

Even with a total ban on illegal drugs people still easily buy them on the black market.
That is just the way the real world works.
It would be the same for guns.


And as for:

People on drugs or with mental problems will be more likely to respond to a taser than pain caused by gunshot wounds

That statment is also untrue. People that are high or mentaly unstable are going to be LESS effected by a tazer than a firearm. A tazer uses pain to force compliance. There have been MANY cases of people simply ignoring the pain and continueing the attack. And as soon as the charge stops flowing the criminal can resume the attack. (also keep in mind that civilian tazers are not as powerful as police issue tazers)
A firearm CAN use pain to force compliance but can also use physics to make it impossible.
You cannot move on/stand on a shattered leg bone. You cannot attack if your blood pressure drops below a certain level, you cannot attack of your central nervouse system has been disrupted.

Guns are continued to be used because of one glairing reason. They are the single most effective and efficient means of self defence on the planet.

[NoGun]

Specs wrote,
The two things that come to mind deal with disparity of force and intent. On one hand you posit that non lethal force should be sufficient to prevent being killed by attackers who may be armed with lethal devices of their choice and who also may be in a group of 3 or more who are INTENT ON KILLING YOU while you are only concerned with stopping the attack. Disparity of force.

I agree that non-lethal devices will not always be a viable alternative when faced with lethal weapons and will place you at a disadvantage. This is food for thought. Thank you.

Specs wrote,
I submit that I must be as well equipped as possible to protect myself against violent attackers equally well.

Well that is a slightly slippery slope as I pointed out earlier. We agree that criminals will not follow the law, correct? Therefore if they use grenade launchers I should be allowed to use them too?

About Vice President Biden, he is politicking. What he says doesn't matter any more than campaign promises these days, as long as it drives whatever political agenda he supports. It's easy to see the "divide and conquer" strategy at work.

Themalicious0ne wrote,
Tasers have a range of 15ft cords or 35ft cords. They have yet to invent one that shoots farther. As far as I know there are only one shot tasers... with three prongs that I know of, but you would have to carry extra cartriges which are very expensive. Also tasers are very prone to static discharge.

Against a gun, I could see the range limitations being a negative. But in other self defense scenarios I can't see needing to shoot further than 20 or so feet with a taser. There are trasers with three shots:http://shop.fortresstactical.com/TASER-X3-HD-s/179.htm. I was not aware of the static issue, I will look into it, guns themselves also have drawbacks too though.

Themalicious0ne wrote,
When the constitution was written, civillians were able to obtain any and all equipment the military had, including cannons. And they DID own them. Some that could afford it at least.

Which would go to show how things have changed since then. We can't own "cannons" anymore.

[Father Time]

We can't own "cannons" anymore

Actually civilian ownership of cannons is legal. And there are some very dedicated collectors as well.


And a I would rather be armed with the following items than a tazer:

Bow and Arrow
Crossbow
Atlatl
Sling and rock
(all of these weapons could outrange a tazer)

And thats not even counting the melee weapons I would rather be armed with than a tazer.

[Frank Ettin]

The reality is that good guys, here in the U. S., have successfully used guns to defend themselves and families. Many of the reported stories of such can be read here, here, here (scroll down the page a bit) and here.

Would things have worked out well for those folks if they hadn't had guns? Who can say for sure. But it is clear that they were able to make good use of a gun to deal with a potentially very bad situation. I suspect that each of them is glad that he/she had a gun.