Do you Really Need a Gun?

[NoGun]

I feel after a title like that, a brief explanation is in order. I am not a gun owner, in fact, I have been debating the merits of gun ownership with a member of this site! In several of our arguments he looked up information posted here, and I was intrigued for a look into your "world." Therefore, I "stalked" (believe is the proper word), you all! I was surprised, and I mean no offense by it, to find the very intelligent and articulate group of individuals that makes up this forum.

I am not here to flame or troll, but I was hoping that maybe you could provide some perspective for an "outsider." And I look forward to discussions with you all.

My question is thus:

Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?

Let's use Air Tasers as an example, they are purported to have a 95% stop ratio, which is I believe better than firearms. They can fire multiple shots (3 or more?), they can be as easily reloaded as a common handgun, and they can also be used as a very effective contact weapon.

I know this example is not perfect (I've seen the youtube videos), but neither are guns, from what I'm reading here. It appears, at least to me, to be a very viable alternative to firearms, poses virtually no risk to bystanders, can't be used effectively for mass murder, and if used, will save you from most of the legal trouble most here seem to be worried about.

I am I totally wrong here?

[justplainpossum]

Wasn't the air taser from Minority Report? Might be fun, but I'm still waiting for my jet pack... or a light sabre! Now I would definitely trade my .32 for a blue light sabre.

[NoGun]

^http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=air+t...w=600&bih=1024



And your jet-pack..
http://www.xperiencedays.com/Ft_Laud...Fc5AMgodJ3MAcg

[BarryLee]

I think you are wrong in that you assume guns are only used for shooting other humans.

I suspect most gun owners have never used a gun in a self defense or violent manner and never will. Most likely are attracted to firearms just like some are attracted to automobiles, fine watches or nice fountain pens. They see them as interesting mechanical items or even works of art.

They enjoy recreational shooting just blasting away at paper targets. Yes, it sounds stupid, but ever think about how hitting a little ball in a hole with a stick sounds? There are some of us that hunt and yes this means killing animals, but I suspect you’ll find hunters are some of the greatest lovers of nature.

Also, we do see firearms as a means of defending ourselves and while there may be other options firearms still remain one of the best choices.

Finally I would remind you of the Right to own firearms granted to us by the Constitution. Many of us still believe in freedom and personal responsibility. We feel society would be better served by punishing the actual bad guys instead of the law abiding.

Welcome, I think you’ll find we’re not a bad lot.

[AZAK]

Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?

Firearms are not only for self defense.

I believe that long range rifle shooting, say 1,000 yards, would not be the same with a tazer.

Biathlon in the Olympics would also not be quite the same.

I do use bolt and semi-automatic guns for distance shooting.

I could go on...

That said, the 2nd Amendment closes with the wording, "shall not be infringed".

And back to self defense, I also often carry bear spray (higher percentage of success in bear country; in Alaska as reference), a knife (handy for all sorts of operations) and a long gun and/or hand gun.

Addressing your logic, if your latest and greatest socket "statistically" works better for you at removing your nuts, should you outlaw/lose your belief in your right to own the crescent wrench?

What about the pistol that sits for say five years in a drawer/safe and is pulled out quickly in defense of one's or one's families lives? Tazer sitting for five years unmaintained... pretty much a rock.

Not to forget that the 2nd Amendment provides a bulwark against tyranny. Review history, see Nazi Germany, USSR, China's treatment of Tibet...

[LockedBreech]

Welcome to the forum, thanks for being open-minded enough to ask questions.

To toss my two cents into the ring, many attacks involve multiple assailants. Unless you're a perfect shot every time, even a 3-shot Taser would not be enough - a limitation that the 15-round Glock 19 does not share.

Additionally, for me at least, the anti-tyranny rationale still holds true. If it sounds like paranoia, remember that our government, not very long ago at all, herded people of Japanese ancestry into camps. A Taser is not a very effective tool for a person resisting tyranny.

[NWPilgrim]

The reason is that the gun is an equalizer. You can bet criminals will not obey laws restricting the type or number of firearms allowed or magazine capacity or type of ammo. Do you really want to fend off a criminal or two or three or four who are armed with pistols and perhaps semi-auto rifles or shotguns with your 3-shot "air taser?!" Pepper spray?!

A firearm allows an single individual to have a reasonable chance to defend themselves from an attacker who is taking the initiative, likely is armed, and often has accomplices. No guarantee you will survive an attack even with a firearm but it sure levels the field of battle. And if you are going to have a firearm for self defense why would you not want the most capable weapon possible for your situation? Why would you purposely limit yourself or another person to weapons that are inferior to what criminals use all over the world even where guns are highly restricted or totally banned?

When it comes to defending myself or my family from anyone cruel enough trying to hurt them, then I want the best weapon with the most ammo practical.

Think through a scenario of of armed intruders in your house, breaking in your front door, or in your child's room trying to drag them out screaming. Or you are on the street and and being accosted by a group of banger. Just read the news for violent attacks and put yourself in the victim's situation. Do you really want to rely on your 3-shot air taser, pepper spray, or whistle against such violent attackers?

[NoGun]

I'm very pleased to meet you BarryLee. I can see that firearms are desirable for other things besides killing, however I feel that those advantages are out-weighed by the "dangers," if you will, to society as a whole and easily replaced by non-lethal options. Bear in mind, I'm not trying to say that I know what's best for you or anyone else, just my personal and uneducated (on the subject) opinion.

most likely are attracted to firearms just like some are attracted to automobiles, fine watches or nice fountain pens. We see them as interesting mechanical items or even works of art.

This makes sense, especially for the historical value. However, if this is the case, why would these art pieces need to be functional?

We enjoy recreational shooting just blasting away at paper targets. Yes, it sounds stupid, but ever think about how hitting a little ball in a hole with a stick sounds?

It doesn't sound stupid at all! I've shot skeet myself and it was fun. However, again, I don't see the need for semi-automatic handguns for these sports, when accurized pellet-guns or even black powder firearms are available.

There are some of us that hunt and yes this means killing animals, but I suspect you’ll find hunters are some of the greatest lovers of nature.

I have no problem with hunting, and think hunters (like Theodore Roosevelt) have done more for conservation than any and all other groups combined. However, black powder or even crossbows would seem to already work quite well..

while there may be other options firearms still remain one of the best choices.

And why is that? They seem to be as dangerous to surrounding bystanders (at least in police shootings) as to the intended target, have a horrible stop ratio, cause more property damage, and the list goes on..

Finally I would remind you of the Right to own firearms granted to us by the Constitution. Many of us still believe in freedom and personal responsibility.

While I understand the "Heller" decision and all that, the constitution was framed in a different time. Firearms, and the best, were absolutely necessary then. The same is not so true today. Plus, it is accepted that the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. We already cannot buy mortars, machine-guns and cruise missiles, for the public good. If, something less-lethal but more effective came along for self defense, wouldn't it be better for society to embrace it and pass semi-automatic firearms into realm of military-only use?

[AZAK]

While I understand the "Heller" decision and all that, the constitution was framed in a different time.

While you may feel this way, "and all that", there are quite a number of folks in this country who agree with the spirit and the letter of The Constitution.

however I feel that those advantages are out-weighed by the "dangers

If you are concerned about "the dangers", why not start with the biggest in this country to the most people, heart disease.

[dakota.potts]

We choose guns because we decide this is what is necessary for us.

If you want an air taser most of us would be happy to let you have it knowing you're not going to attack somebody with it. We are glad to see people take an active role in sporting, hunting, self defense, or whatever you may use a gun for.

We are constitutionally guaranteed a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed upon. I believe we should be able to own automatic weapons if we so desire and you actually can buy mortars. The explosives are "destructive devices" and since arms were ruled by the Heller court as something that a man may use to strike or attack another with in combat. I do not see a mortar high explosive round fitting this definition.

I think you will find that most gun owners are safe, responsible, and would be willing to use their firearms to protect even those who don't think they should be allowed.

I would rather a person on a mass shooting spree have an automatic than semi automatic weapon. Why? Automatic weapons overheat. They jam faster. They empty the magazine faster. They're harder to keep effectively on target. In a power scenario (most mass murderers want power) they are very likely to just pump out rounds and actually run out of ammo faster with more misses. Even our military riflemen don't often use automatic fire for those reasons.

Furthermore, I think reform of driving laws would save MANY more people than firearms laws every year.

If we're going on a purely statistical basis, alcohol has no use other than maybe a painkiller and sterilizer. Alcohol kills many more people than firearms and has saved no one. It is not constitutionally guaranteed. Yet no one attacks alcohol use despite the number of innocents killed.

The reason for this, I believe, is quantitative versus qualitative data and the effect we let it have on our reasoning. We have quantitative data (a number of deaths) saying that alcohol deaths far outweigh deaths with a semi automatic rifle. Yet the qualitative data tells us that these events are horrible tragedies that get nationally televised. They are horrible and tragic. However, there are thousands more deaths that go un noticed and un publicized and therefore will never get media attention. We are reacting not to what would actually be good to society, but our immediate emotional reaction. I think many gun owners would give up their guns if we could somehow be guaranteed by an omniscient being that nobody would be killed by them ever again. That's not to speak for everybody. However, many of us feel a need to protect ourselves. We are legally in the United States reserve militia (US citizens) between the ages of 18 and 45 I believe. If I'm going to be part of a militia, I believe I have the right to train and prepare myself.

Furthermore, a crazed shooter could go right now and buy 20 black powder revolvers. They are not registered as firearms. There are no alerts for bulk buys. As far as I know there are no background checks. It would weigh less than the guns and ammo carried by the latest mass murderers. It would be cheaper than the guns and ammo. And yet that would be 120 rounds of ammunition, more than was fired in Aurora and Newtown by either of those shooters.

Does that help?

[NoGun]

Originally posted by ASAK,
believe that long range rifle shooting, say 1,000 yards, would not be the same with a tazer.

You got me there! But there's lots of things we used to be able to do, but can't anymore..

Addressing your logic, if your latest and greatest socket "statistically" works better for you at removing your nuts, should you outlaw/lose your belief in your right to own the crescent wrench?

Comparing crescent wrenches to firearms is apple's and oranges. But, if crescent wrenches were quite deadly, whilst this new "wonder wrench" was infinitely safer and worked better.. then yes, I think the former should be banned. For the same reason we added safety standards to factories.

What about the pistol that sits for say five years in a drawer/safe and is pulled out quickly in defense of one's or one's families lives? Tazer sitting for five years unmaintained... pretty much a rock.

A poorly maintained or malfunctioning firearm is also.. a rock.

If you are concerned about "the dangers", why not start with the biggest in this country to the most people, heart disease.

That's a totally separate issue since, last I checked, burgers weren't getting shot into people's mouths. Freedom of choice I believe.

[NoGun]

LockedBreech wrote,
To toss my two cents into the ring, many attacks involve multiple assailants. Unless you're a perfect shot every time, even a 3-shot Taser would not be enough - a limitation that the 15-round Glock 19 does not share.

This is true, I think you'd be hard pressed either way. I will have to give that subject some thought.

Additionally, for me at least, the anti-tyranny rationale still holds true. If it sounds like paranoia, remember that our government, not very long ago at all, herded people of Japanese ancestry into camps. A Taser is not a very effective tool for a person resisting tyranny.

I think (unfortunately?), we are past the stage where any civilian-available weaponry will prevail against tanks, artillery, drones, air strikes, etc..

[NoGun]

Originally posted by NWPilgrim,

The reason is that the gun is an equalizer. You can bet criminals will not obey laws restricting the type or number of firearms allowed or magazine capacity or type of ammo. Do you really want to fend off a criminal or two or three or four who are armed with pistols and perhaps semi-auto rifles or shotguns with your 3-shot "air taser?!" Pepper spray?!

Unfortunately this argument relies on the, "if the criminals have a gun, therefore I need a gun argument." And I agree with you, criminals don't follow the laws. So if criminals are armed with hand-grenades, should I also be allowed to own hand-grenades? It's a slippery slope you see..

[dakota.potts]

Tyranny doesn't have to be a full out war on the citizens. Imagine the CO of a company under martial law ordering the troops to fire on citizens or making up reasons and convincing the soldiers under them it is necessary. That may only last a day or 2 hours. But that would very much be tyranny. I'm not even saying this is going to happen but while there's the chance we do have the right to protect ourselves.

Not to mention, if it did come to full out war, how many insurgents have successfully fought their government into attrition or revolution? How would the US look to other countries if it declared war on the citizens? Might another country step in? Maybe we could save a large chunk of our population by fighting to survive until another country could step in.

Or maybe we have a situation like Syria or Egypt where the government becomes oppressive and we are the ones bringing a fight to them. They had tanks and jets and UAVs and helicopters. But the people overthrew the government.

Also consider how many people protected their houses or stores with semi automatic weapons when when Hurricane Katrina struck. Or the people who protected their shops during the LA riots. Or the LA watchmaker who was robbed at gunpoint 3 times and fought back with semi automatic pistols, killing 5 people, some of whom were known violent gang members. He was shot in the process of two of these. These are not incidences that would have been stopped with a Taser or pepper spray.

[AZAK]

whilst this new "wonder wrench" was infinitely safer and worked better

And therein lies the rub. Nothing is "infinitely safer" and "One size does not fit all."


“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” - Luke 22:36 (King James Version)

“[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".

[Aaron1100us]

I like guns for their beauty, craftsmanship, how they operate mechanically and the sound they make.

I carry a gun for self protection every day and hope I never ever have to use it. Tasers are not better than guns, thats just not true. They don't work when people have a lot of heavy clothing on, if there are several attackers and if someone is on drugs or crazy, a taser might not do anything. I'll take my Glock with 12 rounds of 357 SIG over a taser any day.

Shooting sports are also fun. Basketball players take a ball and try to put it in the basket. We take tiny pieces of lead and try to put them in a small circle at 25,50,100,200 or even more yards. It takes talent and skill to do those things. And reactive targets are cool. Dualing trees, re seting steel targets, rubber self healing targets that bounce around, spinner targets and good ol paper targets. Its fun and challenging.

And dumping a 30 round mag full of 7.62x39 or whatever is just plain cool. Muzzle loaders are cool but I'd get really board just shooting one of those.

[NoGun]

Originally posted by Dakota.Potts,

Furthermore, I think reform of driving laws would save MANY more people than firearms laws every year.

I agree, but cars were not designed to kill and serve a purpose beyond that.

If we're going on a purely statistical basis, alcohol has no use other than maybe a painkiller and sterilizer. Alcohol kills many more people than firearms and has saved no one. It is not constitutionally guaranteed. Yet no one attacks alcohol use despite the number of innocents killed.

This is a good argument. I'll even throw cigarettes in there too, everyone knows (or should), that if you smoke, you WILL get lung cancer 99.99% guaranteed and 400,000 people die annually in the U.S. via smoking. Where is the outrage?! First alcohol, you can't ban it because you can't enforce the ban. We tried, but since it turns out any fool with some yeast/sugar/etc., can make it.. well.. As for cigarettes.. perhaps gun owners should take a lesson from how they are being demonized and taxed into extinction...

Furthermore, a crazed shooter could go right now and buy 20 black powder revolvers. They are not registered as firearms. There are no alerts for bulk buys. As far as I know there are no background checks. It would weigh less than the guns and ammo carried by the latest mass murderers. It would be cheaper than the guns and ammo. And yet that would be 120 rounds of ammunition, more than was fired in Aurora and Newtown by either of those shooters.

That is possible.. but actually bringing 20 black powder revolvers to bear in a shooting situation sounds infinitely less doable than say, one rifle and four standard capacity magazines..

Not to mention, if it did come to full out war, how many insurgents have successfully fought their government into attrition or revolution? How would the US look to other countries if it declared war on the citizens? Might another country step in? Maybe we could save a large chunk of our population by fighting to survive until another country could step in.

These other countries you mention in no way compare to the U.S. Military which has a greater budget than fifty of those countries. We can argue semantics all day, but foreign intervention or not, complete/partial rising or no, the best weapons you can buy won't keep you alive for long. Or change any government with our military backing it.

[WeedWacker]

But there's lots of things we used to be able to do, but can't anymore..

This statement intrigues me. We are discussing a concept that is enumerated in the constitution, been ruled as an individual right, and incorporated to the states. What were we able to do at one time and cannot do anymore that was directly linked to a basic human right from our constitution?

So if criminals are armed with hand-grenades, should I also be allowed to own hand-grenades? It's a slippery slope you see..

What makes you think they aren't? I have had people ask "so you think we should all be able to have nukes?" I ask them how much does it cost to build and maintain a military grade tactical nuclear weapon. "Enriched uranium" and "weapons grade plutonium" aren't just fancy words. Finding the material necessary for an effective nuclear reaction is difficult because it needs to be separated from the useless radioactive junk. This means "expensive". That's just material to build the darn thing. We haven't even mentioned the equipment to get to that point.

Laying hyperbole to the side (what with "nukes" and everything) we could extend the cost perspective to jets, attack helicopters, tanks, and warships. Dillon M-134's are expensive. M2 .50's are as well. I can't fathom the cost of low quantity purchasing of spent uranium 105mm rounds. The point is that ownership of such devices is already cost prohibitive, much like legal machine guns today (and don't tell me criminals don't have those either).

[NoGun]

Originally posted by AZAK,

And therein lies the rub. Nothing is "infinitely safer" and "One size does not fit all."

I beg to differ, the accidental deaths per taser use, compared to accidental deaths per firearms use (compared on an equal basis) will answer that question.

“[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".

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.

[NoGun]

Aaron1100us,

I carry a gun for self protection every day and hope I never ever have to use it. Tasers are not better than guns, thats just not true. They don't work when people have a lot of heavy clothing on, if there are several attackers and if someone is on drugs or crazy, a taser might not do anything. I'll take my Glock with 12 rounds of 357 SIG over a taser any day.

The heavy clothing argument can be true for smaller caliber handguns as well. As for the drug-ee or crazy person, a taser is actually a better choice as it will stop them regardless of shot placement or pain perception. There are exceptions, I know, but guns do not "let you have your cake and eat it too," either.

I also get the sporting aspect of it as well. But I think there are viable alternatives, such as pellet guns or black powder, which give you the sport in a safer manner.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by NoGun

I think (unfortunately?), we are past the stage where any civilian-available weaponry will prevail against tanks, artillery, drones, air strikes, etc..

Having a ton of friends in the military including a cousin who is a drone pilot, I just don't think that's true. The majority of the military is actually support. Those tanks, artillery, drones, and air strikes require a truly massive battery of fuel depots, maintenance personnel, avionics specialists, and supply chains. Those targets are perfectly vulnerable to a rifleman. What good is the 1500 horsepower jet engine of the M1A2 Abrams with no fuel to slake its massive thirst?

This is a subject change, but note that we allow 16 year olds to drive vehicles that can easily crush 20 people in a crosswalk. There are tons of alternatives that would save countless lives. Only allowing personal cars in rural areas, forced mass transit, 20 MPH universal speed limits, and you would save enough lives to make gun deaths barely register.

But we respect the freedom of the automobile more than safety. Why is that not the case with firearms? Why not respect the freedom of self-defense over the (I argue completely false and illusory - other things will just cause deaths instead of guns in their absence ) safety created by banning most of them? And make no mistake, the safety IS illusory. A handgun ban was enacted in 1997 in the England. And how are they now? The most violent country, in terms of street crime, in Western Europe. Who cares if less people actually die? Are the people being mugged with 3x the frequency supposed to be grateful for this "safety" at the cost of quality of life?

The late Hunter S. Thompson said in 2003 that as a nation we have become slaves to fear. Fear of germs, terrorism, judgment, plane crashes, the stock market, pretty much everything under the sun. At what point do you reject constant fear and boldly proclaim, "Yes, more people will die if we allow this freedom, and we accept that cost!"

If we're afraid to say that, I fear freedoms, choices, and quality of life will disappear, year after year, into the yawning and insatiable mouth of the vague demon that is "safety".

[NoGun]

WeedWacker,

What were we able to do at one time and cannot do anymore that was directly linked to a basic human right from our constitution?

While not exactly enumerated, we used to be able to own slaves....

The "Nuke" argument is leaning towards being a "straw-man" fallacy. Hand grenades would not be prohibitively expensive if a general market existed, nor would fully automatic weapons, C-4, mortars, or mustard gas for that matter.

So I still maintain that it is a bad argument and a slippery slope.

[NoGun]

LockedBreech,

Those targets are perfectly vulnerable to a rifleman. What good is the 1500 horsepower jet engine of the M1A2 Abrams with no fuel to slake its massive thirst?

A truly good argument. However any army worth its salt has a reserve supply, which would initially be enough to prioritize the requisition of more supplies and protect soft targets. One also forgets the fact that the government can buy from overseas anything it wants, and has the navy to ship it. We are getting into speculation here, but our military is not made up of fools. I'm sure they have a plan on the books for civil unrest.

But we respect the freedom of the automobile more than safety. Why is that not the case with firearms? Why not respect the freedom of self-defense over the (I argue completely false and illusory - other things will just cause deaths instead of guns in their absence ) safety created by banning most of them?

Another good argument! Vehicle related deaths already outstrip gun deaths by a large margin. But again, a car's primary purpose is deemed worth the secondary risk. Can the same be said for firearms when other means are available? To take your argument a step further, what if a system was invented that would eliminate 80% of car accidents/pedestrian deaths? How much do you want to bet that system would be mandatory?

[LockedBreech]

Now, of course, I have to take the cheap shot that cars aren't guaranteed by the Constitution. Arms are.

And that's really the core of the tension, I think. If guns really have advanced too far and the Second Amendment is overly permissive, simply amend the Constitution and narrow the right. But the gun control community knows that they have not - and likely will never - convince enough people to get 3/4 of the states to narrow the Second Amendment, so they try to whittle it away bit by bit with legislation and courtroom battles. A death by a thousand cuts to bypass our founding document's intentionally difficult amendment process. After all, we got an amendment passed banning alcohol, for a time, then one passed repealing the ban. If people felt strongly enough that the Second Amendment was too broad, they could fix it very easily. But, at the end of the day, the pros of guns outstrip the cons in the collective consciousness. That might change someday, but the smart money's not on tomorrow morning.

This has been a very interesting read. Thank you for participating in a civil debate with us. I know it must be difficult to be the lone gunslinger (pun intended) taking on all comers. I'm off to bed but will rejoin this later.

[NoGun]

LockedBreech,

Now, of course, I have to take the cheap shot that cars aren't guaranteed by the Constitution. Arms are.

Touché. Not cheap at all.

"Reasonable restrictions" however seem to be the critical point. And non-lethal weapons are, well, weapons. All it's waiting for is the right lineup of Supreme Court justices to decide where the lines are drawn. Do I think that's the right way to decide the issue? No, but that's were my money's at.

Thank you for participating in a civil debate with us.

Thank you, I'm learning a lot and digging through your forums to learn more. It is really very interesting and educational.