[Snail]

I think I'd feel safer with a gun than with a knife or blunt weapon but IRL I doubt most people (that I know of) would be able to reliably use a gun in a proper pressure situation. I think the main thing about having a gun is the aura of fear it carries with it.

[Polpolion]

America's debate over gun rights always strikes me as a classic case of one of those collectively understood lies; Everyone knows that the real reason they want the right to own guns is because they think guns are awesome, and they know that everyone else thinks that too. Our nation's entire history is imbued with the totemistic fetishization of guns, but unfortunately the sweet, ejaculatory release that millions of Americans experience from the discharge of a firearm doesn't quite make par as the basis of a Constitutional right, so we've all decided that it's actually about the inalienable rights of men. (It is the second thing after free expression, so the Framers didn't exactly make it hard for us to get there as long as we abstain from any kind of smarty-pants hermeneutics.) But whether or not the ownership of firearms is truly a legitimate right in this day and age is irrelevant, because America has a boner for weaponry, and goddamnit, we'll do what ever it takes to frame it as a passable appeal to Enlightenment universals.

It's the same reason porn could never be illegal: Its legitimization is free expression, but its sanctity is in the fact that everyone loves a nice pair of tits. Only the things that are culturally sacred are truly protected. Unfortunately, guns are among those things.

Personally, I don't look at a gun and salivate just because it's a gun. You might know people that do, but I shoot targets with a .22 at my cottage every summer I go up there, and I enjoy it in the same way that I enjoy playing Frisbee with my family or friends.

EDIT: Of course, using me as a representation of every responsible gun user is a pretty big generalization, and I don't doubt at all that most people do conform to your idea, just not everyone like you said.

This isn't a bad idea, as long as the tests and classes are relatively cheap, considering how it does prevent people who actually want them wouldn't be prevented from having them. Even if people still get around it, at least there would be that many more people who would know how to use them properly. But 20 feet is a little close.  Even at 50, it's kinda hard to miss most targets.

Hitting a moving target with a pistol at fifty feet is not as easy as you would think, particularly when people are screaming and running around cluttering up your sight picture, etc. Twenty feet is also, I think, a much more reasonable approximation of the situations in which you would have cause to fire a weapon in self-defense or in defense of another person. It would also discourge people from trying to shoot much further than that subtly, which is probably a good thing considering they may or may not practice regularly and fifty feet is more or less across the average fast-food place, bank, or about as far from the counter as you'd be able to get in a mall and still see it; too many people might end up intercepting a bullet when you fire from that far.

A moving target is a different case completely. I would've agreed with you entirely had you said "moving target" rather than just "target." And aiming with a pistol is considerably harder than a rifle, which is what I assumed what we were talking about, I guess.

[Nuclear1]

Pfft, gimme a Taser and I'm happy.

[BengalTiger]

I doubt most people (that I know of) would be able to reliably use a gun in a proper pressure situation.

When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathing.
~Rambo

I think the main thing about having a gun is the aura of fear it carries with it.

Bingo.

To the Guy Who Mugged Me Downtown (Downtown, Savannah)

I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message. I'd like to apologize.

I didn't expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn't that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 . 45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it?

I know it probably wasn't a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cellphone, and wallet with me. I couldn't have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster.

I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They'll be on your bill in case you'd like to know which ones. Alltel recently shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I hope they haven't permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA's office with it. Oh well.

So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I'd like to make it up to you. I'm sure you've already washed your pants, so I'd like to help you out. I'd like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I'd also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky. If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry.

Peace!
- Alex

Someone found that text on Craigslist. It's been flagged and deleted so I won't be able to get the original link to it.

[General Battuta]

Of course, that little anecdote says nothing about the utility of guns for self-defense, since it's an anecdote, not any kind of statistic.

It doesn't say anything about the dozens of people who get killed in stupid, useless, ignorant ways because they thought guns could protect them.

And I hope the Rambo quote was a joke, because under pressure most people can't kill -- unless conditioned and trained, people tend to freeze up or panic, and killing is even more difficult than reacting with calm. Do some reading on the psychology of killing, it's fascinating stuff.

[iamzack]

People would be much more likely to use a nonlethal weapon to protect themselves.

What happens when some idiot pulls a gun in a situation like that and the mugger knows better than to think they would actually use it? If he's close enough to threaten you with a knife, he might just stab you for scaring him.

It's sort of a gamble, isn't it..

[BloodEagle]

You should never point a gun at a person if you do not have the intention of killing said person.

If you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself, then there is no point in owning a firearm.

[iamzack]

Killing someone in self-defense is still killing someone. Most people would have a problem with that.

But that doesn't stop people from going "lulz, I will keep this gun around to protect myself with it!"

[General Battuta]

You should never point a gun at a person if you do not have the intention of killing said person.

If you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself, then there is no point in owning a firearm.

The problem is that there's no way to really test this except for actually killing someone.

[iamzack]

People could just not lie to themselves...

[Polpolion]

You should never point a gun at a person if you do not have the intention of killing said person.

If you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself, then there is no point in owning a firearm.

A) You shouldn't point a gun at a person that you mind if they would get hurt.

B) I don't want to kill people to defend myself. My family has a .22 rifle. We use the .22 for the purpose of target shooting. Therefore, there is a point to owning a gun even if you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself.

[Mika]

I don't really know what to say about this thing. But I think most people are actually capable of killing others, given the circumstances. It is true that there are certain types of people who are especially effective in it, but all in all, I guess everyone can do it. It is also one of the big problems in the army, how do you teach people to shoot at human shaped targets so that recruits don't refuse to do it at first hand. I suppose quite a lot of work has been done in that area in Western Countries.

Now that statistics have been brought up, how many people have died in US because they tried to pull out a gun they were carrying when confronted by a mugger who already had a gun pointed at them?

I think I have mentioned it here before, my father used to play with his friends with real guns and live ammunition when he was young. In addition for their hobbies, they also defused German mines in the Northen Finland, quite a lot of them were around 12 - 15 years old (1950s and 1960s). As you can guess, I didn't see a lot of weapons at my youth. And in some societies, it is required to carry a firearm, but there is no gun related crime!

My personal feeling is simply that the problem is in screening the people who get the firearm. As in Finland also.

Mika

[maje]

I heard an interesting quote the other day and I want to get some reaction as to how others feel about it.  Also, I'm curious if anyone knows who said the quote (please bare in mind that this is a paraphrase as I'm a dolt who can retain information worth sh*t).

"If they want to use guns, then they can go ahead and join the military!"

[Polpolion]

I heard an interesting quote the other day and I want to get some reaction as to how others feel about it.  Also, I'm curious if anyone knows who said the quote (please bare in mind that this is a paraphrase as I'm a dolt who can retain information worth sh*t).

"If they want to use guns, then they go ahead and join the military!"

That's like going to cooking school because you like pancakes.

[BengalTiger]

Well then:

Here's a statistic:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
I've posted it here already, but since General Battuta asking for more than anecdotal  evidence, I'm posting it again in case you've missed it.

It says here, that crime rates in general drop when people must own firearms, and rise when they cannot own firearms. It also says that in Kennesaw, Georgia, there was not a single murder in the 25 years of mandatory gun ownership.

And here's another one:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

The article says that there are between 108,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the USA (based on 15 surveys). That makes the "dozens who get killed because they pulled out a gun and failed to use it" less than 0.1% of the cases. Also notice that:

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

in 2005 there were 569 homicides by shooting in Illinois.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/Murder2005.pdf (page 28)

339 of those happened in Chicago, and 327 of these were commited by handguns, which are prohibited in Chicago.

Just that makes the majority of shootings done by people who don't care about gun laws (or insurance policies, for that matter). A more detailed search will result in a much larger percentage of illegal guns being used. In other words- no matter how restrictive the laws, most gun crimes will still occur.

It also proves that 3/5 of the gun crimes are involved in a place where less than 3 out of the 12 million Illinois residents live, in the place where gun laws are the most strict in the state.

Now, remember the second article, about the minimum 108k defensive gun uses per year? According to the www.ichv.org site, there were 330 deaths from legal gun use and 221 from undetermined intent in the USA in 2005. And 330/108 000 times 100% gives just above 0.3%. A maximum of 3 people out of 1000 who (legally) pulled out a gun actually (legally) killed someone in self defense. The other 997 were fine just by showing the perp they have one, or shooting but not killing them.
This makes the argument of thugs continuing their assault after the victim pulls out a weapon mostly false too.

And a final thing:
Notice that in 2005, there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S, among them:
12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),

If not for the guns, 17k people would have poisoned themselves, jumped off bridges or used some other method to kill themselves.
If not for the suicides, there would have been 13 692 gun related deaths, or only 45% of the total.

P.S. Taking the 108k defensive gun uses (the smallest of all surveys) as the true number, somewhere in America 12 people have used their guns in self defense while I was writing this post. (It took me about an hour to find and read everything, and write it)

[General Battuta]

Good stuff.

Looks like gun crime works the same way as abortion, then -- happens no matter what the laws are.

[Mika]

One of the interesting statistics would be one that showed how many of the concealed carry permit owning people have gotten shot.

The reason why I'm asking these questions is that I have seen and heard arguments like these quite often:
"You don't have time to pull out your gun, you just get shot if you tried doing that"
"They just continue assaulting you even if you did"

But what I haven't seen is anykind of statistics of things like that actually happening. Instead I think gun owners have shown quite a lot of statistics that disproves the above. And from what I know, comments like above feel quite strange. But one thing I don't like is actually the concealed carry permit. Personally I think all firearms should be visible for maximum deterrent.

It is another topic why USA is such a society where you need to carry a weapon in order not to become mugged or killed.

Mika

[BengalTiger]

The reason why I'm asking these questions is that I have seen and heard arguments like these quite often:
"You don't have time to pull out your gun, you just get shot if you tried doing that"
"They just continue assaulting you even if you did"

The only people who say that are those who never carry a gun, and see no reason why normal people should be able to have a firearm. Just reread and memorize my previous post. Let's see what they say when they find out that at least 108 000 (and up to 2.5 million) people go from victim to citizen every year (in the USA alone) by pulling out a gun, and only 0.3% of them need to shoot the suspect.

It is another topic why USA is such a society where you need to carry a weapon in order not to become mugged or killed.

Mika

I have something that might give a clue why:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml

The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces."

In other words- kick out the illegals, and prisons in CA will be half way empty.

And here's more:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens.

I'm not sure if those numbers are correct, but I wouldn't be surprized if they were. According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm , there were 16,929 murders in the US in 2007. That would mean that the 12 or so million illegal aliens perform a quarter of the murders in a 300 or so million country.

Not counting the probable illegal immigrant crimes, there would be 12 549 murders by 288 million legal residents, or roughly 4,3 per 100 000 citizens. In 2006 there were 5.7 murders per 100 000 people in the US.

Here's a list of murder rates per 100 000 people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

[General Battuta]

Oh, come on. 'Go from victims to citizens'? Massively more people are injured or killed in car crashes. If you're going to start awarding 'citizenship', do it on the basis of safe driving practices -- that actually makes a big difference.

[BengalTiger]

So what do you call a person who's neither a victim nor guilty of a crime? I think citizen's a good word.

And where did I write that they should be awarded citizenship after stopping a thug from harming them?