[AWB]Dems prep ground for 2014 Electoral Defeat

[regexcellent]

And how do you defend yourself? Indeed, by either scaring someone away, or by harming/killing him.
The main purpose of a gun is to harm or to intimidate. That isn't negative in itself. I'm glad that police men are carrying weapons. But they're not carrying it to scratch their backs.

I don't own guns for self-defense, and I don't own guns to harm or intimidate. I've never used any kind of gun to do either, except arguably a paintball gun. My guns are for target shooting. They have no utility as defensive weapons or for crime. The 10/22 is a .22LR rifle, with bullets so small they can't penetrate a car door. The Remington 870 has a 22-inch barrel. It is far too large to use as a defensive weapon. Proper defensive shotguns have barrels 18 inches or shorter and carry seven or more shells.

I may get into hunting this fall if I have time. In order to do that I'll have to buy a new gun, since my current ones aren't really suitable. That new gun would be unsuitable for crime or for defensive purposes as it would be a bolt-action rifle with a 20-inch barrel or longer, firing a full-power cartridge. Rifles and carbines used for defensive purposes and by the police fire mid-power cartridges and have barrel lengths generally 16 inches or shorter. They are also usually semi-automatic.

Sure they are law-abiding. I'm absolutely not denying that.
Now we should compare the number of times that someone uses his/her car, and someone is being killed/harmed, to the number of times someone used his gun, and someone was killed/harmed.

I know that I'm a lot more likely to kill someone with my car than with either of my guns.

Harming/killing is the main purpose of a gun. What else is the purpose?
Do you use it to cook? Do you transport your stuff in it?

I put holes in paper with them.

I can see guns being used as a sport, and then people are enjoying themselves.
Fine with me. Store the guns in the sports club in a safe room. No need for people to take their guns home.

Lots of people shoot on their own private land. I hope to do so when I have the money to move out to bumpkin country. Lots of people use their guns for hunting. The guns need to be kept maintained, and people have the tools to do that at home. Some people have gun collections. They're not worth very much if you can't keep them at home.

Self protection with guns is a false thought.

Self-defense is a right guaranteed under our constitution.

What a silly kind of reasoning. "As long as it won't solve 100% of our problems, we won't look into it."

It's not that it won't solve 100% of our problems. It won't solve 1% of our problems. Gun control doesn't work.

[Hauldren Collider]

[kentonio]

It's not that it won't solve 100% of our problems. It won't solve 1% of our problems. Gun control doesn't work.

Repeating the same NRA talking points doesn't make it so. Oh it's about self defense, no its a hobby, no its about collectors, oh but it's a human right, and it's harmless, and cars are far worse and gun control doesn't work anyway!! Gun control does work and has worked in a host of other countries. If you oppose gun control then fine, but at least be honest about it.

[regexcellent]

We have seen the exact same drop in crime that Britain has without gun control. We started higher and ended higher but we had the same decline. We have tons of different places in the US with gun control and almost invariably they have higher crime than places without it.

I'm arguing against several points here: firstly, that guns exist solely for killing (that isn't even a consideration for most of them), second, that self defense is not a legitimate purpose for owning a firearm, and third, that it is illegitimate to own multiple firearms.

[Guynemer]

Look reg.

I do not support gun control. It will do precisely **** all to change our country, unless there is a magical "delete all firearms from existence" button.

But to deny that the purpose of a gun is to kill, or that the honest belief one needs a gun to defend oneself is wrongheaded, is foolish, and does your argument no credit.

[DinoDoc]

But to deny that... the honest belief one needs a gun to defend oneself is wrongheaded, is foolish, and does your argument no credit.

It seems like a perfectly valid form of self and home defense to me.

[Guynemer]

This isn't the goddamned Wild West, DD. Christ, even the Wild West wasn't the Wild West.

[regexcellent]

But to deny that the purpose of a gun is to kill,

It really depends on the gun. My shotgun could kill someone. In principle my rifle could too, but I'd have to have pretty good shot placement and more than likely the victim would probably be able to drive himself to get medical care. Just like a bow for competitive archery, it's not meant for killing people. About the only think you'd reliably kill with it is a squirrel.

or that the honest belief one needs a gun to defend oneself is wrongheaded, is foolish, and does your argument no credit.

For most people I would guess that self-defense is either paranoia or a delusional power fantasy. If I'm not mistaken, though, you are from Detroit. That is one of a number of places in this country where you may legitimately find yourself in need of a gun simply because your neighborhood is so ****ty. Then there are of course people who are being stalked and so forth who may have need for a gun for self-defense. Self-defense is mostly an edge case but it's a significant enough edge case that we don't want to create unnecessary hurdles for people. Especially since there isn't a reason to believe that people who purchase guns for self defense are a significant source of crime.

That and it's a constitutional right, at least according to the supreme court.

[kentonio]

We have seen the exact same drop in crime that Britain has without gun control. We started higher and ended higher but we had the same decline.

You might want to take a look at your murder rate.

We have tons of different places in the US with gun control and almost invariably they have higher crime than places without it.

This is disingenuous. The places that bring in controls are usually the ones that are suffering under extremely heavy gun crime rates. The controls help, but they don't remove the existing illegal guns and they don't prevent people bringing in guns from other areas with lax controls.

[DaShi]

We have had someone shoot up a school like, what, twice?

The idea that you should base policy off of something like these school shootings is ridiculous.

OK, now I'm really starting to think reg has a learning disability.

[regexcellent]

I have a lot of people on ignore. Including Kentonio. I read his posts intermittently, so I missed it the first time.

Anyway, there are something like 60 people murdered a day in the US and thousands of shootings each year so a handful of school shootings isn't really material. Besides which, it's apparent that things like Columbine, Dunblane, and Newtown are materially different from the others especially with respect to the media circus surrounding them.

[regexcellent]

You might want to take a look at your murder rate.

We started higher and ended higher

The places that bring in controls are usually the ones that are suffering under extremely heavy gun crime rates.

I never said it was causal. But the reason gun control is introduced is because crime mostly occurs in urban areas where there is less cultural affinity for guns and inherently higher crime due to higher population density, not as a response to a problem. New Jersey has tight gun laws because it's very urban and doesn't have as many gun owners as everywhere else.

The controls help

No they don't. They disarm precisely zero criminals. They disarm plenty of other people.

[DaShi]

I have a lot of people on ignore. Including Kentonio. I read his posts intermittently, so I missed it the first time.

No, you should have done your research before spitting it out.

Anyway, there are something like 60 people murdered a day in the US and thousands of shootings each year so a handful of school shootings isn't really material. Besides which, it's apparent that things like Columbine, Dunblane, and Newtown are materially different from the others especially with respect to the media circus surrounding them.

This is "excuse" only confirms what I said. And a lot of things.

[Krill]

Define criminals. You're equating a Jaywalker with a serial killer with a drug lord by labelling everyone as a "criminal".

[kentonio]

No they don't. They disarm precisely zero criminals. They disarm plenty of other people.

No guns start out as illegal guns.