Lightwave said:
However I am never very convinced about the line
"we need guns to protect ourselves"
The people that start shooting up their neighbourhood always generally target the innocent and always rely on the element of surprise .
Chances are when you really need that gun - you won't have it on you.
So my feeling is that you're safer making it very difficult to get guns than trusting everyone with a gun.
First off, the statement that people start shooting up the neighborhood generally target the innocent is not that true from what I’ve seen and read. Yes, innocents get hit but the good majority are criminals targeting other criminals (gangs vs. gangs).
Next, you state that “Chances are when you really need that gun – you won’t have it on you.” is one of the reasons why we have Concealed Carry. I carry mine wherever I can. I would much rather never need it than be in a situation where I wished I had one.
And last, you stated that it would be safer to make it difficult to get guns than trusting everyone with a gun. Well, funny you should say that. In every state since concealed carry started with Georgia back in 1976 and then when Florida took it on in 1986, people predicted mayhem and blood in the streets. But amazingly enough that never materialized and hasn’t in each state that has instituted it. And, in Florida, a year later the president of the police chiefs association, who had opposed the bill, was asked if he had kept track of all the problems the law caused. "There aren't any," he said.
You won’t hear of most of the incidents that concealed carry has stopped because most of them, when a perpetrator learns that someone is carrying (i.e. someone walking their dog is being approached by a couple of thugs bent on robbery, or worse, the sheer action of clearing the shirt away exposing the handle is enough SOMETIMES to make them turn and walk away), there is no report to the authorities but an incident was averted.
Now with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of concealed carry holders in the U.S., it is very RARE to hear of one of them causing a problem, let alone killing someone. Yes, it can happen and does, occasionally. But the statistics about that would make winning the lottery, or being struck by lightning, a greater chance of happening to you than getting killed by a concealed carrier. Now, if you engage in high risk activity – robbery, burglary, etc. then you are at a much higher risk of being permanently retired than if concealed carry was not allowed. And that is a good thing. A study was done which asked criminals what they feared about committing their crimes and the answer was not that they were afraid of the police, but that they were afraid of the citizens who carry because that is an unknown factor. They know what to expect when dealing with the police. If concealed carry is available then the risk, or cost of crime, goes up for the criminal.
Libre said:
The problem with civilians carrying, is that there are so many hot heads and nut jobs out there that allowing it seems BOUND to lead to trouble.
The funny thing is, that it just hasn’t happened that way. As mentioned before, in all states which have implemented Concealed Carry, gun crime and problems like that just simply have not risen like they should if that statement were true.
Libre said:
I have heard it said (and I totally believe it) that a gun in the home is far more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting than in legitimate self defense.
And
Galaxiom said:
Statistically, a gun is ten times more likely to kill one of the owner's family members than a criminal intruder. They make very poor case for gun ownership as a defence.
You can believe it all you want but you will find that is a myth propagated by those who do not like guns, including the Brady Institute. But the study you are hearing it from (Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, Arthur L. Kellerman, D.T. Reay, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60, June 12, 1986.) was flawed (of the 43 cases it looked at 37 (86%) were suicides and the other 6 were disputes among family members (most of which had to do with drugs). There just isn’t enough to back up that assertion. I see stories every day about home owners who have repelled burglars or home invasions with guns, and fewer stories about the home owners getting taken out by their family members.
John Big Booty said:
So if civilian gun ownership, is so good for stopping crime; why didn't one of the many gun owner at Aurora take down James Holmes and put an end to his rampage?
The first reason would be that the Cinema, where the shooting took place, had “NO GUNS ALLOWED” signs posted and those do have the force of law in Colorado, from what I understand. So, had someone been carrying, they may have been able to stop him (we’ll never know) but because it was unlawful for them to carry there, the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS were powerless to shoot back. So gun laws generally only keep law abiding citizens restricted and provide criminals (even ones who, like this guy, were law abiding until they chose to go kill) with Criminal Safe Zones (where the criminal doesn’t have to worry about getting shot because they know that law abiding citizens won’t go contrary to the law). Gun Free Zones don’t protect people. They only serve up people as free targets.
Lightwave said:
Because the element of surprise in a public setting tends to completely negate gun ownership as a defense.
That is not a correct statement. In fact it is kind of stupid. Surprise can freeze some, but surprise does not disable many others. People, if they are smart, when they carry have thought about what they would do in certain scenarios and train their mind for it. And they try to train for muscle memory so they can just do when it is called for. That is what this guy did recently when two thugs came in, one with a gun and one with a bat. He pulled his weapon and shot them, chasing them away (his choice of caliber meant that they didn’t suffer significant injuries but he did make them turn tail and run).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/
Lightwave said:
If you are in environment where you do not trust people. As much as possible you want to put things in your favour. Given that in most cases a criminal or a discontented individual will attack when you least expect. You owning a weapon won't help much cos say you'll be out of bullets - or your having a BBQ at the moment or say you're cutting the lawn and maybe it's locked in your cupboard or you were at college and hey you don't have your semi automatic on you just at the moment.
You are under the misconception that you can’t see an attack coming. That may be true SOMETIMES but if you are a responsible gun owner and concealed carry person, there are things you can learn to highten your SA (Situational Awareness). There are things you can do to avoid becoming a victim. I belong to a forum which helps people learn how to do that. It is true that a lot of people are clueless with that, but just because a criminal pops upon you unexpectedly doesn’t mean that all is for naught and you should just resign yourself to not being able to defend yourself. There are constantly news stories of people who have fought back with their gun after being “jumped” or a robber comes storming into their store with a gun. It is true that not all of them have happy endings but I would say that I do see more positive endings occurring when they do fight back than when they don’t.
Lightwave said:
Allowing free access to guns increases the chances that these guys will come at you well armed.
That is another myth which doesn’t seem to be proving to be fact. Actually the crime rate has been going down across the country. And, it they are well-armed, then you can either capitulate or you can choose to defend yourself, if you have a chance. Just because they MAY come well-armed doesn’t mean that they will. Your attitude is like a horse giving up before even coming out of the gate.
Lightwave said:
It doesn't increase the chances that you will be armed when he comes at you UNLESS you wear a gun all the time.
A lot of the concealed carry people DO carry all of the time. It is a tool which is with me with rare exception. Even at home I have it on me because there have been very violent home invasions occurring and, while the chances are very slim that our house would be targeted, I don’t want to find myself in the situation where I could have done something but can’t because I didn’t want to have it on me. Someone kicks in my door and they will be greeted with a couple of rounds of .40 cal self-defense rounds. I don’t want to be like the guy in Connecticut who had a home invasion and then had to watch as they tortured and killed his wife and daughters. I just won’t do it.
Lightwave said:
Does everyone in America really want to go back to wearing guns everywhere?
Maybe, maybe not. But with evil out there, I would rather be prepared than not. And there are a lot like me who do want to be prepared. That doesn’t mean we ever want to use them. I don’t. I would hope that I’ll never have to unholster my pistol for anything other than target shooting or to clean it. But I will if necessary.
Lightwave said:
Not sure about that Guns don't kill people line..
If I place my pistol on a table, it will sit there and never go off. It is an inanimate object which can’t do a darned thing unless someone pulls the trigger. So, if someone aims the gun and pulls the trigger, then that PERSON killed someone, not the gun. The gun is a tool, as is a car and a car can kill (just recently we had someone run up on a sidewalk and kill some people). It is the person using the tool which has responsibility, not the tool.
Not only do guns kill people you can kill a lot more people a lot more quickly from a distance.
It's kind of why they were invented.
You can also kill a lot of people with fire or a bomb. It just is, what is. And as someone else mentioned, it can be used for hunting as well. But yes, you can kill more people a lot more quickly from a distance than say using a knife or a garrote.
John Big Booty said:
...or better still your local Police force that's what they get paid to do.
When seconds count, police are only minutes away. Anyone who relies solely on the police to defend them is only kidding themselves. In fact, here in the U.S., the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to defend you. That’s right, they don’t. They are generally a “cleanup crew” which deals with things AFTER-THE-FACT. They investigate and will attempt to capture and bring to trial those who have perpetrated crime against others. But they normally, unless circumstances just fall into place, can’t stop crime. So, it falls to YOU to defend yourself and your family.
John Big Booty said:
Here's some statistic that show that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know that a stranger, in fact strangers were involved in only 14% of all homicides.
If you read those statistics a little more carefully you will notice that the
UNDETERMINED relationship is
DOUBLE what is known. So you can’t draw a firm conclusion here with those. And, if you notice, since the 2000’s the gun homicides on all BUT the stranger crime has been DROPPING.
And here's a picture of my every day carry pistol: