WhyFi

Haven't you seen Red Dawn? Geez...

Bike Gremlin

I'm not sure about the US, but in my country, Serbia, guns are not allowed. It is complicated and expensive to get a gun carrying permit. You can get a license to own, but it musn't leave your house. Most criminals have guns, violent crimes do happen. People don't feel safe in the streets, you can't walk dark alleys at night. The same country, during different regime (socialism) was the safest one I knew. Same laws, different mentality, economy, different people.

Anyway, criminals have guns and do use them, regardless of the law. A friend of mine was threatened by some thugs few months ago. Dangerous guys. The police can't give you 24/7 protection, while the law forbids you to carry weapons. You know the thugs have them, but you can't carry. He's put his flat on sale and is trying to moove to a different part of town.

This is an extreme example. Like I said: I don't carry, and am sure that for 99% of the people, it is smarter NOT to carry. But not every place and situation is the same.

Brandonub

I'm under the impression that the point that's being made is that owning a gun increases your risk of death. As near as I can tell, this is just empirically true.

st3venb

As a fun fact, look up violent crime in those other first world countries that you're referring to.

Also, as another fun fact please explain how to resolve a violent conflict where someone is attempting to stab you, or otherwise kill you? (Yet another hyperbole argument presented by your side; that can only be responded to with another hyperbole stance).

So, if it came down to defending myself with say a stick and I killed someone who was attempting to kill me... You'd consider that a military action?

Where do you draw the line on defending your own personal self? Or from your opinion, do you?

st3venb

Owning a step ladder also increases your chances of death / being maimed.

Again, a gun is an inanimate object that requires human intervention to do anything. Why is blame being placed on a gun? Do we blame cars when someone drunkenly kills someone?

Commodus

You guys have killed the thread. It will be locked or moved very soon.

merlinextraligh

it was only a matter of time until the consensus bashing of the OP gave way to a 2nd amendment debate.

hhnngg1

Yes, we blame both the CAR and the alcohol. Both. That's why it's illegal to drive around drunk but not illegal to walk around drunk.

Ladders greatly increase YOUR chance of injury and death but place zero increased risk on bystanders. They also aren't busted out in high-tension situations where they can be inappropriately used.

Guns GREATLY increased the risk of DEATH and MORTAL INJURY to anyone around whenever one is taken out. Even if it's police who are doing the taking out. Put a civilian behind that gun and your risk skyrockets even further the moment one is brandished. This argument of 'it's the person not the gun' is a load of crap put out by the NRA. By that reasoning, we should all be able to walk around with fully loaded AK47s because it's only the person to blame and not the gun if we have a rash of mass deaths with lots of bystander injuries.

This is a good thread to lock, cause it's off topic - I just happen to enjoy this stuff.

WhyFi

Studies suggest that this isn't completely true and that perception of threat is increased when in possession of a firearm (in addition to the previous study that I mentioned that showed the increased odds of being shot while in possession).

Brandonub

Sure, by a small amount. It also accomplishes a task that's otherwise not feasible.

So, we're supposed to pretend that ownership of a gun isn't actually a risk factor? The discussion isn't about whether guns jump up and kill people all on their own, it's whether owning a gun is a particularly good idea. The data seems to suggest that it's not.

I assume that anyone thinking about the matter clearly would count deaths from cars as part of the societal cost and personal cost of owning a car. Not doing so would be pretty silly. It's just that on balance, we get a lot out of cars relative to the damage done.

Commodus

Now there's a worthwhile debate.

teflondog

The reason I asked is because a close friend of mine was the victim of a home invasion. The two criminals originally came in to loot so that they could sell the goods for drug money. When they found out a woman was in the house, it quickly went from a burglary to attempted r@pe. It was only attempted because she shot one of them while the other one escaped.

Perhaps she should have just let them have their way with her and hope they leave afterwards?

Brandonub

I think it'd be a hard debate to have in rural areas, but pretty easy to make a case against "unnecessary" cars in urban environments. I've never seen anyone make that argument, but I suspect it'd be a good one.

st3venb

I understand where you're coming from, I hope you're never in a position of power that will allow you to employ your beliefs on the masses. Thank you for an interesting conversation.

Have you ever watched Penn and Teller's episode on Statistics and studies? They can be manipulated both ways; which is unfortunate when a study has a agenda.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that "societal costs" justify personal ownership of cars. Many more thousands of people die senseless deaths at the hands of car's and they should be outlawed. Everyone can ride bikes, or the bus where a profesional who is trained and capable of driving will do it for you.

A slippery slope is not one to make justifications for removing people's rights.

Brandonub

I think you're clearly objectively wrong, possibly as a result of unfamiliarity with rural areas. Maybe you're just being facetious though.

Is there some post I made that advocated removing anyone's rights in any way? I said that owning a gun is something I have no desire to do. I haven't said, but implied, that owning a gun is a generally bad idea for most people, and I think that's true. Lots of things are bad ideas and are perfectly legal though.

st3venb

I'm sorry, I'm addressing a lot of people and you got caught up in it.

Yes, I'm making a facetious argument for sake of opening eyes that their life isn't the only one in society.

PhotoJoe 

Both very good points. And with that, this thread is closed. If you want to continue the gun debate, please feel free to do so in any of the gun threads in A&S or P&R.

Thanks.