AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?

[BleedBurgundy]

getting slow in your old age...

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by scowan

Kind of off the subject, but I once heard that one of the reasons the Japanese just attacked Pearl Harbor and did not invade the USA in 1941 was because citizens owned guns in California. They were scared. The simple fact that you don't know who is "packing heat" prevents a lot of crimes.

For the record Pearl Harbor was an air strike. I hardly think they were afraid of the average US joe with a hand gun in their night stand.

I am just guessing here.

[dmek25]

more guns = more killings. just say no to guns

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by dmek25

more guns = more killings. just say no to guns

Boy Dmek, do you ever live in the wrong neck of the woods. How's it feel being the only democrat in Lancaster?

[Monksdown]

I base my entire gun control policy on the movie RED DAWN.

[mheisig]

What a can of worms we've opened here.

Purchasing and using a firearm is a very personal decision and should not be taken lightly.

I grew up with guns, own a number of different firearms, and have received military and law enforcement training with respect to pistols and carbines. I, for one, am very confident in my ability to defend myself with a firearm. Not everyone is properly trained, however.

Too many people go out, buy a "nine" stick it in their dresser drawer and forget about it. That's about as smart as handing a 12 year old the keys to the car and hoping they teach themselves how to drive. Or about as smart as skydiving without proper instruction on how all your gear works, or flying a plan solo without ever cracking a book or taking a lesson.

What you have in your hand is a piece of highly engineered machinery which has the ability to take a life in an instant. Not to quote Spiderman too much, but that power must be in responsible, trained hands.

If you are going to get one, don't get it out of fear - that's a poor reason. Come to a rational conclusion about your needs, protection and environment and make an appropriate decision.

If that decision is to purchase a firearm, seek out as much knowledge, training and experience as you can possibly get. Typically the people who either wind up hurting themselves or others accidentally are idiots who never got the proper training and experience.

Furthermore, experience and training breeds knowledge and understanding. Everyone I've ever met who hated guns, wanted them banned altogether and wouldn't touch them, also had absolutely zero understanding of how they work and were completely ignorant as to proper operation and use.

I'll throw this last bit in to spark some debate (Woohoo!): as a former cop, having dealt with firearms from both ends, I fully support every U.S. citizen's (who's not a felon) right to legally own a firearm, provided they are properly trained. Having obviously spent plenty of time around hundreds of other cops enforcing the law on a daily basis, I can attest to having never met a cop who felt any differently than I did. In other words, the guys chasing down the criminals on a day to day basis WANT the general public to be armed.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

more guns = more killings. just say no to guns

Yeah. I'd love to see a report showing gun deaths in the country by year, and gun sales in the country by year. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that gun deaths go up as gun sales go up, and gun deaths go down as gun sales go down.

I do agree that they can be used responsibly, and in the right situations they save lives, and that if you ban them they'll still fall into the wrong hands via the black market. So a blanket ban for the entire country probably wouldn't be effective.

But you have to admit, having a gun in the house, even if it's locked up and all that stuff, increases the chances of having an accident compared to a house without a gun. If you want to reduce your chances of being the victim of a violent crime, a gun could help you, but the best thing you can do would be move to a safer area. Of course you've got to be able to afford the safer area, so there's a catch 22 as well.

All the more reason to get a haircut and get a real job!

[MTK]

I love shooting them in video games but in real life guns scare the shit outta me.

When my brother and I were kids we found a suitcase in my Dad's closet that had a couple of pistols in it that used to belong to my Grandfather. Luckily, they were not loaded.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I love shooting them in video games but in real life guns scare the shit outta me.

When my brother and I were kids we found a suitcase in my Dad's closet that had a couple of pistols in it that used to belong to my Grandfather. Luckily, they were not loaded.

LOL same here. Halo baby.

I have a buddy who owns a big ass shotgun. He likes to hunt. He doesn't keep it loaded in the house, ever. But sometimes we'd just be sitting around playing poker, and he'd bring it out for show and tell, and just the sight of the thing unnerves me, even when not loaded. If it were ever loaded, I think I'd be out of the house faster than Santana Moss streaking past Roy Williams.

My feelings on that are certainly no argument for a gun ban, just saying they make me uncomfortable as all get out. That's a part of the world I'd just assume not be exposed to.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah. I'd love to see a report showing gun deaths in the country by year, and gun sales in the country by year. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that gun deaths go up as gun sales go up, and gun deaths go down as gun sales go down.

I do agree that they can be used responsibly, and in the right situations they save lives, and that if you ban them they'll still fall into the wrong hands via the black market. So a blanket ban for the entire country probably wouldn't be effective.

But you have to admit, having a gun in the house, even if it's locked up and all that stuff, increases the chances of having an accident compared to a house without a gun. If you want to reduce your chances of being the victim of a violent crime, a gun could help you, but the best thing you can do would be move to a safer area. Of course you've got to be able to afford the safer area, so there's a catch 22 as well.

All the more reason to get a haircut and get a real job!

It would appear quite the opposite, actually:

Bureau of Justice Firearms and Crime Statistics

Gun Sales Rise as Crime and Accident Rates Fall

Of course give it about 5 minutes before someone argues that statistics don't mean anything. Oddly enough, statistics relating to firearms and the research methodologies have got to be the most hotly debated thing I've ever seen. Each side claims to have the stats to back it up.

Just stumbled across this too - a diving website, of all things:

Australia's high crime rates prompt travel warning

Just FYI, Australia banned firearms in the mid-90s.

[BleedBurgundy]

That's how it always is with stats. You can bend numbers to mean just about whatever you want, especially you view them as narrowly as possible. Personally I believe that if criminal A thinks he there is a good chance that he will be shot and killed if he tries to rob a hom, that he will not try to rob said home. Conversely, if a criminal thinks there are little to no serious repercussions then they are much more likely to commit the crime...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I love shooting them in video games but in real life guns scare the shit outta me.

When my brother and I were kids we found a suitcase in my Dad's closet that had a couple of pistols in it that used to belong to my Grandfather. Luckily, they were not loaded.

You sure your dad isn't a made guy?

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

LOL same here. Halo baby.

I have a buddy who owns a big ass shotgun. He likes to hunt. He doesn't keep it loaded in the house, ever. But sometimes we'd just be sitting around playing poker, and he'd bring it out for show and tell, and just the sight of the thing unnerves me, even when not loaded. If it were ever loaded, I think I'd be out of the house faster than Santana Moss streaking past Roy Williams.

My feelings on that are certainly no argument for a gun ban, just saying they make me uncomfortable as all get out. That's a part of the world I'd just assume not be exposed to.

Maybe the answer to an irrational fear is education and knowledge instead of blind sprinting in the opposite direction.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

That's how it always is with stats. You can bend numbers to mean just about whatever you want, especially you view them as narrowly as possible. Personally I believe that if criminal A thinks he there is a good chance that he will be shot and killed if he tries to rob a hom, that he will not try to rob said home. Conversely, if a criminal thinks there are little to no serious repercussions then they are much more likely to commit the crime...

Yeah, stats are nice and all, but some good old fashioned logic and rational thinking goes a long way.

I'm a burglar. House A has a homeowner with no firearms of any sort. House B the homeowner is armed and trained. Which house should I rob?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mheisig

It would appear quite the opposite, actually:

Bureau of Justice Firearms and Crime Statistics

Gun Sales Rise as Crime and Accident Rates Fall

Of course give it about 5 minutes before someone argues that statistics don't mean anything. Oddly enough, statistics relating to firearms and the research methodologies have got to be the most hotly debated thing I've ever seen. Each side claims to have the stats to back it up.

Just stumbled across this too - a diving website, of all things:

Australia's high crime rates prompt travel warning

Just FYI, Australia banned firearms in the mid-90s.

Yeah it depends how you count "firearm and ammunition sales". Are you going by dollars in sales, or are you going by firearm units? If somebody showed me that firearm unit sales are increasing while gun crimes are decreasing, I'd be sold.

The reason people argue the stats is because you can twist the data and hide your definitions for counting things, and present a graph, and slip it past most people. Political lobbyists are notorious for this, they're not objective in any way. They're just trying to find some way, any way, to support their argument and continue their cause - even if it's fallacy.

You have to be completely objective when reviewing data like that. And unfortunately, the people publishing it (on either side of the argument) are most often not objective.