So why do Americans want their guns so badly anyway?

[Heath Robinson]

"I should be allowed to take risks with myself even to the point that they increase risks for other people because people should be allowed to do what they want to do." That's a damn hard argument to counter, because it already establishes as a baseline that the person across the table is willing to endanger other people in order to be allowed to do what they want to do. I'm pretty sure people have to agree to disagree at some point, because the line that people have for how much danger they are willing to have others put them in varies from person to person.

"We'll pay you not to endanger us. They payment will be in freedom, economic, social and political mobility, a standard of living and social status. If you still want to endanger us, we can rescind the payments already made."

People are entitled to little, compromise grants them much.

[Cynic]

I've had a number of good hikes ruined by drunk people with guns, usually on RVs driving around and shooting at things. I really hate people like that, and I think they're a danger to themselves and others. However, I don't think it's fair to take away their guns any more than is is to take away their cars.

Of course, drunk shooting really should be illegal and result in your license to own an operate firearms being revoked. Repeat offenses => jail time.
[/Edit]

Yes, take away your car and your gun and your licenses to own both. It's retarded to give legal permission and responsibility to shoot when they violate basic laws. Gun licensing laws in most states show that you are not allowed to shoot while drunk. Shooting while driving might not be illegal but it is irresponsible and hell driving drunk is definitely illegal and the conflation of both those together should necessitate a removal of their driving privileges. This isn't a simple safe accidental event. This is fvcking serious.

Take it away.

[RandomCasualty2]

The fuck it is. Everything in the world will in some cases cost a life and in some cases save a life. And if something is more likely to cost a life than it is to save one, it's not safety equipment. End of story.

You can debate hypothetical anecdotes all day if you really want, and it doesn't matter. The fact is that guns don't make people safer and any justification for their existence that is based on public safety is at best an argument from ignorance.

The problem is that you're applying a generalized statement to every case.

While it may be true that the average gun owner has a greater chance of hurting himself, this is not necessarily true for every individual gun owner. That depends on the person. My chances with a gun will not be the same as some reckless redneck. There are plenty of people who own guns that are careful enough to keep good care of them and only hurt the bad guys. And, in some cases, guns have saved lives.

We let people do dangerous things all the time. Alcohol has cost way more lives than it saves, and in facts creates lots of problems in the world, but prohibition isn't the answer. I don't think it's the answer for guns either.

[Bigode]

I am. I believe that if you aren't willing to take a life with your bare hands you shouldn't be able to take a life period.

That's retarded. Only people who have killing as a job deserve to live?

[CatharzGodfoot]

This is an invalid restatement of my position. Which means interestingly, that unlike most things that get called that on the internet, it actually is a straw man argument.

You caught me red-handed.

But if people are going to pull weird hypothetical arguments based on anecdotes that could conceivably happen to show how a gun might increase your personal safety that's a fucking bad argument. Personal safety in one situation or another in the future doesn't mean fuck all. The important thing is personal safety in the aggregate possible futures - which is straight statistics. If statistically speaking owning something makes you less safe, you're not allowed to argue in favor of owning it on the basis of personal safety. Full stop.

True enough. Unless there really is going to be a zombie apocalypse (or government apocalypse, or white person apocalypse, or black person apocalypse, or Hispanic apocalypse, or war between the states, or Russian invasion, or other similarly unlikely apocalypse), it's pretty unlikely that having a gun will ever make you any safer. It'll just give you the option of shooting someone who just robbed your store at gunpoint in the back as they try to get away on a bike, so that you can later be tried in court for manslaughter or possibly murder.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Lets update the second amendment. You have the right to be a trained hacker as well as explosives expert.

Yeah, you do already. Software companies and governments employ them by the thousands. It's only a problem when you use your hacking abilities to break the law.

But if you live in a low-crime area, your guns are presumably not protecting you from anything. If you lived somewhere with a lot of crime, it would still be true that your guns is likely to be stolen and used by a criminal than to be used by you in self-defense.

Source?

Seriously, I want to see proof that a gun in the city is more likely to be stolen then not. If you can prove that 51% or more of guns owned in the city are stolen, then I will give your claims respect. If not, I'm pretty much going to ignore it.

You might be right, but I hear a lot of retarded stuff on the internet, and if I believed it all without documentation, I'd probably be dead by now.

[Josh_Kablack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7NImdu ... re=related

[Koumei]

While it may be true that the average gun owner has a greater chance of hurting himself, this is not necessarily true for every individual gun owner. That depends on the person.

Except you're only thinking "You could accidentally shoot yourself or someone you don't want to shoot. If you're a redneck."

Consider the following:
Someone breaks into a house. You're allowed to own a firearm. Therefore, chances are that the person inside does own a firearm. Solution: they also take one in. If they get caught in the act, they shoot immediately, as opposed to doing a runner (because when the other guy has a gun, you don't take risks, you make sure they can't shoot you by killing them first).

"No, because I'll shoot first. As soon as I wake up to hear noises in the night, I'm grabbing my gun and readying it, the instant I see someone I fire"? Great, so you let a friend crash there for the night, or you have kids, and one of them starts wandering around in the middle of the night, wanting a drink. Congratulations: you've just shot them.

"But I'd first make sure it's an actual invader!"? See point one. Either you're going to immediately shoot, and risk killing someone you don't want to kill, or you pause, and the intruder (who doesn't actually have any family, friends or teammates in the area to worry about) shoots first.

---

And that's assuming the majority of gun owners keep their weapons stored somewhere that kids are unable to get them (so you're not keeping a gun under the bed, it's locked in a cabinet well above a child's reach - and yeah, that gives an intruder extra time. Although it does mean the intruder isn't stealing the gun, too), are trained in their use, and aren't idiots.

And I'm not willing to believe any of those points. Especially the last one.

Seriously, don't bother arguing that it's safer to allow people guns. Just argue "Screw you, I deserve the right to present a danger to other people. Yes, I'm a [EDITED]." and move on with it. It's not like you're trying for Sainthood anyway.

[virgil]

That's what you think! I keep sending my application for sainthood in, but they never respond.

[Neeeek]

That's what you think! I keep sending my application for sainthood in, but they never respond.

Well...You do have to be dead to be canonized.

[Judging__Eagle]

That's what you think! I keep sending my application for sainthood in, but they never respond.

Well...You do have to be dead to be canonized.

I know. Apparently, you can't apply for yourself. It's "unbelievable" and all that.

Also, lichhood isn't recognized as "miraculous."

[Murtak]

The fuck it is. Everything in the world will in some cases cost a life and in some cases save a life. And if something is more likely to cost a life than it is to save one, it's not safety equipment. End of story.

You can debate hypothetical anecdotes all day if you really want, and it doesn't matter. The fact is that guns don't make people safer and any justification for their existence that is based on public safety is at best an argument from ignorance.

The problem is that you're applying a generalized statement to every case.

While it may be true that the average gun owner has a greater chance of hurting himself, this is not necessarily true for every individual gun owner.

But that does not matter either, because presumably it is impossible to
a) identify a such "safe" gun owners ("safe" meaning they prevent more harm than they cause) and
b) to actually put laws in place that only allow these people to obtain guns, especially not without
c) people gaming the system and the interpretation of the law relaxing over time so you end up right where you started and pretty much everyone can legally get a gun.

And as long as you can not only give guns to those safe gun owners you do indeed have to use the risk assessment Frank uses.

[Username17]

Also, lichhood isn't recognized as "miraculous."

Actually it clearly is, but only in a few cases. Everyone else who attains lichood is apparently demonically inspired. Which leads me to believe that demons are apparently much better at this sort of thing than YHWH is. Because apparently Odin and Osiris and Dionysus and Horus and so on and so forth all get to rise from the dead as non miracles, and only two people (Jesus and Elijah) get to rise from the dead as miraculous events.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Odin also cut out the middleman and nailed himself to a tree. He's pretty awesome when you get down to it.

[RandomCasualty2]

Someone breaks into a house. You're allowed to own a firearm. Therefore, chances are that the person inside does own a firearm. Solution: they also take one in. If they get caught in the act, they shoot immediately, as opposed to doing a runner (because when the other guy has a gun, you don't take risks, you make sure they can't shoot you by killing them first).

You've made some assumptions here which are bad.

First, that the robber has omniscient knowledge of if you've got a gun or not. Chances are, he does not, unless he knows you. Therefore he may bring a gun and start shooting anyway, regardless of if you're armed or not. Now, maybe you get a robber that's going to shoot first, but it really has little to do with if you have a gun or not.

There are some criminals who don't want to go down for murder and thus won't shoot. Other hardened bastards are going to come in shooting. It has less to do with if you've got a gun and more as to the extent of the criminal. Not every burglar is a cold blooded killer. But for the ones that are, you definitely want a gun around, because you can't expect those guys to play nice because they did research on you and know you don't own a gun.

"But I'd first make sure it's an actual invader!"? See point one. Either you're going to immediately shoot, and risk killing someone you don't want to kill, or you pause, and the intruder (who doesn't actually have any family, friends or teammates in the area to worry about) shoots first.

Only most burglars aren't going to play this as though it was a FPS game, most of them are not just unthinking killers who will risk a life sentence on murder so lightly. Also you know your house well, so you could be in all manner of hiding spots, ensuring that you likely see him first. Whether it's under a bed, behind a curtain or what not, if you know he was coming, you're actually pretty likely to get the jump on him.

Seriously, don't bother arguing that it's safer to allow people guns. Just argue "Screw you, I deserve the right to present a danger to other people. Yes, I'm a [EDITED]." and move on with it. It's not like you're trying for Sainthood anyway.

I'm not saying it's safe for everyone. I'm just saying that people should have the right to choose. I don't even own a gun myself, but there are times when I think they're necessary.

Guns can give people a piece of mind and the feeling of being safe. Nobody likes to live in fear their entire lives. People living in high crime areas, women getting out of physically abusive relationships, people who have just plain made a lot of enemies. Guns are a good equalizer for those people. I mean if I was living in a gang controlled territory, you bet I'd buy myself a gun in a second.

But seriously, I've never been the victim of an armed robbery, or a burglary or any of that. But I live in a pretty safe neighborhood. Not everyone has that luxury, and saying you want to ban guns because you feel safe in the Ivory Tower is pretty shortsighted. Some people live in terrible areas and live in fear. And it's not wrong to give them something to defend themselves with, as police response time in those areas is typically quite long.

But you know, you can tell those people "Screw you, I don't think you have a right to feel safe."

But I just don't feel that's moral. Everyone has a right to some peace of mind. Your philosophy of putting people at the mercy of criminals is baffling to me.

But that does not matter either, because presumably it is impossible to
a) identify a such "safe" gun owners ("safe" meaning they prevent more harm than they cause) and
b) to actually put laws in place that only allow these people to obtain guns, especially not without
c) people gaming the system and the interpretation of the law relaxing over time so you end up right where you started and pretty much everyone can legally get a gun.

And as long as you can not only give guns to those safe gun owners you do indeed have to use the risk assessment Frank uses.

Actually though, we try to do that sort of thing already. We have background checks on owning guns. I don't think it's entirely ineffective. Nor do I think that the situation changes if we ban guns. This just means that people buy black market guns, which are harder for the cops to track when used in crimes and sold by criminals, so more people buying from the black market only makes crime go up.

[Username17]

First, that the robber has omniscient knowledge of if you've got a gun or not...

Blah blah blah, your continued insistence on talking about weird hypothetical examples means precisely dick. It's a bad argument, and it insults the intelligence of your readers to continue making it.

The fact is that guns are dangerous more often than they are helpful. That's the beginning and end of the personal safety argument. You positing specific future situations in which a gun would be more helpful than it is dangerous does not and can not overcome this visceral statistical fact. You blithely insisting that you are of less or no danger to yourself and your family when you own a firearm is as comical and tragic as people who claim to have enough alcohol tolerance that driving while drunk is not a dangerous stunt for them to attempt.

You are not better than other people, because you are other people. You are a statistic. If you accidentally blow the head off of your niece you're a statistic and if you don't you're still a statistic. And the fact is that winning a combat with home invaders of deadly intent is an incredibly rare edge case, and it's flat always going to be a rarer event than children in the neighborhood getting into your firearms and shooting each other out of curiosity.

There are circumstances where having a lot of chlorine on hand can save a life. But keeping giant canisters of the stuff in homes and in easy reach is never going to fly as a safety measure. The ways and chances for that to go horribly wrong outnumber the methods that it could be used to save the day a thousand to one. You don't live in a fucking action movie. Most importantly, no one lives in an action movie, because action movies are not real!

-Username17

[Prak]

Also, lichhood isn't recognized as "miraculous."

Actually it clearly is, but only in a few cases. Everyone else who attains lichood is apparently demonically inspired. Which leads me to believe that demons are apparently much better at this sort of thing than YHWH is. Because apparently Odin and Osiris and Dionysus and Horus and so on and so forth all get to rise from the dead as non miracles, and only two people (Jesus and Elijah) get to rise from the dead as miraculous events.

-Username17

Actually, three people, you forgot Lazarus. Also, while lichdom may be miraculous, you really can't count it for saint hood as sainthood really just means you're in heaven. That's seriously it. The reason people pray to saints is because, presumably, having been human, they're more likely to take the time to listen to you and then they go knock on Jesus' door and say "Hey, J-man, Bob needs some help finding his lost dog, can we do something for the poor guy?"

[RandomCasualty2]

The fact is that guns are dangerous more often than they are helpful. That's the beginning and end of the personal safety argument.

You quote a statistic but what does that actually mean? Honestly I'm not ready to just call it a fact simply because you say so. As we've seen in just about every aspect of life, statistics can be twisted around to reach faulty conclusions. While numbers don't lie, those conclusions can.

So really I do have to ask questions like: In what area are these statistics from? What demographics? Does it count criminals who use illegal guns or just registered guns? Is it true in northern states as well as southern ones?

There's just so many questions to consider.

You are not better than other people, because you are other people. You are a statistic.

That's quite simply untrue.

It's like saying something like 5% of the world's population will die this year, therefore I have a 5% chance of dying this year. There are risk factors for everything, and people are not equal. Just because the consistent class average for tests happens to be a 78 doesn't mean I can't consistently score 90s and above. But according to your logic, I can't be better or worse than other people.

Your belief in global statistics applied to an individual is flat out wrong. The world doesn't work that way. The average is simply that, an average. And it is very possible to be better than average.

So no, I'm not other people. I'm a unique person, and the likelihood that I may shoot an innocent person with a firearm is going to be lower than for some drunken redneck suffering from paranoid delusions.

[Ice9]

Someone breaks into a house. You're allowed to own a firearm. Therefore, chances are that the person inside does own a firearm. Solution: they also take one in. If they get caught in the act, they shoot immediately, as opposed to doing a runner (because when the other guy has a gun, you don't take risks, you make sure they can't shoot you by killing them first).

That example seems flawed. You could just as easily say:

"If they hear the residents waking up, they cut and run immediately, as opposed to finishing the job (because when the other guy has a gun, you don't take risks, you make sure they can't shoot you by being far away)."

And for that matter, even if guns were completely useless for preventing burglary, there are more crimes out there than burglary.

[Ice9]

Blah blah blah, your continued insistence on talking about weird hypothetical examples means precisely dick. It's a bad argument, and it insults the intelligence of your readers to continue making it.

What?

RC was pointing out that the robber having omniscient knowledge was unlikely, not the reverse. Or are you seriously saying that people having omniscient knowledge is the normal situation, and anything else is a "wierd hypothetical example"?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Both sides of the hypothetical are retarded.

If someone's breaking into your house while you are there, he's probably doing it for the express purpose of killing you, unless he's a retard. Or just wants to rape you. Or kidnap you. Whatever.

If all the guy wants is your shit, he's going to do it when you aren't home, because it's easier than wrangling a potentially hostile occupant. And he's going to be in and out quicker than you can react even if you are home.

Either way, your guns aren't going to help you, the first case you're just as likely to die as not. The second case your guns won't help wither because you aren't there to shoot them. Guns don't normally shoot people by themselves, and if they do that's REALLY fucking illegal, you aren't allowed to set booby-traps.

The whole guns as a deterrent to crime argument is meaningless, because it doesn't help.

[PhoneLobster]

I think Ice the point is that the figures are in, the facts are known, numerous studies worldwide have shown gun ownership to be dangerous.

No matter how many imaginary situations RC or anyone else comes up with where terrorists break into your home and take your family hostage and you use your gun to reinact die hard on them (and really that is EXACTLY what RC and co are describing) it's total bullshit. Because we have the figures and they say that die hard is less common than shooting yourself in the god damn foot.

[TarkisFlux]

Guns don't normally shoot people by themselves, and if they do that's REALLY fucking illegal, you aren't allowed to set booby-traps.

What? Really? Any idea if this is a local ordinance for you, or something bigger in scope? If I never get to make my modern day trapped dungeon of death, I'm going to be a very sad man

[ubernoob]

I am. I believe that if you aren't willing to take a life with your bare hands you shouldn't be able to take a life period.

That's retarded. Only people who have killing as a job deserve to live?

No. Only people who are willing to kill and take the psychological scars that come with taking a life with your bare hands should be allowed to take lives. Guns add another layer of protection to the mind when it comes to the mental scars of taking another life. Unless you are military or law enforcement or similar heavily trained individual that is in a situation where firearms are the right tool for the job then no person should be allowed to have a gun. Guns make killing too impersonal and increase the murder rate. There are people that will kill with a gun, but not choke a person to death staring into their dying eyes.

[Koumei]

Guns don't normally shoot people by themselves, and if they do that's REALLY fucking illegal, you aren't allowed to set booby-traps.

What? Really? Any idea if this is a local ordinance for you, or something bigger in scope? If I never get to make my modern day trapped dungeon of death, I'm going to be a very sad man :-(

It seems to be a fairly general law - there are even ghost stories on the Internet about would-be burglars successfully suing people because they injured themselves breaking in. Now, a quick check shows those stories to be less than true, but yeah, if you scatter thumb tacks on the floor by every window, set up laser trip mines or basically do anything seen in "Home Alone", many places consider that an offence.

And then you have cases where someone wanted to sue a zoo because, while drunk, they climbed into a lion pen and got injured. It didn't go to court on the grounds of being "Too fucking stupid", but this did have people wondering how to dissuade others from climbing in - perhaps with barbed wire fences and the like. Someone else then suggested "How about we put some kind of big animal in, like a lion, that mauls people, so as to dissuade anyone from entering?"

Presumably you could make up a trapped dungeon of doom, advertise it as such, complete with big warning signs out the front ("Warning: contains fiendish traps that may kill you. Not recommended for anyone who has not completed a Gary Gygax module.") and find a way to have it legally accepted.