I’m a gun supporter and its not a hobby for me. I think of a gun in the same way as I think about a fire extinguisher. It’s just a tool. I got one after a couple home invasions happened near me. If they kick down your door, maybe you can fend them off with a knife or bat but if they kick down mine, like biggie says, there’s gonna be a lot of slow singing and flower bringing if my burglar alarm starts ringing,
you don’t think it’s a deterrent for criminals? if they think it’s likely someone has a gun in their house, they’ll skip it and look for the easy prey. i don’t think anyone disputes that. it’s criminal nature to look for the easy mark, that’s why grannies get rolled so often while 6’ 5" dudes like me who can bench 4 bills don’t get fucked with. if they KNOW that there are no guns in a given location, that emboldens them. basic human nature.
better judged by 12 than carried by 6
While guns may have a deterrent effect, they also cause accidental deaths and increase criminal violence. Overall, the effect is negative. Plus, at some point, one must admit that the “defense” argument is not the reason for people to buy military grade automatic rifles. I know a guy who was a marine and gun enthusiast. He has 5 or 6 of those assault rifle things in his safe. This has nothing to do with self defense (and he admits it). He just likes guns. I can understand this interest, even if I don’t support ownership of such guns. However, if he insisted that all these guns were to deter criminals, I would question his rationality.
In the words of CvM: Respect.
Warning is my favorite biggie track
you have no data to make the claim that the overall effect is negative. there is no data on what a criminal decided not to do. and even in an attempted crime, I bet it is way under reported when a person defuses a situation with threat of a gun. the truth is that the data necessarily skew to the least favorable light when it comes to gun violence vs deterred violence. So the absolute worst is a net loss of +/- 2,000 lives, which isn’t worth consideration. man you are way off your game lately.
I just had two current army officeres weigh in on a discussion I was having. Bothing have deployed on several tours and one with a degree in history focused on military history.
Points they agreed on:
-
An armed populace (even with assault weapons) is a very effective deterent to the state in the event of a mass uprising.
-
.223 is a great self defense round for the same reasons people use it on offense. They pointed out that you never see a SWAT team entering a house with pistols drawn.
-
Banning high capacity magazines wouldn’t have prevented this tragedy or others as reload times are negligeable. They cited the VT shooting (second deadliest) at 32 with no assault weapons and only 10 and 15 round magazines.
I completely disagree with this. The negative effects of guns is quantifiable and evident. The positive effects is much less so.
It’s similar to an IRS audit. If you know that you have zero possibility of getting audited, then you’re extremely likely to be fraudulent on your tax return. But since you know the IRS will question you, you follow the rules.
If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the US (except in the hands of criminals), they would be more likely to ________ (insert any crime here). But since (at least in West Texas), there’s a chance you could be facing a person with a firearm, you’re less likely to __________ (insert any crime here).
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the “good” parts of firearm ownership.
(edit - Turd beat me to it)
I think we can put this thread to bed and once and for all declare victory over the TDR crowd as it relates to gun control. Chad - kindly sticky this thread to the top of the forum under ‘settled topics’ to avoid future futile debates on this topic.
It’s good to be prepared in case someone kick in the door, waving the four four.
anyone else catch this?
https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/vb.232843448409/10154000566913410/?type=2&theater
I found that video really interesting.
We should have a post limit on politically themed threads. I’m tired of seeing “Orlando Shooting” as the top post all the time. Or change the subject to “Orlando Shooting no longer being discussed. BS solved the gun issues on page 6.”
Individual states will never have the power to take away guns and violate the 2nd amendment. That is basically a non starter solution.
I was being slightly facetious. Unless you mean to say the maximum post count should vary by state. That’s something I could get behind.
Ah. Ok
For all trump lovers
Yawn.
Not a complete ban on all guns (which no one is advocating) but a ban on assault weapons and high capcity magazines are already in place in several states. Which is what we’re really getting at. Not to mention NYC’s restrictions that have all but eliminated handgun ownership among the population. The framework merely strengthens their efficacy. Please try to keep up. I’ve already disproven your claims with no rebuttal.