Are Guns Needed in Self-Defense? [Copperknickers vs |Sith|3|DarthWarman88] Commentary Thread

[Kjertesvein]

Well, it was not long ago when I saw a documentary about self defence. If some one is going to murder you, they will probably know who you are, and you know the. Example a kid on school or a family member. They did a test, and the defender was massacred. He had no idea, he was clumsy and was not ready at all to defend himself.

Guns at home kill family members, sooo more often then defend against others.

A not well stored gun can be a hazzard if you are suecidel or mentaly unstable.

[Viking Prince]

Some thoughts:

The problem with all gun debates comes down to simple questions. Do I have the right to make mistakes? Do I have the right to place my own judgement on what is good for me and my family within the confines of my own home? Can others know my personal situation better than I? Should others make my personal decisions for me?

If you believe in freedom, you must also believe in the individual. Government is needed, but only to help us organize our efforts and to prevent individuals from doing willful harm to others. I would submit that there is no member of a household that should be constrained from protecting the household from willful harm when outsiders enter the household to do such harm.

Whether a firearm is the best or most appropriate choice to prevent such harm should properly be left to the individual. Arguments of whether firearms cause more harm than benefit are not really the issue. The issue is who makes the decision.

[Kjertesvein]

I love guns

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Guns at home kill family members, sooo more often then defend against others.

The statistics say otherwise, although that is the stereotype.

There are 16,000 firearm homicides in the US each year.

13 different studies (averaged) indicate that guns are used in home defence 1.5 million times in the US each year.

Suicides are suicides, and frankly that has nothing to do with the method used.

And the way to solve firearm accidents is to train, not to ban.

A not well stored gun can be a hazzard if you are suecidel or mentaly unstable.

Anything can be a hazard if you are suicidal or mentally unstable.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You know, we could almost establish precedent on the TWC, after all the gun debates there have been.

I would encourage Warman to emphasize statistics.

The anti-gun side, we can already see, relies on hypotheses and scenarios rather than hard evidence. (I'll get to that in a bit.) It's easy to say what could happen, especially when you're trying to imagine all kinds of things that could go wrong.

But, what really DOES happen? That is the question, and the answer according to the stats is often very different from the anti-gun perspective.

Now, no doubt you will want to say something like,

"Well, statistics are so vague and easy to manipulate, etc etc etc..."

Statistics are not vague. And, although they are of course imperfect, the fact is that we have to make choices based on SOMETHING. And the SOMETHING that we have to work with is statistics.

In a debate like this, neither side can claim that they can PROVE their point 100%, because you're making projections based on historical evidence.

Therefore, we are working with PROBABILITY in this debate. We have to choose, and obviously it makes sense to choose the side with the highest probability. And I think that, in a debate like this, there will be a fairly large margin in favor of firearms.

As to manipulating statistics, that is often easy to spot, and that's why we debate; to determine the accuracy of such findings through criticism and discussion.

Indeed, i may be wrong on this but do you require any firearms training to possess a gun in the USA?

Correct. There are reasons for that also. No doubt you will be getting into that shortly.

And what about the theives that have firearms themselves? You announce to them you have a firearm and you'd be dead before you hit the ground.

Wrong. The statistics are almost the opposite.

First of all, criminals are not universally armed; far from it. If you are armed and the intruder is not, 90% of the time he will freeze. And if a criminal is armed and you are likewise armed, he will run.

He came in to swipe some trinkets; as soon as he realizes he stands a good chance of getting killed, there is no way he's going to risk that for some trinkets.

A pistol is bad enough without a M16 or Ak don''t you think? These guns are designed for killing, you intention even if you agree that guns are needed for self-defense, is not to kill but to prevent.

I'd challenge you to find a single case of an M16 used in a domestic crime. You'll never find one.

M16's have been illegal since the first one came off the production line. The M16 is a fully automatic, general-issue battle rifle of the United States Army. No automatic firearm has been legal since 1930.

I suppose you meant AR-15. And I'm not being a snob here. Too often, people associate the two, and that is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation in this debate.

That being settled, I would also challenge you to find a single case of an AR-15 or AK-47 being used in crime in the US. Good luck. There have been a few, but you won't find them easily.

As to your last statement there, I'd agree for the most part. However, if it really is a life/death situation, it is altogether reasonable that the homeowner kill without hesitation. The criminal, being that he has illegally entered the house and with every intention to commit a crime, has thrown away his rights; there are consequences that go along with that.

As i always say, the best martial art would be a combination of middle distance running and parkour. You don't get into a fight, you don't lose it.

Naive. You can't assume that people will have that option to begin with, much less that they are olympian runners.

You don't have a gun, noone gets shot, do they?

Nope. You get sliced, mugged, raped, and strangled, but you don't get shot.

And if you make sure that no gun enters your shores and anyone who tries is deported, that imo makes you a lot safer than if you had your American Courage .44 Magnum in your pocket.

Naive again. An absurd notion; it's simply impossible. You can't strip people of all their other options and expect them to do this. That would make for terribly irresponsible legislation.

The fact that you have to come to grips with is that a world without guns is utopia. Utopia does not exist. However, now that guns are here, we can reduce crime by putting them into the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I'd rather spend the money of an assualt rifle or shotgun on preventative measures than a gun,

"Assault Rifle" is a propaganda piece aimed at the uninformed. Furthermore, as I said you'll never be able to find significant evidence of AW's being used in crime, so bringing AW's into this debate is irrelevant.

Furthermore, "preventative measures," barring razor wire and land mines, don't actually stop a criminal. When a man enters you're house, I don't think it'll be much of a comfort that the police will arrive in... 10 minutes.

which is an unreliable ally if you aren't an experienced expert

Any 10-year-old can shoot. I'm not being sarcastic; I mean that kids can shoot; you don't need to be in the military. The whole POINT of guns is that they can be operated with relatively (qualify that "relatively" of course) little training.

and is a downright liablity in the dark of night when you are shivering and scared.

Wrong. Civilians have a lower accidental kill rate than law enforcement.

Furthermore, a gun, even if you are shivering and scared, will still work, as opposed to your fists, which will be weak and clammy.

I refer you to my previous point about the best way to win a fight - being a hero and fighting back is the surest way to get killed even if you did have a gun.

You act as if we're discussing a bar-room brawl.

The whole point of the debate is that violence is FORCED upon you. You have very few options.

This is the kind of thing that is easy to talk about when you're sitting in a cushy chair imagining what assault might be like.

Drop everything and run away is the best option, not fire a gun. What if you miss? Your standing there with 4 guys running at you? Run.

When did "4 guys" ever come into the equation?

Sorry if I stole Warman's thunder; I couldn't help myself.

[Kjertesvein]

I know you have a settings which I don't even want to bother arguing. It's just pointless for me to sit here in Norway, and argue back and forth about some thing like that in a 3rd world country.

The fact is that I know alot of crazy s, and heeeeeell no do I want any one to even think that they can go comboy on me. It's just not going to happend. Poor young people are more unstable, and I leave it there. If I want to shoot with guns in the back yard, then I must do training and the gun must be stored. Less with 12 guage, more with rifle, most with pistol. No problem what so ever, if I have to fight then I do it like a man.

[Viking Prince]

If I have to fight, I do it to win. There is no doing it like a man. If my life or my family's lives are threatened, why shouldn't I use deadly force?

[Kjertesvein]

I highly doubt John Doe is clinicaly sane nor trained to kill, and take the concequences of ending a shadows life. I think you VP is being overly paranoid, no one is trying to murder your family. Most are of those you know.

Have you ever been in that situation?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I know you have a settings which I don't even want to bother arguing. It's just pointless for me to sit here in Norway, and argue back and forth about some thing like that in a 3rd world country.

I don't quite understand what you're talking about.

I have a "setting?" "3rd World Country?"

Clarify please. I'm from the US, discussing the situation in the US.

The fact is that I know alot of crazy s, and heeeeeell no do I want any one to even think that they can go comboy on me.

That is not fact; that is oppinion by definition. Fact would be your "crazy" friends' police records.

It's just not going to happend. Poor young people are more unstable, and I leave it there.

Agreed. However, this point is irrelevant for what we're discussing.

In the US, you cannot purchase a rifle until age 18. You cannot purchase a handgun until age 21.

So, we're discussing the class of firearms that you can't even get your HANDS on until age 21.

So "unstable young people" are irrelevant.

if I have to fight then I do it like a man.

You are absolutely welcome do feel that way.

I should probably be more clear than I usually am about this. I'm not at all suggesting that you should be required to have a firearm. You are welcome to go without; that doesn't bother me at all. All people are unique and maybe your situation simply doesn't call for a firearm.

However, it is a very dangerous thing to project your own fortunate situation onto 300 million other people and strip away a valuable defensive option on that basis.

I highly doubt John Doe is clinicaly sane nor trained to kill, and take the concequences of ending a shadows life.

Your doubts are flatly contradicted by the facts. What else is there to say?

The anti-gun side goes a long way on what they like to call "common sense."

They start with the "sensible" notion that guns are incredible killing machines, that all criminals use them, etc. And this is "sensible," if you don't have experience with firearms.

I think that if the whole country took firearm safety tomorrow, the anti-gun movement would deflate overnight.

I can see how, at first glance, it would make sense that guns in the hands of civilians are liabilities. But the facts are so radically different.

I think you VP is being overly paranoid, no one is trying to murder your family. Most are of those you know.

Have you ever been in that situation?

First of all, he is not being paranoid. He is being a man and making sure he is prepared to protect his family.

Secondly, victims never care about odds. They don't care if their chances of being assaulted were one in ten thousand. IT HAPPENED.

Or is that how you console people?

"Don't worry about the fact that you are now a parapalegic; just think how unlikely it was for that to happen!"

Nah. Don't think it's going to work.

As to your question, that is of course for VP to answer. However, whatever the answer, you are once again taking one situation and projecting it onto 300 million people. Very bad idea.

[Kjertesvein]

Im saying you got "a setting": That you are deeply in this, you motivation is where Im when I meet a blond from sweeden, you say you know your statistics, etc. Im on the other hand is tierd and got other things to do today.
Im said "3 world country": I'm not demonizing, but it's a thing we say from my sovreign. Well you can draw your own picture.

I concidder a man man to be not- young when he pass' the age of 25. There is a BIG diffrence from a 18 to a 25 year old. Military service, work, psyco social issues, taxes, etc. Any way, in Norway, you can't buy any thing higher than an air gun if you have a serious or violent criminal record. That makes me safe and it also makes me not want to be come a future hazard for me next brother.

I have absolutly never met a single person who had his life in serious danger. Why should I open the gate, that I can become one of the crazy paranoid for my next brother? If there is a reason to protect yourself where you are, go ahead, but I say in my country.... Why?.... It's the most peaceful country in the world. It's like building a watch tower in my back yeard with barb wire and cameras on the 12 ft fence, why?

I have seen a illegal german sub machine gun, a golden AK47 and legaly tried shot guns to hunt. That's it, I have also met many thiefs, and non of them carried any weapons other then the gear. Again, maybe it's risky in US, but here = no ho.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Im saying you got "a setting": That you are deeply in this, you motivation is where Im when I meet a blond from sweeden, you say you know your statistics, etc. Im on the other hand is tierd and got other things to do today. Im said "3 world country": I'm not demonizing, but it's a thing we say from my sovreign. Well you can draw your own picture.

Ah; thank you. I was just confused by your terminology.

Any way, in Norway, you can't buy any thing higher than an air gun if you have a serious or violent criminal record.

Absolutely.

In the US a person with a criminal record (which is just a single felony or a couple misdemeanors IIRC) can be arrested on the spot and jailed for so much as touching a firearm.

I have absolutly never met a single person who had his life in serious danger. Why should I open the gate, that I can become one of the crazy paranoid for my next brother?

It happens all the time; consider yourself fortunate.

It's like building a watch tower in my back yeard with barb wire and cameras on the 12 ft fence, why?

Eh, actually... no, it's not like that.

But I get ya; and again, I'm not trying to force anything on you. If you feel that it is best for you not to deal with firearms, I respect that. (Although it might be wise to understand them, as I gather you are to some extent.)

However I AM interested in not having anything forced on me in a similar manner, when there is no good reason to do so.

I.e., I'm fine with rules. Rules are great. Good rules are, anyways. And gun control laws aren't good.

[War lord]

The whole flaw in the "Protecting my famliy from home invaders!"Line of thinking is that most burglers even the armed ones know that murder is a diffirent ballgame and so will simply flee if discovered but pointing a gun at their head will make Them MORE likely to shoot.Even if it's someone trying to kill you your on dogey ground if they don't shoot first or didn't have a gun also in Ireland were I live and I think most other EU countries murder is murder no matter how or why unless it's a direct attempt to cause harm to you.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The whole flaw in the "Protecting my famliy from home invaders!"Line of thinking is

Happens over a million times a year with very good results.

pointing a gun at their head will make Them MORE likely to shoot.

Tell that to those million people and million-odd criminals.

The VAST majority of the time, they either freeze or run.

And we also see that criminals don't have guns all that often. The reason people think they do is because of gangs and the occasional shooting spree. It's really not that way.

[War lord]

Happens over a million times a year with very good results.




Tell that to those million people and million-odd criminals.

The VAST majority of the time, they either freeze or run.

And we also see that criminals don't have guns all that often. The reason people think they do is because of gangs and the occasional shooting spree. It's really not that way.

So why do you need it?

Can we see some numbers from a non-nutjob site?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

So why do you need it?

It's commonly known as offensive superiority. In this case you might call it defensive superiority.

The point is that you have an edge. And considering that the other guy breaks into houses for a living (in a manner of speaking), I'm far from certain that I have an edge with my fists, much less women and older folks.

The very purpose is that you have no doubts about your ability to restrain an intruder or assailant. Therefore, there is a HUGE benefit to be gained.

And, below, we will see that the truth is, the negatives are far outweighed. Thus, guns are helpful, useful, and legitimate.

Can we see some numbers from a non-nutjob site?

Absolutely. Coming up.

Of course, if you pass off facts that you dislike as "nutjob stuff," then I can't help you.

However, I trust that is not the case. Even more so, because the following link provides data from THIRTEEN surveys.

Also, take notice that the studies I am about to cite come from news agencies, polling agencies, and the United States government at the state and federal levels.

In other words, anything but "nutjob sites."

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

They range from an estimation of 764,036 to 3,052,717 DGU's (defensive gun uses) per year.

I'll save you the trouble of averaging them out:

The average is 1,569,297 DGU's per year.

That is total data from 11 of those cases. The other 2 in that link did not have totals listed.

I got this list from the website of the 14th study here, which estimated the number of DGU's to be about 1.5 million.

There is yet one more study by the NCVS, which estimates 108,000. The massive discrepancy between this study and 14 others is discussed in that last link.

If you average ALL of them (including the rediculously skimpy one), you get 1,451,559 DGU's.

[Viking Prince]

I highly doubt John Doe is clinicaly sane nor trained to kill, and take the concequences of ending a shadows life. I think you VP is being overly paranoid, no one is trying to murder your family. Most are of those you know.

Have you ever been in that situation?

Yes. Three times I have been is such tight situations. Once on campus where I was not allowed to have a weapon and I had to duck and hope the man would simply move on (I was lucky). Once in the mountains with a buddy with a gun rack -- made some noise, no one was hit and the sniper went away. Once at home in the night -- again a bit of noise and the intruder beat a hasty retreat. (no, I was not and would never use blanks.

Why would you assume that my statements were based upon paranoid thoughts and fears?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Are those statistics sufficient, gentlemen?

[Kjertesvein]

@AM
First time I see your avatar, you remind me of Sarah palin & dick cheney put toghater ...for some reason. Not so much now.

In the US a person with a criminal record (which is just a single felony or a couple misdemeanors IIRC) can be arrested on the spot and jailed for so much as touching a firearm.

I know I'm the bad guy here and judging etc. But I heard you could buy one in wallmart or other gun shows.... sounds loose to me.

It happens all the time; consider yourself fortunate.

Experience you would like to elaborate on?

Eh, actually... no, it's not like that.

But I get ya; and again, I'm not trying to force anything on you. If you feel that it is best for you not to deal with firearms, I respect that. (Although it might be wise to understand them, as I gather you are to some extent.)

However I AM interested in not having anything forced on me in a similar manner, when there is no good reason to do so.

I.e., I'm fine with rules. Rules are great. Good rules are, anyways. And gun control laws aren't good.

You mean "Gun control laws" like in totalitarian prohobition or regulating? I'm totaly against anything thats totalitarian. No policy to drug's, gun prohobition, alcahol prohobition, marrige laws, prostitution, etc. Thats just radical ideology, it just doesnt work for there is allways humans + black markets who will come around anything.
We can debate how til the end of time, but regulation is I'm all for. I'm just not going to be that crazy guy with a gun. Not going to have it around me if I got people I also love around me. It's never going to happend-

Yes. Three times I have been is such tight situations.

1. Once on campus where I was not allowed to have a weapon and I had to duck and hope the man would simply move on (I was lucky).
2. Once in the mountains with a buddy with a gun rack -- made some noise, no one was hit and the sniper went away.
3. Once at home in the night -- again a bit of noise and the intruder beat a hasty retreat. (no, I was not and would never use blanks.

Why would you assume that my statements were based upon paranoid thoughts and fears?

A campus (serial) killer hunting you down? A hired sniper trying to shoot your head off? A petty and sceared thief.... running away like any sane person would do..... Ok, your definitly not paranoid...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't know which 3rd country you live in, but that sound absurd to me. To answer your question, you either live in a 3rd world country or there is something seriously wrong with someone.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Actually my avatar is Charleton Heston as he spoke the famous phrase, "From my cold, dead hands!"

I know I'm the bad guy here and judging etc. But I heard you could buy one in wallmart or other gun shows.... sounds loose to me.

You heard about it, did you? I heard that waving a dead cat over your head under a full moon cures warts.

It's not loose; it's not different than the requirements for a gunshop.

Experience you would like to elaborate on?

No I would not.

VP has already told you. Of course, being that now ALL of your arguments have been resoundingly defeated; your response was to call him a liar.

Why should I tell you anything if that's what I can expect?

You mean "Gun control laws" like in totalitarian prohobition or regulating? I'm totaly against anything thats totalitarian.

Splendid; good for you.

Unfortunately, the people with ideas of "totalitarian prohibition," as you have aptly put it, are the same people who are campaigning for these "smaller," "common sense" regulations.

They are stepping stones, and the facts have shown that sensible thought is cripplingly absent in many of these proposed regulations.

We can debate how til the end of time, but regulation is I'm all for. I'm just not going to be that crazy guy with a gun.

Agreed. Regulation is great.

The point is that we've already got the regulations. We have thousands of gun laws already. The ones they are coming up with now are... well they're pointless to say the least.

Not going to have it around me if I got people I also love around me. It's never going to happend-

That's fine; not trying to force anything on you.

However, a lot of people own guns BECAUSE they have people they love around them.

And it's not "paranoia;" it is being prepared for something that happens millions of times a year.

I don't know which 3rd country you live in, but that sound absurd to me. To answer your question, you either live in a 3rd world country or there is something seriously wrong with someone.

Oh, get off it.

Be reasonable here; you know perfectly well that this happens all the time. Thousands of crimes of all kinds happen daily.

[Kjertesvein]

I tell you when some one talks about "a sniper in the bush out to get me", then I question that with high remarks. Draw your own conclusion.

No I would not.

VP has already told you. Of course, being that now ALL of your arguments have been resoundingly defeated; your response was to call him a liar.

Why should I tell you anything if that's what I can expect?

Didn't I all ready say I had my plates full? Unlike Obama I don't get a bigger plate. I finish up what I have, then move on to whats next. But I don't agree with your arguments, I will add you on the contacts and lunch my crusade when time is due.