"Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," a study done in 1998, concluded that 45% of murders were committed in homes with guns in them.
I looked into that. Are guns more commonly used for murder than defense or was the whole thing just highly un-scientific? We have a winner.
Firstly, the survey was very small-scale, representing a very small portion of the U.S.
Second, the survey only counted self-defense cases in which the assailant was killed or injured. In most self-defense cases, the gun is used to deter the criminal. Because that's what it's about: Self-defense, not body count.
The whole also could've been stopped if the nutter wasn't allowed to have a gun in the first place, which is *much* lower risk then allowing everyone to tote guns everywhere. It's simply not sensible.
Why would allowing people to tote guns everywhere be a risk?
Why would allowing people to tote guns everywhere be a risk?
Because if everybody was toting a gun, somebody hell-bent on a murder-suicide (like Cho Seung-Hui) would be able to shoot at least one person before being shot down. Having stricter laws lowers the chance of death even more. While I think gun ownership is good, toting a gun everywhere is simply not a practical choice life-wise when there is an option that isn't much more expensive that had the potential to save lives.
Having a gun will make someone less likely to break into your house/hurt you ect.
I'm fairly sure this is a false statement. If I'm remembering correctly it has been shown that people with guns in their houses are (statistically speaking) more likely to be robbed specifically because there are criminals looking for weapons.
And don't think such a small bullet isn't a threat. A headshot will still kill you.
Saying a head shot will kill is nearly the same as saying that when a criminal breaks into your home you don't have to worry because he might have a heart attack. A amateur gun user who's under stress will be lucky to hit anything let alone the head, and any training they may have gotten improving their odds to land a hit would be telling them to shoot for the center of mass.
.22s have no stopping power and a large part of their killing power comes from the fact that people don't know they've been hit, and will walk around for a day or two will bullets still lodged inside them causing internal bleeding.
Saying a head shot will kill is nearly the same as saying that when a criminal breaks into your home you don't have to worry because he might have a heart attack. A amateur gun user who's under stress will be lucky to hit anything let alone the head, and any training they may have gotten improving their odds to land a hit would be telling them to shoot for the center of mass.
.22s have no stopping power and a large part of their killing power comes from the fact that people don't know they've been hit, and will walk around for a day or two will bullets still lodged inside them causing internal bleeding.
Yeah, I totally agree, but my point was to focus on getting a silencer on a lethal weapon, not argue it's uses defensively. And the fact it's over the counter makes it really really easy to kill someone with that combination, but not many people are. Sorry, I tend to ramble and people tend to not get the gist of what I post.
Yeah, I totally agree, but my point was to focus on getting a silencer on a lethal weapon, not argue it's uses defensively.
Okay, I get where you were going then. I'm not particularly worried about over the counter merchandise, because people who are purchasing guns legally given that it's very easy to track them down after the fact. But silencers themselves aren't a huge deal in my mind, given you can easily find guides to make them at home online.
The aftermath of atomic bombs?
Atomic bombs generate a tremendous amount of radiation, which in turn irradiates everything in or near the blast zone. So that even after the blast there are huge amounts of lingering radiation that make it so the area is unlivable for decades.
1) I'm not stupid. I do believe they sell pistols in Canada, but I somehow have a feeling if you remove the hunting kind of guns, our gunerson ratio will be much smaller.
So what, all guns are bad - you said it yourself in point #2. What does it matter if they're rifles or pistols? You also assert that a gun's primary focus is killing people, so Canadians shouldn't be allowed to buy long arms either, by your logic.
In Canada it is much more difficult to obtain a gun. This supports my previous statement of shootings being more likely, the easier you make them to perpetrate.
Okay, most of the violent shooting crimes that occur, happen with guns that are bought illegally. Having laws to restrict the ownership of guns do not effect criminals from getting their hands on, or using, or obtaining guns, as they're doing it against the law to begin with. It only restricts law abiding citizens from owning or obtaining firearms. You commented on a further post:
Had he not had a gun the whole thing could've been stopped. How can you not understand this? Why should both parties have a gun when neither needs it?
This is the part you don't seem to get. *illegal* use of a gun use is not sufficient argument to outlaw guns, as the people who are using the guns in an illegal way to begin with, are breaking the law. Passing gun control legislation will not stop criminals from using guns illegally.
Knives and rope both have practical uses other than to kill.
And guns have a practical use in hunting & leisure.
I'm not particularly worried about over the counter merchandise, because people who are purchasing guns legally given that it's very easy to track them down after the fact. But silencers themselves aren't a huge deal in my mind, given you can easily find guides to make them at home online.
Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.
@Hiddendistance. Thanks. I learned that bit for a project on gun control actually.
Okay, most of the violent shooting crimes that occur, happen with guns that are bought illegally.
See, here's where I'd like to see a source. I don't really care about what people do with guns they buy legally on their own time, so long as they're not bringing heavy armaments into the streets. However, having loose gun control laws and/or more guns in the public inherently means more gun access to criminal because it's not that hard for somebody to figure who owns guns in the neighborhood and break in when they're not around.
More guns doesn't mean you're likely to have more gun crime, it means you will have more gun crime (relative to without, not nation to nation). If selling guns were entirely banned (not a position I'm advocating here) they would be taken out of the hands of criminals, because believe it or not smuggling things into countries is dangerous and expensive. So petty criminals at least wouldn't have access to firearms.
all three of those are phenomena, not objects. and phenomena aren't evil either because they're. . .phenomena.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you're using a definition of evil as immoral, or something along those lines. This is a correct definition, but you're neglecting the fact that it's not the only correct definition.
Common usage of the word is in fact different, I've heard people use evil interchangeably with bad. And dictionary.com has one definition that may be relevant to this debate, "anything causing harm or misery" which has the example sentence of "Tobacco is considered by some evil." You could easily substitute Guns are for Tobacco is and would still correctly use the word. Objects, phenomena, and people can all be evil.
How can something be evil if its got no free will?
Evil doesn't imply free will in the slightest. Even in the moral sense. It's an objective description of an 'other' or rarely a self. Good and evil have a weight relative to the preconceptions of the person using/hearing them. Just because you think that something being evil requires it to have free will doesn't mean that others do, and common usage of the word shows that free will isn't a widely accepted criteria of determining if a thing is evil or not.