Gun opinions


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

But by that argument, U.S. states with strongly regulated firearms control should have lower rates of gun violence than states with light firearm regulation.  That's not the case.  Furthermore, there are countries in the world with very liberal gun laws that have low rates of gun violence (e.g., Switzerland and Israel).  If you boil away the fiction behind these arguments, you're left with the core question of whether increasing gun control in the U.S. will lead to lower rates of violence in the U.S., and for that I refer you to a sarcastic bumper sticker I see all the time: "Let's just make guns illegal and nobody will use guns, just like we made drugs illegal and nobody uses drugs."

 

Britain and the United States are very different in many important ways.  Our British friends didn't have to deal with frontier justice, hostile Indians, rattlesnakes, cattle thieves, and robbers the way 19th-century Americans did, and those things still run in many Americans' blood.  Violence in the U.S. is regrettable, but guns are used in self-defense all the time in this country, in numbers far greater than the number of gun-related acts of violence.

 

I too am sick at the level of gun violence in this country, but any solution has to make things better, not worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I carried a Glock 17 on another department and I loved it.  Good weapon and the trigger squeeze is consistent.  Personally, I would go with the NY trigger, not the Miami trigger.  The difference in the feel of the NY trigger squeeze is similar to the M-1911a1 and the overall pull weight is more.  If you plan on using it strictly for self-defense, don't go with a competition trigger as it is a hair trigger.

 

I have to disagree with that.  I have carried the G17 as a duty weapon for 18 years.  We had the NY Trigger for about ten of those years.  When the office relented and let us go back to factory triggers overall marksmanship improved.  NY triggers created more problems then they helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, what it does show is that in a country with strongly regulated firearms control there is a small number of firearm related incidents and a low death to incident ratio.  But where there is light firearm regulation and large gun ownership the incidents of gun related incidents  and deaths goes through the roof!  10K plus deaths from firearms a year does seem to be a problem that no one in the US seems to want to sort out, and to me that is very sad.

I'm sensing a lack of charity here, LDG.  Did you honestly just accuse everyone in the US of not wanting to deal with 10k deaths in our own back yard?  Seriously?

 

Short answer - it isn't that simple.

 

Long answer - Sitting back and clucking your tongue sadly at us from your obviously superior position in a country with low firearm deaths, eh?  It might make for a self-satisfying experience.  But if you're actually interested in being part of a solution, I'd suggest dumping the blanket condemnation, taking yourself off your pedestal, and opening yourself up to a different viewpoint.  Folks in the US are quite passionately engaged in this issue, myself included.  Consider reading some of John Lott's work.  Then come back and we can have a real discussion.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sensing a lack of charity here, LDG.  Did you honestly just accuse everyone in the US of not wanting to deal with 10k deaths in our own back yard?  Seriously?

 

Short answer - it isn't that simple.

 

Long answer - Sitting back and clucking your tongue sadly at us from your obviously superior position in a country with low firearm deaths, eh?  It might make for a self-satisfying experience.  But if you're actually interested in being part of a solution, I'd suggest dumping the blanket condemnation, taking yourself off your pedestal, and opening yourself up to a different viewpoint.  Folks in the US are quite passionately engaged in this issue, myself included.  Consider reading some of John Lott's work.  Then come back and we can have a real discussion.

 

Not at all, I'm an outsider looking in, and all I see is those who look for some kind of solution to the gun problems you have being squashed under the weight of the gun lobby.  When appalling incidents like Dunblane happened in the UK the public outpouring of outrage that this should never happen again was universal.  I don't see that happening in the US, even after many such incidents happening over a long period of time, after the initial shock the gun lobby swoops in and takes over the show.  

And as someone posted above that we Brits didn't go through the frontier mentality of the 19th Century, that may be true but then its no longer the 19th Century and you don't have to face any of those problems any more.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, I'm an outsider looking in, and all I see is those who look for some kind of solution to the gun problems you have being squashed under the weight of the gun lobby.  When appalling incidents like Dunblane happened in the UK the public outpouring of outrage that this should never happen again was universal.  I don't see that happening in the US, even after many such incidents happening over a long period of time, after the initial shock the gun lobby swoops in and takes over the show.  

And as someone posted above that we Brits didn't go through the frontier mentality of the 19th Century, that may be true but then its no longer the 19th Century and you don't have to face any of those problems any more.  

 

If you're gonna be someone looking in, you need better spectacles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a scientist and engineer one of my greatest concerns about society and life in general is the desire by many that are ignorant about a particular subject that think they are qualified to make rational decisions about that particular subject.  All this is reminiscent of the high school student sitting in an algebra class concerning about the validity and use of mathematics, that they so obviously do not understand.  Besides, such often rationalize that mathematics is only used by nerds and who in their right mind would want to be a nerd expert in and unrestricted in the use of mathematics?

 

I have long been a proponent of education.  I believe that every person capable of learning should be taught as part of their complete education how to use and care for a gun.  Like every other educational disciplines there are correct ways and incorrect way to apply our education (or what we learn).  For example many that learn to use language – misuse language.  What I have noticed about guns is that the more someone is learned and expert with the proper use of guns the more they believe that anyone (without a criminal record or critical disability) should have unrestricted access to guns.  The more uneducated or inexperienced a person is concerning guns the more likely they seem to fall into the category of wanting various levels of restrictive access to guns by law abiding citizens – and the amount or restrictions they want for law abiding citizens seems to be proportional to their ignorance.  I do allow for some exception in this but I must confess; I have yet to actually meet one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in debating this topic. I stand firm in not wanting them around. And I'm not only concerned about criminals, but the innocent that are hurt or killed from a firearm being accessible. Too many home accidents lately, here in the US, where a toddler or teen gets their hands on their parents' firearms and someone is hurt or killed. I don't care whose fault it is - child or parent - one accident/fatality is one too many. Don't like them around.

 

Just a side note my dear friend Bini:  While working for a while in the Phoenix area I was most concerning about the sheer numbers of drownings there (in the USA it is about 3 1/2 thousand children under 14 per year).  My concern is not so much their access to water as it is the lack of education of children concerning water - ie; swimming.   My kids were taught to swim starting at age about 6 months. 

 

in comparison I have been unable to find reliable statistics for accidental and/or intentional killing of children by guns under the age of 14.  I suspect that it is much less than with water.  It is interesting that over 60% of deaths by firearm in the USA are from suicide?

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a teacher and an educationalist I've found that as the standards in learning and education rise the more the revulsion of and the the need/want to own a weapon diminishes. Why would  a law abiding and well educated person want to own something that has one sole intended purpose, to kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone starts talking about absolute numbers in two countries with vastly different populations it makes me immediately believe they are being intentially misleading.

Comparing the UK and the USA in non-per capita numbers is silly at best and deceitful at the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps because even law abiding and well-educated persons need to defend their lives on occasion.

 

Or hunt. The debate tends to surround pistols which generally aren't used for hunting, but if we're talking about guns something like a Remington Model 700 is generally directed at game not people. Also, even if we are talking about pistols only, a competition pistol isn't intended to kill, they're intended to hit targets. Sure a match grade pistol can be used to kill, but that isn't their intended purpose. I'm ignoring recreational purposes for owning a gun as those doing recreational shooting usually grab a gun designed for killing or competition for that purpose.

 

Also, I wonder if LDSG feels the same way about owning a bow. The purpose behind owning a bow maps rather well with the purposes behind owning a gun. Killing (admittedly not usually in self defense), competing, or recreation.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone starts talking about absolute numbers in two countries with vastly different populations it makes me immediately believe they are being intentially misleading.

Comparing the UK and the USA in non-per capita numbers is silly at best and deceitful at the worst.

 

Ok lets look at that then:

 

UK (2010) 0.25 per 100,000

US (2011) 10.25 per 100,000

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or hunt. The debate tends to surround pistols which generally aren't used for hunting, but if we're talking about guns something like a Remington Model 700 is generally directed at game not people. Also, even if we are talking about pistols only, a competition pistol isn't intended to kill, they're intended to hit targets. Sure a match grade pistol can be used to kill, but that isn't their intended purpose. I'm ignoring recreational purposes for owning a gun as those doing recreational shooting usually grab a gun designed for killing or competition for that purpose.

 

Also, I wonder if LDSG feels the same way about owning a bow. The purpose behind owning a bow maps rather well with the purposes behind owning a gun. Killing (admittedly not usually in self defense), competing, or recreation.

 

I guess that's another area that the UK and the US differs on, hunting.  Bloodsports (other than fishing) are seen as brutal and inhumane to animals in the UK.  Target shooting does happen but not with pistols as they are banned.  Archery is a minority sport and we have on occasion done it as part of the PE curriculum in the school I work at, but then I don't believe there is any regulations or checks put in place for bow ownership in then UK (afaik).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are tools. If they become abused I don't have anything against their restriction, I don't have anything against responsible ownership either.

Lack of weapon education combined with their glorification in just about every form of entertainment is a problem. How much so I don't know, but i'd wager it's more than what the gaming and movie industry says.

Either way, most of the logic i see used on facebook on either side makes me cringe.



personally i'd go for the 150mm variety and have a few thousand acres to throw shells around on.... were I the ruler of the world or at least a multi-billionare....
Barring that I wouldn't mind for a Calico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm 47 and live in what is considered a rough part of the city and I've had to defend myself once, I didn't need a gun to do that. 

 

So therefore, no other law-abiding and well-educated person could ever possibly need a gun for self-defense.

 

Even in Great Britain, that logic doesn't fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's another area that the UK and the US differs on, hunting.  Bloodsports (other than fishing) are seen as brutal and inhumane to animals in the UK. 

 

If we're talking trophy hunting I'm inclined to agree, if we're talking hunting to put food on the table then terming it bloodsport is needlessly emotive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a teacher and an educationalist I've found that as the standards in learning and education rise the more the revulsion of and the the need/want to own a weapon diminishes. Why would  a law abiding and well educated person want to own something that has one sole intended purpose, to kill.

Standards and learning on the rise you say....according to whose standards? My wife is a Principle at a high school, taught math for 16 years and authored two series of math text books and she would likely greatly disagree with you as would I.

 

As far as gun ownership goes...I do not hunt or kill but enjoy shooting and also am thrilled by the freedom to own guns and have the ability to defend my self and family as well as being part of the intended purpose of the right to bear arms which is to defend ourselves against tyranny and oppressive government.( like England which we whooped  a couple of times)

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standards and learning on the rise you say....according to whose standards? My wife is a Principle at a high school, taught math for 16 years and authored two series of math text books and she would likely greatly disagree with you as would I.

 

As far as gun ownership goes...I do not hunt or kill but enjoy shooting and also am thrilled by the freedom to own guns and have the ability to defend my self and family as well as being part of the intended purpose of the right to bear arms which is to defend ourselves against tyranny and oppressive government.( like England which whooped a couple of times and bailed out another couple)

Who's standards? The standards of the the individual of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking trophy hunting I'm inclined to agree, if we're talking hunting to put food on the table then terming it bloodsport is needlessly emotive.

If we're talking trophy hunting I'm inclined to agree, if we're talking hunting to put food on the table then terming it bloodsport is needlessly emotive.

That is just label that is attached to any activity that results in the death of an animal in the UK, even fishing is classed as a blood sport in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I am somewhat conflicted over the whole gun issue.  I consider myself somewhat educated and somewhat expert in firearms.  I qualified as an expert marksman with the M14 while serving in the US Army.  For those that know much about the M14 – qualifying with that rifle as an expert is almost impossible.  And as a civilization I am a very excellent marksman with my grandfather’s old Winchester 25-35 with an octagon barrel and buckhorn sights in the 100 to 200 yard range.

 

At the same time it has been many years since I have fired a firearm.  As to keeping guns out of criminal hands – I would wager that I could go into Latter Days Guy’s home and construct a gun that was reasonably accurate within 50 yards from stuff available in his home.  For those that want a gun, especially a pistol for protection – how to you protect your family if someone(s) have broken into your house armed and intending to do your family harm?  Especially how do you protect your family with a pistol?

 

Also for the record – I do not consider being able to fill out answers to questions on a piece of paper as being educated.  I know many teachers over reach the concept of education to class room responses.  But I do not consider a surgeon educated that has not stitched up a human incision, nor a mechanic educated that has never taken apart an engine and put it back together, nor even a teacher as educated that has never presented an idea before a class of students.  In the case of guns I do not consider a person educated in firearms and specifically rifles that cannot place a round in a 5 inch circle at 100 yards.  In short I do not believe information constitutes education.  Information may be an element of education but it is not anywhere near a complete education.  For example – anyone that thinks that the only reason for a firearm is to kill – obviously is neither well educated nor expert concerning firearms. 

 

For example in Utah – even during deer hunting season – more deer are killed by automobiles than by guns.  Also a true expert and well educated individual concerning firearms would know that a valid purpose of a gun can be a deterrent to killing.  The difference is in the training, education (not just class room education but field training) and disposition of the individual with a gun and that if a person is never educated in how a gun can deter violence and killing – it is quite possible that they may not believe such an idea is even possible.   

 

I would ask my friends in the UK – why does their country possess a nuclear device and why have such a weapon?  Also the last time I visited London I observed men armed with automatic rifles in the airport.  Is the only possible reason is because in the UK they are educated and the only purpose, because of their education, is to kill?  It must be very frustrating to everyone in the UK to legally possess such weapons then have to go to bed at night without having killed someone.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share