Do you shoot?

[Perinquus]

lets say somebody breaks into a house and the owner has a gun. the owner takes his gun aims it at the robber and the robber shoots the owner. this wouldn´t have happened if the owner hadnt had a gun.
or the owner takes his gun and shoots the robber.
both ways are pointless deaths as well as crimes, since they would have been (very probably) avoided if there had been no guns involved.

I just love how you put the onus squarely on the owner, who is engaged in the lawful defense of his home, as opposed to the criminal shitbag who's breaking the law. In any case, being unarmed before an armed man is absolutely no guarantee of safety. FBI crime statistics show that are more likely to be killed or injured if you remain passive than if you resist with a firearm. There are criminals out there who enjoy hurting people, and they will hurt you no matter how passive and compliant you are. They do it primarily because it gives them a sense of power. Here's an example of what I mean. It's an extreme example, I grant you, but it's a true story:

...in unglamorous Wichita, Kansas, the eight-week trial of Jonathan and Reginald Carr came to a close. The brothers were found guilty of four counts of capital murder, along with numerous charges of rape, aggravated robbery, burglary, and theft, committed during an unspeakably brutal killing spree in December 2000.


The perpetrators were black. The victims-including friends Jason Befort, Heather Muller, Bradley Heyka and Aaron Sander-were white. The Carrs were convicted of murdering these four young people, execution-style, on a frozen soccer field after a night of terror in Befort, Heyka, and Sander's townhouse. After breaking into the residence, the Carrs forced Muller and Jason Befort's unnamed fiancé to perform sexual acts on each other; the men were then forced to participate. Next, the Carrs raped the women, drove all five victims to an ATM machine, forced them to withdraw money from their accounts, and headed to the soccer field.


The five victims were forced to kneel in the snow and beg for their lives before sustaining gunshots to the head. The Carrs then ran over their victims with their truck. Befort's fiancé miraculously survived. She walked more than a mile, bleeding and naked, in the snow, before finding help.

This paragraph is taken from a November 8, 2002 article by Michelle Malkin.

These days, if you meekly submit, and comply with every command the bad guy gives you, you may come out of it okay, or you may be in for an experience that would be right out of your worst nightmare. It's a crap shoot. Thanks all the same, but I'll retain as much control as I possibly can over my fate. I don't intend to live or die entirely at the whim of some murderous piece of human filth.

Let's also consider something in your hypothetical break in scenario. It's actually unlikely to happen in the United States as you describe it. Why is that? precisely because many American are armed. Another great number from the FBI crme statistics is the number 13% - it describes the percentage of burglaries that occur while the homeowner is in the house. We cops call these "home invasions". The reason they are only 13% is that criminals fear being shot. I am not speculating about this. Gary Kleck, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, wrote a book called "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" and interviewed convicted felons. The number one reason those convicted of burglary give for targeting unoccupied homes was fear of being shot by the homeowners.

Contrast this with England where, according to the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly 50% of burglaries are of the home invasion type. England has also surpassed us in its rate of robberies, assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. And the English crime rate has been rising while the U.S. rate has been falling. In 1998 the mugging rate in England was 40% higher than in the U.S., furthermore, assault and burglary rates were nearly 100% higher in England than in the United States.

A similar rise in crime rates is also being observed in Australia where, in 1996, in the wake of a mass shooting, the Australian government seized more than 640,000 guns from its citizens. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the next two years, armed robbery rose by 73%, unarmed robbery by 28%, kidnaping by 38%, assault by 17% and manslaughter by 29%.

So you see, the issue is not quite as simple as "ban the guns and the crime will go away". It even looks as though numbers of armed citizens among the populace serve as a deterrent to criminals - or do you have another explanation for the fact that 37 American states have made it easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed weapons permits, starting with Florida in 1987, and all have observed falling rates of violent crime since enacting the new CCW laws?

[Perinquus]

A moderator really ought to split these last several pages off, as things have gotten rather off topic here.

[Nathan F]

Yeah, might be a good idea to split this off into a separate gun control thread. Oh, BTW, where did you get that article? I have read that somewhere else...

The Brits have really screwed up when it comes to their gun control, what with the explosion in crime. Can't even own a friggen handgun and it is hard as heck to own a shotgun or target rifle, yet some of the worlds finest and most beautiful firearms come from them...

[Perinquus]

Yeah, might be a good idea to split this off into a separate gun control thread. Oh, BTW, where did you get that article? I have read that somewhere else...

The Brits have really screwed up when it comes to their gun control, what with the explosion in crime. Can't even own a friggen handgun and it is hard as heck to own a shotgun or target rifle, yet some of the worlds finest and most beautiful firearms come from them...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michel ... chives.asp

scroll down to the listing for 11/08/02

[Slartibartfast]

I collect and shoot "air soft guns". Well collect is a bit strong, I buy them once in a while. Only the cheap ones though... In dollars, they are about $3 each.

[Dargos]

Brit, I take it?

Anyone ever do any competition shooting?

German. You can get a license here (not a total ban like in GB) but it's difficult to say the least.
It is possible to buy deactivated guns without license but the prices are horrible and you're not allowed to import them. (Otherwise I'd already have a AKMS hanging on the wall)

Come on Capt. Frank, its not THAT hard, just do a little studying. I passed my tests on the first try and I'm an AMERICAN (yes the tests were in German, no english translations, and I took the one for sport shooting and the one from the IHK Schweinfurt for Security Servicies(the one alowing you to carry firearms in public do to job specifications)
It wasn't hard.

[RedImperator]

Speaking of hijacking, I don't think I ever answered the thread's original question. Yes, I shoot, when I'm down in North Carolina, though it mostly consists of blowing up soda cans on tree stumps, rather than shooting in a range.

hehehe, ever shot one with a .45-70 at close range? or a watermelon, for that matter?

WHABOOM

Seriously, my father and I were shooting his .45-70 that has ported barrels to help with recoil and I was standing about 5 feet away to his side and I could literally FEEL the concussion from the pressure leaving the tiny ports in the barrel. That, my friend, is pure, untethered, POWER, only surpassed by some heavy safari magnums (.375 H&H Magnum, .416 Weatherby Magnum, etc.) and the .50 BMG.)

Fill them with water, then fire a .44 caliber hollowpoint into them. Like a stick of dynamite going off.

[Nathan F]

OOHH, sounds like fun

[Utsanomiko]

It is. I used a couple while breaking in my Winchester model 70. They'll shoot up about 30 feet in the air if you hit them right. plastic one-gallon milk jugs filled with water are fun too, but they simply explode. But even with a scope, it's hard as hell to put one right where you want it at 120 feet. Whoever said throwing darts at a couple of feet took more skill obviously has only fired guns in Halflife or Quake.

[RedImperator]

OOHH, sounds like fun

It is, and it really illustrates the difference between different caliber weapons and different types of rounds. A .22 will punch a hole through it and drain the water out. There's a neat little entrance hole and a messier exit hole with shredded metal and the like. A .357 will blow it mostly in half--about 2/3 of the can's material shredded. A .44 blows it totally to pieces. I've never tried this experiment with an unopened, pressurized can of soda, mostly because I'm not sure how far the fragments might fly. I've been dying to try it with a rifle.

[Peregrin Toker]

I have tried, but I'm apparently the worst shot in Scandinavia who isn't blind.

[Nathan F]

It is. I used a couple while breaking in my Winchester model 70. They'll shoot up about 30 feet in the air if you hit them right. plastic one-gallon milk jugs filled with water are fun too, but they simply explode. But even with a scope, it's hard as hell to put one right where you want it at 120 feet. Whoever said throwing darts at a couple of feet took more skill obviously has only fired guns in Halflife or Quake.

What caliber Model 70 do you have? I have a .30-06 Pre-64 my uncle gave me.

hehe, ever tried shooting one of those Foam Sealer cans with a rifle? That is interesting to watch blow up, although a bit expensive if you use a new one.

[Nathan F]

Yeah, might be a good idea to split this off into a separate gun control thread. Oh, BTW, where did you get that article? I have read that somewhere else...

The Brits have really screwed up when it comes to their gun control, what with the explosion in crime. Can't even own a friggen handgun and it is hard as heck to own a shotgun or target rifle, yet some of the worlds finest and most beautiful firearms come from them...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michel ... chives.asp

scroll down to the listing for 11/08/02

I KNEW I had seen that name and article somewhere. She rights stuff for my school news paper, of all things, and that article was in it.

[Rob Wilson]

A handgun isn't remotely comparable to a flamethrower, as it's virtually guaranteed to cause collateral damage. As Sea Skimmer pointed out, a handgun is the only weapon of reasonable size that doesn't rely on the physical skills or attributes of the holder. If I'm facing someone who's armed, or swings a baseball bat better than I do, or knows martial arts, or is simply faster and stronger than I am, I'm at a major disadvantage holding anything but a pistol.

ah, so your advocating handguns because they require a lack of skill, are you sure you want to pursue that line of reasoning? You may want to reword that argument.

What takes more skill? Neutralizing an intruder in hand to hand combat, combat with melee weapons, or with a pistol? "No skills" was bad wording on my part.

Which is why I asked if you wanted to reword it rather than jumping all over it. Anyway, now that you have, back to the debate.

Obviously, it takes some skill to properly use a pistol, but nothing like what other forms of self defense require. And unless you're so weak you can't hold a pistol at eye level or your nerves are so bad you can't keep a man-sized target lined up at close range, a pistol neutralizes the defender's physical disadvantages. This is especially true for women, who would more likely be smaller than the intruder (given as the vast majority are male).

You're presuming the woman is in a position to defend herself, or even be in a state to do so (I know guys that would panic if attacked, how would the average woman react do you think?). Just giving someone a gun doesn't mean they will be able to use it. My 18 year old cousin was attacked late at night, the man was bigger than her, an stronger - she put him in hospital, blind in one eye and only 10% vision in the other. It took her less than a second using what I had taught her. He had attacked her from the rear, held a knife to her throat and forced her off the path. He led her to bushes and then made the mistake of taking the knife away while he pulled her knockers down, she pushed her fore and index fingers into his eyesockets and then got up and ran, as he stabbed himself in the face when he brought his hands up to his face in reaction. At no time would a handgun have helped her as her bag was left where he snatched her and her trousers were pulled down first (placing a holster out of reach). If she hadn't known any effective self-defence and relied on a gun she would have been raped. As it was the assaillant is no permanently disabled and will not be atacking nyone else again. Guns are not a panacea for women being attacked, they are a false security.

As to the Flamethrower and guaranteed collateral damage, you have the same risk of collateral damage from a Handgun. The round going through the other guy and harming others or, if we pursue your "don't need skill" arguement, the shooter missing their target altogether and pumping out rounds all over the place in panic. The right to defend yourself, does not guarentee you the right to carry firearm, anymore than it guarente's you the right to have any other weapon of war. "Yes officer, I'm carrying this battle axe for self-defence."

Are you seriously suggesting a 9mm pistol round has the same capacity for accidental injury, death, and property damage as a 30 foot jet of flaming gasoline?

In untrained, frightened hands, most definitely. A flamethrower has to hit a target for a time period to do serious damage unless it hits the head or torso, a pistol round is exactly the same - or rather it just needs to hit to do serious damage.

Anyway the point remains that the right to self-defence doesn't mean you have the right to use lethal force unless the situation demands it. Again try and walk down the street with aready to use Battle Axe and see how long the police let you keep it.

If he's kicking your door in, i doubt he's too worried about whether he wakes you or not, that tends to mean he has a weapon and will be ready to use it. Your better of escaping the house and calling the police than starting a gun battle in your house.

Or he's assuming I'm unarmed, as the majority of households are. And I live on the second floor with a concrete patio below the window and only one stairway down. "Escaping the house" is likely to break my ankle, or worse, while the sound of drawing the slide back on a 9mm would probably be enough to send the intruder on his merry way.

You want to guarntee he'll run ? i recommend you buy a security light with an IR sensor, you can even hook it up to a Light in the spare room with a start delay timer of say 2 seconds and a deactivation timer of say 10 minutes and he'll never even enter your house in the first place. And as a bonus you don't even have to get up in the middle of the night. Look, no firearms needed.

This is hardly a guarantee. It'll scare off the more skittish ones, but it takes a certain amount of bravado to enter someone else's home uninvited in the middle of the night to begin with. As Shep pointed out, IR detectors are easy to recognize, and even if you can't find the detector, what's to stop someone from setting the sensor off, running to hide in he bushes, watching the house for any activity, and then when the light goes off, approaching the door again to see if the light goes on at the exact same moment it did previously? Most people know there are devices that turn lights on when people approach an entry way. Putting the light inside the house while the detector stays outside is a clever variation, but it's by no means foolproof.[/quote]

Again we come to th fact that someone that breaks into a house with possible signs of people inside at the time, isn't worried about those people. That tends to mean he's armed and he doesn't care if you are. So agian, your having a firearm won't stop him, and in the case where the lights scare them off, your having a firearm or not is no longer a factor. So why have a firearm in the house if it's of absolutely no practical use?

Incedently, this has probably been the most civil debate on gun control I've ever been involved in, and it's still getting nowhere. I think what it's coming down to is that Britons, Canadians, the rest of the Commonwealth, and Americans all simply have different philosophies and attitudes about the issue, and it's not going to be settled between them no matter how long they debate about it.

Not just Americans, my best friend and I debate the merits of gun ownership all the time, he advocates them - I sinply don't see the need for them. I'm used to it, at least you never trotted out that old saw about the Swiss. I work in Switzerland whenever I contract abroad, and I have yet to see anyone but a Policeman have a firearm in Public. Hell, they keep most of their Hobby weapons at the Gun ranges in Lockers (because they use them, there so why bring them home?). And they have Assault Rifles in the house, because they are trained Soldiers, who keep their weapons locked away, and know how to use them if they need to.

Anyway, the whole replica thing can be dropped as it's sidetracking from the main point (unless you want to reinstate it - in which case please feel free to copy/paste her straight back in).

[Rob Wilson]

Gee, is that a position in favour of guns??

Just ignore him Keevan, he knows I won't even read his posts anymore, let alone answer them. So this is his chance to score some cheap points without ever having to get them refuted. I don't doubt he's also making silly snide comments about gun laws or other countries rather than real points. You're better off debating people that will actually make cogent points and rational arguments.

[Rob Wilson]

Maybe I'll post one next weekend. They don't show off the gun that much, though. This one is really close, though minus the sling:

Actually that does have the sling.

Bloody decent sling at that, shame about the apparent quality of th mounts for it. What's the scope?

[Rob Wilson]

What moral objection is there to a deactivated firearm? Especially when it's being used purely decoratively. It's a lump of metal and wood, somehow i doubt it objects one way or the other.

I hate the idea of taking a perfectly good firearm, that might give its owner a great deal of enjoyment at the range, and cutting it up so that it will no longer function. The kind of weapon you would hang up on your wall is not the kind that is in any way likely to be used in a crime (not too many drive by shootings or convenience store robberies with WWI-era bolt action rifles, or Brown Bess muskets). There is only one reason such weapons get "deactivated": hoplophobia.

Actually it's deactivated because it's now a decorative piece, no real need to shoot them . It wasn't cut up, rather the barrel has a Lead plug (about 6") melted in just aft of the muzzle. And it awas an abandned weapon which otherwise would have been scrapped, it's been restored and is waiting for a new owner to display it. Weapons are deactivated because there's no other use for them, other than scrap - which would you rather they underwent?

[Utsanomiko]

You missread me, Bobbykins . I said mine looks like that one I found floating on the net, but mine doesn't have a sling.

Don't know the model, just know it's a .243 and was knew when I got it last summer. And like I said, I forget the name of the scope, i'd either have to check it on the weekend or find a list of higher-end manufacterers to jog my memory.

[Rob Wilson]

You missread me, Bobbykins . I said mine looks like that one I found floating on the net, but mine doesn't have a sling.

Pity, it's a quaity looking sling, damned useful to if properly utilized.
Oh and I really hate being called Bob - take a guess at how well Bobbykins gets recieved.

[Utsanomiko]

Um, better than "Bobby-sqiggledink?

Anywho, I might consider a sling someways down the rode, sinse they really do rock. They're not totally my thing, though, so maybe not.

Maybe if/when I get another rifle. Martini single-shot drop actions totally make me wild, so that might be one to get a sling for.

...Or does my dad have a .22 long-rifle BSA with a sling? It's hard to keep track of all of his...

[Rob Wilson]

Fucking ISP is updating it's servers so I lost connection there for about 40 minutes - anyway, on the subject of Salms post - I'll admit I read it the way the Americans did at first, but I remembered your posting in a foriegn language so I figured you'd correct yourself when asked.

I should point out, that it is not Europe V America on opinions, ther are plenty of people i Britain, France, Germany and Spain that will argue for Gun ownership. I personally have no problem with people target shooting (I don't recognise that there is any skill involved - but then why should that disallow people from doing it?), as the guns can be secured in the range, however I see no reason for having a gun in the house, nor for having one on your person.

On the Switzerland matter, perhaps you should either ask someone that lives there, or someone that spends a lot of time there before making apocryphal arguments regarding it's gun laws and how they handle ownership. If you walked down the street with an assault rifle in your hands in Geneva you would find yourself surrounded by policemen pointing their assault rifles at you (and they aren't just police, they have all had military training in the use of those weapons and are not afraid to use them!). Read my statement on it to redimperator and also keep in mind that all weapons must be correctly stowed and secured during transport and that the police do not tolerate lax gun handling or carriage.

Perinquus has posted a link on the Swiss, but remember to supplement it with firsthand info if you can (it'll clear up a host of mis-conceptions for you, and there's no such thing as too much research ).

Right, I'll probably get back to this tomorrow.

[Rob Wilson]

Anywho, I might consider a sling someways down the rode, sinse they really do rock. They're not totally my thing, though, so maybe not.

Maybe if/when I get another rifle. Martini single-shot drop actions totally make me wild, so that might be one to get a sling for.

...Or does my dad have a .22 long-rifle BSA with a sling? It's hard to keep track of all of his...

Make sure you know how to use it to it's full advantage, get something practical with plenty of strong connections and stitching. You don't want anything too wide and remember that the sling is not there to carry the weapon, it's an aid to aiming and so is never needed to be connected to the rear sling swivel.

[Darth Wong]

Perinquus, why did you write that Rob's break-in scenario is unlikely to happen in the US, and then give us an example of just such a horrible event from Kansas, which (unless my memory of geography is seriously distorted) happens to be in the US?

If several armed men burst into your house with the intent of killing you, you're dead. If you're a responsible gun owner, your gun and ammo are locked up for safety reasons. You certainly don't want your kids mucking around with a loaded weapon, right? So in order to get your gun, you have to run upstairs, fumble with the combination lock, get your ammo out, then do the same for the gun, then load it. It doesn't seem all that airtight to me.

As for guns vs crime, I agree that we can't just say guns cause crime. However, I find it rather odd that people who see the illogic behind "guns cause crime" so easily can then turn around and spout the opposite: the guns reduce crime. And amazingly enough, they use many of the same goofy statistical correlations used by their opposite numbers to prove the opposite point! Are both sides so susceptible to selective logic?

The problem with the United States and gun violence (which, like it or not, is far, far greater than it is in most first-world nations) is not so much guns themselves as the underlying culture of societal mistrust, contempt for those less fortunate, and seemingly intractable social inequalities. That culture fosters resentment and causes crime, while simultaneously producing the desire for guns. It is not so much that one causes the other; it's that both are caused by the same underlying problem: a society that lives and dies by the credo: "looking out for number one."

As for the original topic, I've never fired a gun, and I don't feel the need to carry one around with me for protection. But I'm not a bleeding-heart anti-gun type. I would certainly be interested in learning how to shoot one sometime, although the cost of buying the gun, getting a license etc. have kept me from ever acting on this idle curiosity.

[Nathan F]

If several armed men burst into your house with the intent of killing you, you're dead. If you're a responsible gun owner, your gun and ammo are locked up for safety reasons. You certainly don't want your kids mucking around with a loaded weapon, right? So in order to get your gun, you have to run upstairs, fumble with the combination lock, get your ammo out, then do the same for the gun, then load it. It doesn't seem all that airtight to me.

First off, they make small gunsafes that can be stored bedside that can be quickly opened due to an electronic combination lock that is easily openable in the dark. Secondly, if several armed men burst into your home with the intent on killing you, and if you are already dead, why not take some of the SOBs with you? If you are trained in how to effectively use your firearm, then you would actually have a chance. You would already know your house and know places where you could take cover while still being able to fire.

As for guns vs crime, I agree that we can't just say guns cause crime. However, I find it rather odd that people who see the illogic behind "guns cause crime" so easily can then turn around and spout the opposite: the guns reduce crime. And amazingly enough, they use many of the same goofy statistical correlations used by their opposite numbers to prove the opposite point! Are both sides so susceptible to selective logic?

I agree, both sides would be susceptible to selective logic, as in ANY debate. But it is clear that criminals will get their hands on guns whether or not they are outlawed or not. Look at drugs, they are outlawed, but does that stop people from getting them? No. Same goes for anything else illegal. They are criminals, they don't care if they would be breaking laws. If guns ARE legal, then it just levels the playing field against them.

The problem with the United States and gun violence (which, like it or not, is far, far greater than it is in most first-world nations) is not so much guns themselves as the underlying culture of societal mistrust, contempt for those less fortunate, and seemingly intractable social inequalities. That culture fosters resentment and causes crime, while simultaneously producing the desire for guns. It is not so much that one causes the other; it's that both are caused by the same underlying problem: a society that lives and dies by the credo: "looking out for number one."

Ah, the common 'Gun Culture' debate. Name a country that doesn't have the credo "Looking out for number one." It is common human nature, they call it self preservation. I thought you would know that, what with your debates with evolution and survival of the fittest. Also, once you get the number of cities with the density that the US has, you are bound to have high crime rates. I cannt think of another country that has the amount of large cities that the US does.

As for the original topic, I've never fired a gun, and I don't feel the need to carry one around with me for protection. But I'm not a bleeding-heart anti-gun type. I would certainly be interested in learning how to shoot one sometime, although the cost of buying the gun, getting a license etc. have kept me from ever acting on this idle curiosity.

Good for you. It is a fun, safe, and entertaining sport. I would recommend recreational shooting to ANYONE. Shooting is one of the safest sports around. You are much less likely to be hurt at the range than on the basketball court or baseball field. Shooting also encourages discipline, patience, and eye/hand coordination among children, so long as it is properly supervised by a trained adult. I can understand that you might not want to own a gun for personal protection, but, you must realize that other people DO.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Hmm...then you need more lax gun laws to not restrict people's mild interest in guns!

But seriously, it is because one needs a license and all of that bullshit before one can legally own a gun that discourages people from owning it. I agree that if someone breaks into one's house, and that person is nowhere near his or her gun, that person is pretty much fucked. However, what if one was near the gun? It could save that person's life.

Would it be better to make it harder for people to have the chance to save their lives or would it be better to let people have the chance to save their lives? So what if it doesn't lower the crime rate? At least it is increasing the chances citizens have at defending themselves.

Now I know that none of these points were addressed by Mike, and I don't have the intention of putting words in his mouth. I am just pointing out to people in general the benefit of owning a firearm.