Guns gave us a civilized society

[Avatar4321]

No wonder you don't like guns, you don't want the people you go up against to stand up to you.

I don't care if someone has a gun or not.

I prefer not to put myself in situations where people want to shoot me.

I tend to agree that it's wise not to put oneself in a situation where someone wants to shoot me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They prevented people from invading his house and lynching him, which allowed him to use reason to sway the debate. Seems like evidence to support my premise, not disprove it.

Then again, you think my premise is about the guns, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to show how many people did not use them.

Well, it might just be me, but isn't this the "gun" thread?

And isn't the OP trying to say that something made for destruction of humans, is civilized?

It is just you, this is the thread about how we used a tool to overcome people who thought might makes right. If you don't believe me, feel free to go back and read about how I was very careful not to say the things you think I said.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is just you, this is the thread about how we used a tool to overcome people who thought might makes right. If you don't believe me, feel free to go back and read about how I was very careful not to say the things you think I said.

Guns are not a tool. A hammer is a tool.

A tool is something that can be used to construct something.

Guns were invented to destroy things.

 

[PaulS1950]

No wonder you don't like guns, you don't want the people you go up against to stand up to you.

I don't care if someone has a gun or not.

I prefer not to put myself in situations where people want to shoot me.

I tend to agree that it's wise not to put oneself in a situation where someone wants to shoot me.

Well, I am almost positive that the people in that Aurora movie complex did not think they were putting themselves in a position where someone would want to shoot them. It was, after all, a "GUN FREE" zone. Since schools are also "GUN FREE" zones it is a near certainty that none of the 6 adults and none of the 20 children that were killed and none of the injured were thinking that they were putting themselves in the position of getting shot.

There have been people shot while walking from one building to another - no apparent motive other than for some gang-banger to earn his tag in a gang.

You can't go or stay anywhere for more than a few hours that you can't be shot. You still have to go to the store - remember the mall shooting? - or to work or someplace every day. Even if you could stay home you are still in danger of being shot.
You can claim the right to defend yourself or you can choose to be a victim. Most only get to make that choice once, so choose wisely.

Honestly, I don't think most people should consider having a gun. They wouldn't be able to use it in a real life and death situation anyway. They wouldn't practice with it or enjoy shooting it - so why have it at all?

I shoot for relaxation. I enjoy meeting good people on the range and becoming good friends. There are some who are not "my kind of folks" and there are others that I would consider reckless and dangerous, so I stay away from them. I also hunt. Wild game is healthier than comercially raised meat, it gets me into the woods, far from anyone else and I enjoy communing with nature. For me, hunting is a spiritual activity. The game must give itself freely to me before I will shoot. I am not the best hunter but I have probably passed up more game than I have shot because of my philosophy.
I have been in competition shooting for a couple of years but after a while it became too politicized for me and I quit - holding the tie for the record at the range.
Would I shoot a perp in a senario happening in a real world situation? I don't know, there are too many variables that have to be evaluated at the time. If someone breaks into my house I would attempt to hold them for the police but I fully believe that I could shoot in those circumstances to protect myself and my wife from harm and to prevent the perp from doing the same thing to anyone else. Would I kill them? More than likely. I would shoot to the middle of the central mass as I have practiced and with a 12 guage shotgun at that range it would be unlikely that the perp would be alive when the police arrived. After shooting I would stay back from my target - apart from it being a person - and wait for the police to determine if he needed an ambulance or the coroner's wagon. I may even need to get some anger counselling but it would not keep me from doing the same thing again if it became necessary. I would hire someone to come in and clean up the mess because I would do everything possible to keep the perp a "target" and not a person.

You might be asking yourself "why anger counselling"? My answer is this; I would be angry that the perp made me terminate a life, angry that he made me the shooter.
In 41 years of concealed carry I have only had to draw my gun once - and that was on a threatening animal. I surprised myself in the clarity and sense of presence that I had of the entire situation. Where my target was, what was behind it, what options I had and how it seemed like it was all in slow motion. I trained for situations but usually with a person as the target but it all played out in "autopilot" when the time came. I didn't have to shoot, the animal retreated and so did I but if it had been necessary I knew I was able to pull the trigger to defend myself and not have any collateral damage.
I still carry concealed and I still avoid dangerous places.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is just you, this is the thread about how we used a tool to overcome people who thought might makes right. If you don't believe me, feel free to go back and read about how I was very careful not to say the things you think I said.

Guns are not a tool. A hammer is a tool.

A tool is something that can be used to construct something.

Guns were invented to destroy things.

Guns are a tool, just like axes, saws, and wrecking balls.

 

[FA_Q2]

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

I think you'll find that the reason those areas have stricter gun control is because of the notoriety of their crime statistics.

You are reversing cause and effect. Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats. And you cannot expect those stats to immediately change, especially when you have the mentioned areas surrounded by other areas with practically no gun control. A bit like banning cocaine (if it was legal) in Brazil, and expecting all negative events in the country regarding the drug to stop, when it still borders Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.

We could, however, expect them to change sometime. It has not happened to my knowledge.

I am going to post a copy of something I have been posting on many threads as of late. Around 4 threads have simply died immediately after I post this because there is simply ZERO evidence on your side. One of those threads you were arguing in. this is a bit off topic as guns are not the point and if, in the spirit of the CDZ, QW wants it removed I will remove it. I believe it is pertinent because so many here are trying to curb this into a gun control thread. Face the facts, Gun control does not work and the argument that fewer guns = fewer crimes is a fallacy. You TRY and deflect by stating there were crime waves but the evidence is all over the place and constant. If you were correct, then you should be able to post some actual numbers supporting your contention. Several places for that matter as there are several places showing that you are flat out incorrect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide veriety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Guns are a tool, just like axes, saws, and wrecking balls.

No they're not!

Tools are things you use to build something. To create something that has a positive purpose in someone's life. To construct something.

Guns do not have any other purpose but to kill life. You can't install a new roof with a gun. You can't plow a field with a gun. You can't do anything else with a gun, except that for which it was designed to do. Kill people or predators. Anyway you look at it, it is designed to destroy. That is not a tool. Tools have a dual use, guns do not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Guns are a tool, just like axes, saws, and wrecking balls.

No they're not!

Tools are things you use to build something. To create something that has a positive purpose in someone's life. To construct something.

Guns do not have any other purpose but to kill life. You can't install a new roof with a gun. You can't plow a field with a gun. You can't do anything else with a gun, except that for which it was designed to do. Kill people or predators. Anyway you look at it, it is designed to destroy. That is not a tool. Tools have a dual use, guns do not.

The number of uses of a tool is immaterial.

There are some very specialized tools that only have one use. A gun is a tool.

 

[Ravi]

By the way, the intentional murder rate in the US is 4.2 per 100,000, in the UK it is 1.2 per 100,000. If gun control stopped crime dramatically one would think that the murder rate in a country with 50 to one advantage in gun deaths would be about 50 times higher.

By the way, not only did Columbus not prove the world was round, he was wrong about how big it is.

It's zero in Japan, if you are talking about gun murders.

It is above zero if I am accurate.

Not according to the chart where you got your info on the US and the UK.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Saying we have a gun problem instead of a mental health problem in this country and proposing as a solution banning certain guns is like banning yellow toy trucks because one mentally ill kid beat another to death with one

It's just another symptom of our everyone or no one pathology.

 

[Billo_Really]

The number of uses of a tool is immaterial.

There are some very specialized tools that only have one use. A gun is a tool.

Tools are things we use to make life better.

Guns are things we use to end life.

Their purpose is at opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The number of uses of a tool is immaterial.

There are some very specialized tools that only have one use. A gun is a tool.

Tools are things we use to make life better.

Guns are things we use to end life.

Their purpose is at opposite ends of the spectrum.

My life gets a lot better if someone with a firearm uses it to neutralize a bad guy (or gal). My life also improves immeasurably when I use my firearm to put chow in the freezer. I also gain a feeling of accomplishment when I score well in a shooting competition...that kind of makes me feel better about my life, too.

 

[Koios]

Yes; happy to do so. The contention that we were more civilized due to guns, than the civilizations that spawned the great thinkers who inspired our FF, due to slavery and a privileged class, is absurd since we had both and fucking guns for godsake.

Grow a brain cell and then try using it.

That is not my contention at all, my contention is that guns neutralize force so that reason has a better chance to win the argument. The best example of this is the cold war doctrine of mutually assured destruction. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, and actually expected it to fail at any moment. Instead, because two bitter enemies both knew that they could not win a fight, they talked, and they eventually figured out a way to come together and work toward a common goal for no other reason that force was removed from the equation.

MAD and a gun fight are not even on the same level unless perhaps in a gang war, where your being shot might be avenged by a fellow gang member(s).

A gunfight is IAD (maybe), since one individual will be shot but their destruction is far from assured.

Ridiculous. You should have stuck with your original retort. This is getting more absurd with each post.

And if were likening gun ownership to MAD, let's go hog wild ...

1. We have it now; I shoot and kill you and I might destroy myself (20 years on death row and lethal injection). Our laws preventing misuse, make it mutually likely destruction.

2. Some kook president or general secretary with his/her finger on the button is what we feared most. And some kook killing school kids is very much the same: wants to kill others without regard for their own safety. And here's the rub: we never feared that until we had a PROLIFERATION OF NUKE WEAPONS!!! (noodle on that, within the context of the proliferation of hand guns in America; you might have an epiphany.)

 

[Billo_Really]

My life gets a lot better if someone with a firearm uses it to neutralize a bad guy (or gal). My life also improves immeasurably when I use my firearm to put chow in the freezer. I also gain a feeling of accomplishment when I score well in a shooting competition...that kind of makes me feel better about my life, too.

And if you happen to run into a cop while carrying that firearm, in the brief moments that follow, does your life get better, or worse?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities.

Some towns in the "old west" banned guns from the city limits.

I own guns and would be against an end to the 2nd amendment BUT saying that guns "gave us civilization" is just plain wrong and wishful thinking.

The US is a very violent society. More guns doesn't help that fact. 310 Million guns and STILL we have mass murders and ore than 30 murders every day. Where are the gun owners? Why aren't they stopping all those murders?

Owning guns didn't save Adam Lanza's mother.

OTOH, if one believes that more guns is the answer, no one is stopping "you" from buying more guns.

 

[Koios]

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities.

Some towns in the "old west" banned guns from the city limits.

I own guns and would be against an end to the 2nd amendment BUT saying that guns "gave us civilization" is just plain wrong and wishful thinking.

The US is a very violent society. More guns doesn't help that fact. 310 Million guns and STILL we have mass murders and ore than 30 murders every day. Where are the gun owners? Why aren't they stopping all those murders?

Owning guns didn't save Adam Lanza's mother.

OTOH, if one believes that more guns is the answer, no one is stopping "you" from buying more guns.

Precisely! Mine are in a safe in the bedroom, with a quick, biometric, release. But someone comes through my front door suddenly when I'm upstairs watching TV? Pray I make it down the stairs, and into and out of the master bedroom without being hit, stabbed or whatever. But I have 4 dogs that are noisey and one (ironically the sweetest of the 4) is down right intimidating-looking. One'll get you 1 hundred that the dogs are my best protection, from, let's be rational, A REAL REMOTE RISK. If I eat right I'll be safer, with lower risk of heart disease and diabetes.

But a lot of paper targets have experienced my wrath. So I be one badass mofo!!!

 

[Intense]

Standing up to Lawlessness and Tyranny, are part of the foundation of Civilized Society. Justice, Rule of Law without enforcement are pretty meaningless words without backbone.

 

[Intense]

This is the CDZ. Let's try to refrain from Personal Attacks.

 

[gallantwarrior]

My life gets a lot better if someone with a firearm uses it to neutralize a bad guy (or gal). My life also improves immeasurably when I use my firearm to put chow in the freezer. I also gain a feeling of accomplishment when I score well in a shooting competition...that kind of makes me feel better about my life, too.

And if you happen to run into a cop while carrying that firearm, in the brief moments that follow, does your life get better, or worse?

Why would it get worse? I reside in a civilized state that recognizes the benefits of allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns, as long as they meet certain requirements and declare their sidearm if accosted by a police officer. You seem to labor under the misconception that everyone runs around brandishing their firearms like your movie heroes or you video game avatars. Sorry to disappoint, but you can only be sure I am unarmed if I am in a legal, "gun free" zone.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why would it get worse? I reside in a civilized state that recognizes the benefits of allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns, as long as they meet certain requirements and declare their sidearm if accosted by a police officer. You seem to labor under the misconception that everyone runs around brandishing their firearms like your movie heroes or you video game avatars. Sorry to disappoint, but you can only be sure I am unarmed if I am in a legal, "gun free" zone.

Do you really think that the moment a cop discovers you have a weapon, the next thing he say's is "hey buddy, wussup?"

Your response reminds me of this video...