Gun Nuts vs. Anti-Gun Nuts: Who is worse?

[bedstuy]

If we're talking about the mainstream media, gun control advocates are somewhat misguided.  They only seem to care white, middle class people are killed and they fixate on regulations that are largely symbolic.  Assault weapons aren't the major problem for gun violence because you can't exactly tuck an M-16 into your cargo shorts.  But, why don't gun control advocates propose sweeping, effectual gun control?  That would be impossible because of the NRA stranglehold on our politics.  So, it's hard to blame "anti-gun nuts" for supporting wimpy half-measures. 

But, yeah, the real answer is gun nuts.  You people have laughable arguments for putting everyone's safety at risk from guns. 

We need guns for the proletarian uprising against the capitalists?  Seriously?  Saying we need guns to battle the robots when skynet becomes self-aware might actually be a better argument.  Yeah, tons of black kids need their heads blown off because of your dumb fantasy.  The harm from guns isn't some hypothetical thing that might happen.  It is happening to actual people.

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

[bedstuy]

A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I am not going to give the money I earned working in a Capitalist society to a criminal, a tyrant, a person unworthy of life. Do you realize that you are defending the criminal? The criminal made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. If that means that a legally armed good hearted citizen puts a bullet through the skull of a criminal who is robbing, attacking, or hurting the innocent...that's the end of story. Period. Don't you dare defend the criminals. Because then you become just like them. You're either with us or against us. There is no gray area. Period.

This is, by far, a great example of how sissy, girlie, whiny, defeatist and naive liberals are. This is a prime example as to why no matter what a so-called "wacko" conservative might say, no matter how rich a Republican is, no matter how old or how white or how close minded they are, I can never vote for a liberal. I can not vote for sissy, cowards. Weaklings.

Your mentality, had it been the ruling majority in the 1940s, would have meant that if people like you had your way, we would have had no guns, wouldn't have involved ourselves in World War II and would never have tested terrible scary weapons. You know who would have? The Third Reich, and they would have won that war because of defeatists like you.

It's the cowardly thought process that you possess and show in full true to form colors in this thread that makes the world a dangerous place. How dare you smear garbage like that. In this country. A country founded by men rising up with guns against a burdening King. You want them taken away?

This is why I vote for cowboys and war heroes, not sissy liberals, professors and draft dodgers with ugly wives.

This is legitimately hilarious.  Good job!

[bedstuy]

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I strongly disagree. If someone breaks in your house to rob you, what will you have to defend yourself and your family?

As for the mugging scenario, provided that the mugger was threatening the mugged (muggee?) with a deadly weapon, I would not shed a single tear over them getting shot in self defense. They knew the risks when they chose a life of crime, it's their own fault and they got what's coming to them when they decided to mess with the wrong person.

Hmmm.  It's not that simple though.  It's about balancing out the risks.

I have three locked doors between me and said crazy guy with a gun.  And, I can call the cops and they'll be at my apartment in a few minutes.  That seems like a good amount of safety.  The other thing is, what good does it do some junky to murder me?  None.  If they want money, that's fine.  Risky your life and escalating things isn't worth it at all.  I've had close friends murdered, I hate violent criminals with a passion.  But, it's a matter of being smart.  And, honestly, if you think you're willing to kill someone because they want to steal your laptop, you're either a studio gangster or a violent idiot.

And, at the end of the day, if someone really wants to kill you, they probably will.  It's not worth going through life paranoid and constantly strapped for the small chance you can shoot first.  Plus, just in an ultimate sense, you have a societal balancing of the risks.  Guns reduce the safety of a community, in terms of accidents, suicides, stray bullets and violent crime.  If you know gun crime like I do, you would realize it's rare that you're going to have a chance to pull out a gun before they do, especially if you're not a trained law enforcement person.  People have these Clint Eastwood fantasies, but that's what happens in movies, not real life. 

I think this all comes down to machismo.  "They messed with the wrong guy," that's just bravado.  I'm for self-defense as a last resort, sure.  Most criminals are dumb kids and drug addicts.  They're human beings who made mistakes.  You don't just cavalierly blow their brains out.  That might seem like a tough guy thing to do, but it's really the pathetic, cowardly George Zimmerman attitude that gets people killed. 

[bedstuy]

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I strongly disagree. If someone breaks in your house to rob you, what will you have to defend yourself and your family?

As for the mugging scenario, provided that the mugger was threatening the mugged (muggee?) with a deadly weapon, I would not shed a single tear over them getting shot in self defense. They knew the risks when they chose a life of crime, it's their own fault and they got what's coming to them when they decided to mess with the wrong person.

Hmmm.  It's not that simple though.  It's about balancing out the risks.

I have three locked doors between me and said crazy guy with a gun.  And, I can call the cops and they'll be at my apartment in a few minutes.  That seems like a good amount of safety.  The other thing is, what good does it do some junky to murder me?  None.  If they want money, that's fine.  Risky your life and escalating things isn't worth it at all.  I've had close friends murdered, I hate violent criminals with a passion.  But, it's a matter of being smart.  And, honestly, if you think you're willing to kill someone because they want to steal your laptop, you're either a studio gangster or a violent idiot.

And, at the end of the day, if someone really wants to kill you, they probably will.  It's not worth going through life paranoid and constantly strapped for the small chance you can shoot first.  Plus, just in an ultimate sense, you have a societal balancing of the risks.  Guns reduce the safety of a community, in terms of accidents, suicides, stray bullets and violent crime.  If you know gun crime like I do, you would realize it's rare that you're going to have a chance to pull out a gun before they do, especially if you're not a trained law enforcement person.  People have these Clint Eastwood fantasies, but that's what happens in movies, not real life. 

I think this all comes down to machismo.  "They messed with the wrong guy," that's just bravado.  I'm for self-defense as a last resort, sure.  Most criminals are dumb kids and drug addicts.  They're human beings who made mistakes.  You don't just cavalierly blow their brains out.  That might seem like a tough guy thing to do, but it's really the pathetic, cowardly George Zimmerman attitude that gets people killed. 

Locked doors can easily be kicked through in a matter of seconds. And you're assuming that junkies are operating with a logical mindset. They aren't. They might kill you because you can identify them, they're scared that you might interfere with their goal, as a reflex due to being trigger happy, or because the voices in their head told them to. In addition, what if you're a woman? Sure, as a man maybe all they'll want is your laptop, but a woman should simply let herself be raped to avoid "escalating the situation"? I don't think so.

So you prefer to let them continue mugging people without consequence then? And the George Zimmerman thing isn't even comparable. He was clearly escalating the situation in an unreasonable manner (ex: shooting him when they were in a fist fight). As I said in my initial post, if threatened with a deadly weapon, then deadly force is justified.

That's an interesting idea, but that is not the law.  You could go to jail for the rest of your life if you kill someone, so it's best to use the legal definition of self-defense.

But, the larger issue is that you're not being rational.  Are there situations where the best solution is killing someone in self-dense?  Yes, obviously.  But, it's a balance between that possibility and the danger posed by guns.  We have on one side, most gun violence where self-defense would be useless, accidents, suicides, stray bullets, etc.  On the other side, we have this hypothetical home invasion scenario that hardly ever happens.  Just read the newspaper, how many people get killed in home invasions?  Hardly any.  How many people get killed by being an innocent bystander who didn't even see the gun before they were shot?  Many.  The safety balance is on the side of fewer guns.  This is evidenced by the fact that in Western Europe the homicide rate is far, far lower than in the US.

[bedstuy]

Just to bring some facts into this:  Here's a report from 2010 on justifiable homicide.

-From 2006 to 2010, the ratio of criminal homicide to justifiable homicides was 44:1. 

-In 2010, there were 230 justifiable homicides to 8,275 criminal homicides.  If you add deaths from suicide by guns (19,392) and accidental shootings (606), guns saved 230 at the expense of 28,273. 

Guns reduce public safety.  It's a fact.  You're more likely going to be in the 28,273 camp than the 230 camp.  Plus, if we regulated guns sensibly, you wouldn't have to worry so much about protecting yourself because we would all be safer.

[bedstuy]

Just to bring some facts into this:  Here's a report from 2010 on justifiable homicide.

-From 2006 to 2010, the ratio of criminal homicide to justifiable homicides was 44:1. 

-In 2010, there were 230 justifiable homicides to 8,275 criminal homicides.  If you add deaths from suicide by guns (19,392) and accidental shootings (606), guns saved 230 at the expense of 28,273. 

Guns reduce public safety.  It's a fact.  You're more likely going to be in the 28,273 camp than the 230 camp.  Plus, if we regulated guns sensibly, you wouldn't have to worry so much about protecting yourself because we would all be safer.

This would make sense only if everytime a gun was used in a "good" situation the bad guy ended up dead and that clearly isn't the case.

Ah, but that counts on both sides though.  Not every criminal use of a gun results in a homicide.

[bedstuy]

Of course not, so the numbers are worthless.  There are no stats on that kind of thing in either direction.

They aren't worthless, they just don't tell the whole story as no single number could.  But, it is indicative of the number of times guns are used for each purpose and obviously, the number of times the result of death occurs.  That's worthwhile to know.  If we were talking about regulating a chemical additive to potato chips, the fact that it kills 28,000 people a year would be somewhat relevant, no?

[bedstuy]

Well, 9000...as I'm sure you've read, people that want to kill themselves will whether they have access to a gun or not. cite

And the vast majority of the 9000 were done not by the "gun nut" we're all making fun of here, but by a dirt ball with an illegal weapon.  Everybody wants dirt ball with an illegal weapon to not have an illegal weapon.  Banning all guns will NOT get that illegal weapon away from Mr Dirt Ball.  Will it make it slightly more difficult for him?  Maybe, but why ban something that punishes millions for the crimes of a few thousand?  How's that drug war coming?

The suicide point is true I suppose.  Some people would think better of suicide without having easy access to a gun, as the higher suicide rate among cops seems to show.  But, many others will just find a way.  But, couldn't you also say that some of the people who killed in self-defense could have survived without killing or could have used non-lethal force?

On the broader point, who mentioned banning all guns as a policy choice?  I didn't, that's not my position on gun control and it's practically impossible in America anyway.  I agree that the secondary market is a major problem.  You can combat that with licensing requirements, background checks, regulating the sale and creating a strong paper trail, gun buy-backs, etc.  It's certainly possible to make an illegal gun cost $300 instead of $200.