Doctor Fate wrote:Liberals seem to think that rapists, murderers, and otherwise violent criminals can/should ONLY be taken on by the police. That is preposterous.

Your last sentence makes perfect sense if it applies to the previous one.

No-one has said that. What we have pointed out is that guns are not the panacea many like to think (as I've mentioned before, at close quarters, a knife beats a gun). Also, that there's self-defence, and then there's deciding that you need a semi-automatic with a 30-clip.

Doctor Fate wrote:Right, and for the woman trapped in a closet with an intruder trying to get through the door, the only salvation was . . . not government.

It was a handgun.

If a government does not have the right to regulate bedroom behavior, then what right does it have to tell me how I may defend myself within my own home if my life or the life of my family is at stake?

Legitimate concern. But I wonder: would you feel safer in a place where guns are common, or would you feel safer in a place where guns are scarce?

I expect you may think there is a likely third option, where bad people many guns and good people don't, and that that condition is unacceptable. But I ask you to set aside that third option for now, and just compare ubiquitous guns to rare guns, and comment on which condition you believe is safer.

Where in America can you find a place where guns are scarce?
unless you actually think any sort of bans will make guns "Scarce" to the criminal element, but isn't that wishful thinking to the extreme??
I think it was yourself who pointed to NYC having strict gun laws but correct me if I'm wrong ...criminals rob stores by gunpoint every day in NYC, murders by gun happen often, gang members have guns aplenty, . And would I feel safer in New York City where guns are supposedly hard to come by or say Montana or Wyoming where they are plentiful, I would take Montana/Wyoming every time (as far as my safety is concerned)

and then there's deciding that you need a semi-automatic with a 30-clip.

so we allow only the bad guys to carry those weapons?
But wait, if we ban them, they will no longer be held by the bad guys. In New York, they just enacted a ban on any magazines holding more than 7 rounds. If you have a magazine that holds more, you are legally only allowed to load 7. So if I decide to go on a killing spree, I will of course want to do so legally only!?

GMTom wrote:Where in America can you find a place where guns are scarce? Unless you actually think any sort of bans will make guns "Scarce" to the criminal element, but isn't that wishful thinking to the extreme?? I think it was yourself who pointed to NYC having strict gun laws but correct me if I'm wrong ...criminals rob stores by gunpoint every day in NYC, murders by gun happen often, gang members have guns aplenty

I guess it depends on your perspective, but compared to other places in the US, guns are certainly scarce in NYC. That has to do with the difficulty to legally own them, which cuts down on legal ownership, and "stop and frisk", which is an aggressive policing tactic that allows cops to stop people and search them with the most trivial cause. Close to 700,000 stops were made in 2011, and it has changed behavior of the criminal possession of guns. (Not that all of this is "good," just effective in cutting down on weapons. More here: http://gothamist.com/2012/05/10/stop_and_frisk_report.php)

High profile imprisonments (remember Plaxico Burress?) also have helped. I think the City's example is one that proves that policy and tactics can actually significantly impact the prevalence of guns and peoples' behavior. I'm not saying it's perfect, or right for everyone, but we can't just throw up our hands and say the 2nd Amendment ties our hands. Just not true. Guns can be legally regulated, and made scarce. This is Bloomberg's big issue. I think you'll be hearing a lot more talk like this after he's out of office at the end of this year and really pushes for change: it will be from the bottom up, starting with other mayors.

GMTom wrote:

and then there's deciding that you need a semi-automatic with a 30-clip.

so we allow only the bad guys to carry those weapons?

Of course not. I think soldiers and cops would find them quite useful.

But wait, if we ban them, they will no longer be held by the bad guys. In New York, they just enacted a ban on any magazines holding more than 7 rounds. If you have a magazine that holds more, you are legally only allowed to load 7. So if I decide to go on a killing spree, I will of course want to do so legally only!?

Look, 'bad guys' - 'good guys' it's all hokum. People are not 'bad' or 'good', mainly they are a mixture of the two. Also, they don't (despite what the cowboy movies told us) wear a black or white hat as appropriate so we know which they are.

I don't know if that question is open to all, but here is my two cents worth.

I feel safer with guns. Let's look at crime statistics in places that formerly had guns, and now don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/

The second has a great comparative of violent and property crimes to the national average.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/wy/crime/

Wyoming has the highest percentage of gun ownership. Look at the statistics compared to the national average, and tell me who is safer...

DC always had guns. It may have had restrictive laws, but it's right next door to Virginia which has about the most free gun purchase laws in the US. That may explain in part why Maryland and Delaware have had problems as well as DC.

I live in a place in which guns are scarce. I feel very safe. My house has a break in about 8 weeks ago. A gun would have made no difference for the following reasons:

1) They were breaking into an outbuilding, not the house, in and out in a short time, and they don't seem to have taken anything (perhaps a cruddy old electric sander, can't remember if I still had it or not)
2) I didn't hear it anyway and slept through it.
3) They were caught a short while later breaking into a car. The captor didn't need a gun to do it.

Even after this burglary, I still feel safer in a country which doesn't have many guns. And the guns it has tend to be like the hunting rifle my uncle owns rather than a handgun.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Liberals seem to think that rapists, murderers, and otherwise violent criminals can/should ONLY be taken on by the police. That is preposterous.

Your last sentence makes perfect sense if it applies to the previous one.

No-one has said that. What we have pointed out is that guns are not the panacea many like to think (as I've mentioned before, at close quarters, a knife beats a gun). Also, that there's self-defence, and then there's deciding that you need a semi-automatic with a 30-clip.

No one has said that precise quote. However, it doesn't take much reading of geojanes or freeman2 to understand they are not merely after magazines or "assault weapons." Ultimately, they would like to see all guns eradicated. Specifically, the idea of handguns being linked to defending against tyrannical government has been raised.

Limiting the size of a magazine will not bring about a safer society.

Furthermore, I reject the idea of "need." I don't think anyone should have to justify their "need" of a particular magazine any more than they have to justify their "need" to articulate speech in a given way.

We have rights.

Rights are not something we have to plead with the government to maintain. In fact, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individual liberties, not to grant the government rights of infringement.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Right, and for the woman trapped in a closet with an intruder trying to get through the door, the only salvation was . . . not government.

It was a handgun.

If a government does not have the right to regulate bedroom behavior, then what right does it have to tell me how I may defend myself within my own home if my life or the life of my family is at stake?

Legitimate concern. But I wonder: would you feel safer in a place where guns are common, or would you feel safer in a place where guns are scarce?

This is a false choice. It's not a matter of whether guns are scarce or plentiful. It is a matter of whether criminals and people intent on becoming criminals are scarce or plentiful.

Let me put it another way. I used to hear (from criminals) all the time, "You need me. I'm your job security"

The answer is: that's a false choice. There will always be people wanting to impose their will on others to get what they want.

Imagine how much cheaper things would be if no one ever shoplifted.

Imagine how little car insurance would cost if everyone was honest, was skilled at driving, and if everyone responsibly saved money for such events.

In a perfect world, police officers would not be needed.

In a perfect world, self-defense would not be needed.

Unfortunately, we don't occupy that world.

I expect you may think there is a likely third option, where bad people many guns and good people don't, and that that condition is unacceptable. But I ask you to set aside that third option for now, and just compare ubiquitous guns to rare guns, and comment on which condition you believe is safer.

Ubiquitous every time. Why? Because "rare" means that criminals have guns. They will always find a way to get them. I would rather know that I've got a chance to defend myself than to know my only chance is to beg for mercy.

Doctor Fate wrote:However, it doesn't take much reading of geojanes or freeman2 to understand they are not merely after magazines or "assault weapons." Ultimately, they would like to see all guns eradicated.

For the record, I think Freeman are not in the same place. I think long guns are fine. Assault rifles? I dunno. I don't feel very strongly about them because while they are horrific when they occur, incidents are relatively rare. But I would like to see handguns hard to get and hard to own and very, very hard to carry.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, it doesn't take much reading of geojanes or freeman2 to understand they are not merely after magazines or "assault weapons." Ultimately, they would like to see all guns eradicated.

For the record, I think Freeman are not in the same place. I think long guns are fine. Assault rifles? I dunno. I don't feel very strongly about them because while they are horrific when they occur, incidents are relatively rare. But I would like to see handguns hard to get and hard to own and very, very hard to carry.

Doesn't this lead to a scenario where defending yourself in your home against an intruder is nearly impossible? Do you really want to have to defend yourself with a thirty-aught-six?

Or, is 911 all the defense anyone could ever need?

What's more likely: you have a gun in your home and you use it against an intruder successfully. Or you have a gun in your house for self-defense (at the ready/loaded) and someone is hurt with that gun in a way you never intended?

I would argue that the latter scenario is far, far more likely.

geojanes wrote:What's more likely: you have a gun in your home and you use it against an intruder successfully. Or you have a gun in your house for self-defense (at the ready/loaded) and someone is hurt with that gun in a way you never intended?

I would argue that the latter scenario is far, far more likely.

Depends. Is the gunowner's IQ above or below 85?

Doc, that isn't fair. Accidents happen to smart people, too. They occur more frequently to the ignorant, but brains do not inoculate people against misfortune.