Do You Own a Gun ??

[Racoon]

Okay, it appears Racoon has gone dark. Jay-qu proposed that option #1 was "owning a gun with malicious intent."

 

Would any other posters be willing to share their perceptions on the difference? I'd like to vote, but I want my vote to count. :beer:

 

How about Owning a gun with a vociforous intent on survivng??

 

My qualm is/was ' what if I have to kill someone?'

Even if they where trying to kill me??

 

Thats very Realistic in todays World.

Especially In and Around the United States..

[InfiniteNow]

How about Owning a gun with a vociforous intent on survivng??

 

My qualm is/was ' what if I have to kill someone?'

Even if they where trying to kill me??

 

Thats very Realistic in todays World.

Especially In and Around the United States..

 

Good to hear from you Racoon. So, do you mean owning a gun with the intent of being offensive to others? :beer:

 

Definitions of vociferous on the Web:

 

blatant: conspicuously and offensively loud; given to vehement outcry; "blatant radios"; "a clamorous uproar"; "strident demands"; "a vociferous mob"

 

It is not my intention to give you a hard time. Please know that. I used to write survey questions though, and the above is unclear. That translates into not being able to have much confidence in the data.

 

So, I own a gun. It was left to me by a step father who has since passed away. What do I choose?

[CraigD]

My qualm is/was ' what if I have to kill someone?'

Even if they where trying to kill me??

 

Thats very Realistic in todays World.

Especially In and Around the United States..

Depends on you definition or “realistic”.

 

Assuming the homicide rate in the US remains at its 2004 levels, the probability that someone will kill you is less than 0.5% ([math]1 - \left (1 - \frac{\mbox{homicides/year}}{\mbox{population}} \right )^{\mbox{years lived}} = 1 - \left (1 - \frac{16611}{293655404} \right )^{80} \dot= 0.0045152[/math])

 

By comparison, the probability of being killed in or by a car is more than 2 times that, 1.2% ([math]1 - \left (1 - \frac{43947}{293655404} \right )^{80} \dot= 0.0119[/math]).

 

So, assuming you’re an average person, realistically, you’d do better to completely avoid cars than perfectly protect yourself against homicides by any means.

 

Of course, no individual is perfectly average. If one or more person is trying to kill you, for whatever reason, these probabilities don’t apply, and measures of various sorts – carrying a gun, wearing body armor, armoring your vehicle, having bodyguards, etc. – may be very realistic.

 

On the other hand, if you have a history of mental illness with a suicidal component, owning a gun is likely to dramatically increase the likelihood that you will kill yourself with it. In 2004, in the US, 16,603 people killed themselves with guns, vs. 11,606 people who were killed by others with guns.

 

A realistic decision to own or not own a gun, or take any other measure in order to increase your likelihood of survival, must take into account the risk factors particular to you. In my personal case, based on the best data and analysis I’ve be able to find, I’ve concluded that owning a gun would decrease the likelihood of my survival.

 

(sources: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html)

[Star30]

CraigD: I'd sum the “No” and “No; Guns should be banned” counts to give 34.6 + 7.7 = 42.3% “No”.

I have to disagree here. No and No; Guns should be banned are two different concepts. No I take as No that they do not own a gun period. I take No; Guns should be banned as Heck No I don't own a gun and Guns should be banned / eliminated. Yes / No

Racoon

My qualm is/was ' what if I have to kill someone?'

Even if they where trying to kill me??

Racoon, having a gun doesn't mean you have to kill someone. You can have alternative ammunition that would hurt, but not necessarily kill. It also depends on where you aim. Anyone owning or handling a gun should most certainly take it to a firing range and shoot the weapon. This enables you to be more intimate with it, increase your knowledge of how it works, and not only increase your comfort level but also your safety level.

I don't feel this is a clear cut and dry question/answer. All weapons are dangerous. Bacteria is dangerous and deadly in certain NUMBERS.

The statistics provided on mentally ill owning a gun leading to suicide is alarming and goes to show how much attention is needed for mental health. How about starting a poll: Do you take or know someone who takes antidepressant or antipsychotic medication? Do they own a gun? If so what are you going to do about it?

[pianoman1976]

I don't do guns, but I'd love to own an HK MP-5. I hear if I go to Europe, I can buy the parts and send them back home in separate packages.

 

I don't know what I'd shoot at. I am firmly apposed to killing animals. Maybe I could blast old toilets in a field somewhere. Probably end up in jail if I followed this path.

 

My uncle owns an Israeli Uzi. He used to hunt hammerhead sharks with it in a zodiac off the coast of Hermosa Beach.

[CraigD]

I don't do guns, but I'd love to own an HK MP-5.

Like most similar weapons, a semi-automatic version of the MP5 may be legally purchased in the US. I see from the wikipedia article “HK-94” that import of these were banned in 1984, making them terribly pricey, though still legal.

 

In the US, an old gun-enthusiast trick for getting to play with military-style weapons is to become a part-time sheriff’s deputy. From conversations I’ve had with sheriff’s deputies in more urban US counties, this is a more workable approach in rural counties than urban.

[silver]

I don't have a gun and it is not allowed in my country

[Moontanman]

I'm not a big fan of Guns, but the reality here in the United States is that it isn't an unwise object to own..

 

I've done some careful thinking, and I think that owning a gun is a wise investment.

Not for Hunting, not for crime, but for protection...

 

Disagree with the morality all you will, but the reality states otherwise..

 

Do you own a gun?

Does your government ban guns?

 

Has crime been reduced in the countries that ban guns?

Or is it part of the New World Order to control the masses?

 

I hate the thought of shooting someone, but realize it may come down to having to shoot someone in self-defense.

Thats the way the cookie is crumbling.

 

:shade: :lol:

 

 

I do own a gun a marine magnum 12 gaugeI wouildl not advise you to own a hand gun. they are difficult to hit anything with in an emergencyn and you are more likely to shot someone who is inocent. I use a shot gun, easy to aim and deadly.A pump shot bun is the best, just the sound of a shot gun being pumped is enough to make most people run.I keep 3" magnum shells with 000 buch shot in the shells. If I shoot some onme they wil not be testifying in court for sure. I wouldn't shot someone over things, belongings, only if I thought my life was in danger. thngs cabn be replaced, lives cannot. Oh yes crime has gone down in places where guns can be carried concealed.

 

Michael

[pianoman1976]

I have a pretty powerful squirt gun. I also have a hose that sprays really well.

[JackOfTraDeZ]

Do you own a fire extinguisher in your home? Better to have and never need then suddenly need and don't have.

 

Just ask the losers in the L.A. riots in the early '90's. They were helpless as spring lambs. Couldn't get a gun for protection. No 2A in Kalifornicatia.

 

Unique thing about the 2nd ammendment is that most people will not ever know how important and significant it is until the day comes when you need it and you are surprised to find that they have taken it away.

 

They took it away while you were slurping beer and watching the ball game on the tube. They took it away while you were concerning yourself with trivial brain-dead concerns like cholesterol, global warming, paris hilton, brangelina, and someone else's sex life.

 

Bread and circuses. Nothing new under the sun.

 

Everybody ultimately gets what they deserve and deserves what they get.

We never learn.

[Moontanman]

I have a pretty powerful squirt gun. I also have a hose that sprays really well.

 

I hope for your sake that anyone who breaks into your home is afraid of getting wet. this is a serious dicusion. Water pistols don't count and neither do water pistols filled with ammonia. all you are doing is setting your self up for a law suit that will cost you everything because some criminal thought it was unfair to be sprayed with ammonia. dead men tell no tales, I don't advpcate killing, I'm sure it would devestate me to have to kill someone but being killed would be just a tad worse

 

Michael

[eric l]

I still think that having a gun for protection is like fighting fire with fire.

There are situations where this is the only alternative, like in some forest fires, but it needs a lot os expertize to make sure that it does not create more harm. And if it comes that far, it also means that other protective measures have simply been ommitted.

[DougF]

Gun control = Being able to hit your target. :Guns:

 

I don't advocate killing ether,

but I do own a gun and well shoot someone in self-defense. :shrug:

 

I'm sure it would devastate me to have to kill someone,

but it was there decision to break into my/your home, :hihi:

anyone who has no respect for life should expect no less. :shrug:

[CraigD]

I have a pretty powerful squirt gun. I also have a hose that sprays really well.

I hope for your sake that anyone who breaks into your home is afraid of getting wet. this is a serious dicusion. Water pistols don't count and neither do water pistols filled with ammonia.

Unless the hose of which you speak, pianoman, is a high-pressure fire hose, I have to agree, neither a SuperSoaker any other common water toy has much chance of deterring a human attacker, nor do Nerf guns or other toys. If you have experience to the contrary, I suspect the people you’ve repelled this way were afraid of the person with the squirtgun (you), not the “weapon” you bore. :hihi:

 

I knew a paintball enthusiast who kept a gas-powered paintball gun loaded with metal ball bearings which he believed to be a lethal weapon, but this was really just a sort of dangerous weapon of uncertain effectiveness (not to mention a surefire way to assure I wouldn’t be playing any casual paintball with him!) :shrug:

all you are doing is setting your self up for a law suit that will cost you everything because some criminal thought it was unfair to be sprayed with ammonia. dead men tell no tales,

Michael, you seem to be implying that the financial or legal consequences of killing a person, even in self-defense, are less severe than squirting them with ammonia. Unless you intend to clandestinely dispose of the bodies of any people you kill, and even then, I don’t think this is even close to true. From a legal perspective, I can’t think of any well-informed person who would counsel another to choose killing a person over causing them discomfort, pain, or even serious injury.

 

“Dead men tell no tales” is an aphorism associated with criminals. It means “if you kill all the witnesses to a crime, no one will be able to offer direct testimony of your crime.” It certainly should not be taken to mean “if you kill someone in self defense, the consequences to you will be less than if you repel them non-lethally”.

 

Also, as someone who has spent much of his adult life (and a surprising amount of his childhood) around hospital emergency rooms, I’ve firsthand experience of how often people are surprised at how difficult it can prove to kill a human being, even with such effective weapons as shotguns loaded with 00 buckshot. 00 “double aught” shot consists of (usually) 8 .33” diameter balls, expelled from the shotgun barrel at (usually) under 400 m/s, making the damage done by a single shot from this weapon at close range about equivalent to being shot multiple times with a typical handgun, while at greater ranges (to about 50 m), offering a high likelihood of the target being struck with at least the equivalent of one shot from a handgun. Although terrible and deadly, people frequently survive such injuries, often with great ill-will, and murderous or litigious intent toward the person who shot them.

I don't advpcate killing, I'm sure it would devestate me to have to kill someone but being killed would be just a tad worse

This is a subjective judgement, shared by many, but by no means all, people. Many religiously devout people, for example, believe that one is responsible for ones actions even after ones death. For many of these people, one who kills another may suffer more greatly than one who is killed, in ways varying from being reincarnated into unpleasant circumstances to being damned to eternal torture.

 

In my personal experience, of the few people I know who have intentionally killed or wounded others with guns, none have what I consider happy lives, and all regret having done so. All too often, guns acquired with the intention of using them only as a last resort to preserve ones own or other lives wind up being used in circumstances not like those intended, often to kill or injure the people they were intended to protect. :shrug:

[Moontanman]

I still think that having a gun for protection is like fighting fire with fire.

There are situations where this is the only alternative, like in some forest fires, but it needs a lot os expertize to make sure that it does not create more harm. And if it comes that far, it also means that other protective measures have simply been ommitted.

 

Like what has been ommitted?surrendering?wiating until the police get there? good luck My friend I hope you never need protection.

 

Michael

[eric l]

Like what has been ommitted?surrendering?wiating until the police get there? good luck My friend I hope you never need protection.

 

Michael

 

Our situations are probably hardly comparable. I live in a town, in q quarter where there is some occasional breaking in in parked cars, some occasional hooliganism (how often ? once in two or three years maybe). But in general, a good lock gives me all the protection I need.

In other parts of town, I might consider a burglar alarm, with a link to the police station. And if I lived in a more remote spot in the countryside, a good watchdog might come in handy.

[CraigD]

I still think that having a gun for protection is like fighting fire with fire.

There are situations where this is the only alternative, like in some forest fires, but it needs a lot os expertize to make sure that it does not create more harm. And if it comes that far, it also means that other protective measures have simply been ommitted.

Like what has been ommitted?surrendering?wiating until the police get there? good luck My friend I hope you never need protection.

Of course there are many ways to protect yourself other than with a gun. I find it hard to believe that a 52-year-old diver/beach bum like you, Michael, haven’t had at least a few unarmed self-defense engagements, or been grateful that no guns were present during a heated physical confrontation.

 

The idea that a ordinary, healthy person without a gun is incapable of defensive (or offensive) physical action is obviously incorrect.