Gun Owner Thoughts

[Ladoga]

Lol. What is your point? That because I'm not Rambo, I'm not qualified to weigh in on the gun debate? I can save you the time and energy: I'm not a gun enthusiast nor a gun expert. Are you arguing semantics and splitting hairs?

Assault rifle: a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use. AK-47's, M-16's, and AR-15 (armalite, modified automatics) come to mind. I understand an AR-15 by itself is semi-automatic.

Have you read Heller? Can you state the facts, holding, and arguments on both sides?

Not at all. My point is that lots of folks are calling for a ban on "assault rifles" Those are automatic weapons and already severely restricted. If you're going to enter into discussion or advocacy for a position on firearms, you'll need to know one from the other. You're far from the only misuser of terms. The national media have been told time and time again that they are using the wrong words. They continue to do so. Sort of makes me think that no one should ever listen to a single thing they say about firearms because they now full well that they are using misleading terms - intentionally misleading now.

Learn something about the subject in which you advocate a position. It will help you not be wrong. An assault rifle is a machine gun. They are so restricted as to amount to a ban. Don't need that. It happened 80 years ago.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

We won't deter such folks very easily but we can do a much better job of setting up early warnings that we can act upon.

Absolutely we should. I'm just saying, with these people determined to be bad actors, the solution is going to be very different than the little things we do to deter (or catch) regular, everyday mischief. To put it as absurdly simple as possible, there's likely no school shooter who says, "What? They put locks on the doors? Well, I guess I just won't ever shoot a bunch of people, after all. Back to life!"

 

[iu_a_att]

Absolutely we should. I'm just saying, with these people determined to be bad actors, the solution is going to be very different than the little things we do to deter (or catch) regular, everyday mischief. To put it as absurdly simple as possible, there's likely no school shooter who says, "What? They put locks on the doors? Well, I guess I just won't ever shoot a bunch of people, after all. Back to life!"

I agree...just thought your observation about the little things we do was an interesting point and wanted to comment on it. We set little alarms all the time. Those alarms obviously alert us to problems (my point) but also have a minor deterrent effect (your point).

 

[Hank Reardon]

Absolutely we should. I'm just saying, with these people determined to be bad actors, the solution is going to be very different than the little things we do to deter (or catch) regular, everyday mischief. To put it as absurdly simple as possible, there's likely no school shooter who says, "What? They put locks on the doors? Well, I guess I just won't ever shoot a bunch of people, after all. Back to life!"

Sorry, OT, but this made me think of that scene in The Jerk where the nut-job with the rifle chases Steve Martin, until Martin runs through a gate with a warning sign, "carnival personnel only." The guy with the rifle sees the sign and stops, frustrated. All he can do is stand outside the gate yelling, "Hey, he's not carnival personnel!"

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I presented data that people in the country are, in fact, not as safe as those in the cities. I must have missed it...did you present data? Or only personal theories?

Personally, I find the countryside less safe than the city. Personally, the people I know in the countryside seem more worried about their safety than I am about mine. That is not my "personal theory" that is my personal experience. My "personal theory" is that people who are poorer are more worried about crime than those who aren't. People are poorer now in the country than they used to be. I don't have data on that but did find this from Gallup April 2016..

Americans are more concerned about crime than they have been at any point since the turn of the century, according to a new poll, exceeding levels of concern about things like terrorism, climate change and illegal immigration.

The spike in concern comes after violent crimes increased slightly during at least part of 2015, with murder rates spiking in a number of large cities, prompting increased media coverage. As we noted last year, Americans perpetually think crime is going up — even when crime has actually fallen. Polls also show that Americans have been less and less concerned about being the victims of crimes.
...
Gallup found concerns about crime rising among a number of different groups of Americans nationwide, regardless of race, age, education level or political affiliation. These increases still left considerable gaps between groups, though. Fewer men say they are very worried about crime (49 percent) than women (56 percent); white people (46 percent) are far less concerned than non-white people (68 percent).

People who did not attend college (70 percent) were more than twice as likely as people who graduated from college (32 percent) to be very concerned about crime. Republicans (53 percent), Democrats (52 percent) and independents (53 percent) all registered the same basic level of concern.​

What you presented was an article with data that suggests people (including those in the country) thought cities were more dangerous than the country and that the opposite may be true. Then you took that to try to support your theory that people own guns because they're "scared." The theory is still only your own and it is still unsupported by evidence. Do you think only those in the country own guns? If they think it's safer where they live than the city (true or not), why would the be more scared than those in the city? What about the people in the city that own guns? What about the criminals that illegally own guns? Are people that don't own guns "scared" any less or any more about crime?

I've lived in the country. When you hear gun fire out there you think someone is shooting a varmint, targets or hunting, first. If you hear gun fire in the city, you're thinking crime. However, none of what you've posted here proves that being "scared" is the primary motivator for owning guns. I'll bet I know far more gun owners than you and I can honestly say I don't know one that owns a gun because he's "scared." Whatever concern they have for crime is no more than those that don't own guns in my opinion.

Are you trying to set up a theory that gun owners are cowards and those that don't own guns are brave or something?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

For what it's worth, I hadn't noticed that my email address wasn't public. After reading your post I changed that. Trust me, I don't post anything I wouldn't say to someone in conversation and I'm not hiding from anyone.

Cool. Next time you talk to a gun owner you're going to call him a wussy.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Not at all. My point is that lots of folks are calling for a ban on "assault rifles" Those are automatic weapons and already severely restricted. If you're going to enter into discussion or advocacy for a position on firearms, you'll need to know one from the other. You're far from the only misuser of terms. The national media have been told time and time again that they are using the wrong words. They continue to do so. Sort of makes me think that no one should ever listen to a single thing they say about firearms because they now full well that they are using misleading terms - intentionally misleading now.

Learn something about the subject in which you advocate a position. It will help you not be wrong. An assault rifle is a machine gun. They are so restricted as to amount to a ban. Don't need that. It happened 80 years ago.

The AR-15 modified is an automatic, and it isn't too hard to do. That is a big part of the problem, seeing is how the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the mass murderers.

I've probably read and forgot more about the legal side of guns than you ever will: I'd snottily encourage you to educate yourself. Most of the gun nuts I have encountered are too lazy to set aside an hour or two to read and analyze Heller.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The AR-15 modified is an automatic, and it isn't too hard to do. That is a big part of the problem, seeing is how the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the mass murderers.

I've probably read and forgot more about the legal side of guns than you ever will: I'd snottily encourage you to educate yourself. Most of the gun nuts I have encountered are too lazy to set aside an hour or two to read and analyze Heller.

Let’s talk in truths, because it behooves constructive discourse, and none of these mass shootings have involved actual automatic weapons. If they did they’d be even more deadly than they unfortunately have been. But they haven’t so it must not be as “easy” as you infer.

Now let’s talk in opinion (albeit the right one): Unadulterated pro-gun people should take notice and realize that applying a similar ban to semi-auto rifles is quite likely to further minimize the efficacy of these mass shootings.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Let’s talk in truths, because it behooves constructive discourse, and none of these mass shootings have involved actual automatic weapons. If they did they’d be even more deadly than they unfortunately have been. But they haven’t so it must not be as “easy” as you infer.

Now let’s talk in opinion (albeit the right one): Unadulterated pro-gun people should take notice and realize that applying a similar ban to semi-auto rifles is quite likely to further minimize the efficacy of these mass shootings.

The Vegas shooter did apparently use a bump stock, which while legally not an auto alteration pretty much provides the same result. Regardless of where anyone falls on the semi auto argument, I think most would agree that the bump stock is a gaping hole that needs to be closed.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The Vegas shooter did apparently use a bump stock, which while legally not an auto alteration pretty much provides the same result. Regardless of where anyone falls on the semi auto argument, I think most would agree that the bump stock is a gaping hole that needs to be closed.

It’s not enough, my good internet man.

 

[iu_a_att]

What you presented was an article with data that suggests people (including those in the country) thought cities were more dangerous than the country and that the opposite may be true. Then you took that to try to support your theory that people own guns because they're "scared."

60% of those who own guns say they do so for "self-protection". I interpret that as they are afraid they may be attacked and they believe the gun will help protect themselves in that event. As we have discussed, people do all manner of things to protect themselves from even unlikely events. Multiple door locks, security systems, insurance, seat belts etc. That they are afraid of something and take steps to protect themselves is simply obvious. So let me recap what I am saying to be absolutely clear

I am saying that

1. people who take steps to protect themselves believe themselves to be otherwise at risk i.e., they fear something
2. those who perceive their risk to be greater (are more fearful) and naturally take more steps to protect themselves
3. people often don't understand risk. They over protect themselves against risks that are not at all likely and don't protect themselves adequately against risks that are likely.

I have presented evidence that gunbuyers (a) report wanting a gun for self-protection; (b) people in the country may actually be less safe than those in the city. The stuff about people in the country being more fearful than those in the city is my own personal experience. The data I presented says that everyone believes that cities are more dangerous than the country i.e., that my personal experience is inconsistent with the data.

Do you think only those in the country own guns? If they think it's safer where they live than the city (true or not), why would the be more scared than those in the city? What about the people in the city that own guns? What about the criminals that illegally own guns? Are people that don't own guns "scared" any less or any more about crime?

To answer your questions. People in the country and the city own guns; people who own guns for self-protection do so because they are more concerned that their self needs protecting than those who don't; the previous statement is true of people whether they live in the city or country; it is true about criminals who illegally own guns but it is also true that some mean to use guns to commit crimes; people who own guns may or may not feel safer than those who don't--after all, they bought the gun to help them feel safer so presumably they feel safer than they would without a gun. The data such as it is shows that those who own guns are actually less safe than those who don't. Which is my point 3.

I've lived in the country. When you hear gun.fire out there you think someone is shooting a varmint, targets or hunting, first. If you hear gun fire in the city, you're thinking crime. However, none of what you've posted here proves that being "scared" is the primary motivator for owning guns. I'll bet I know far more gun owners than you and I can honestly say I don't know one that owns a gun because he's "scared." Whatever concern they have for crime is no more than those that don't own guns in my opinion.

My friends in the country hear a great deal more gun fire than they used too and they aren't soothed by the sound. Typically we don't hear gun fire in the city. When we hear a sound that might be gun fire we typically think it is fireworks or a car backfiring. If it is obviously gun fire then we are properly thinking crime. Some areas of the city have a lot more gun fire than others. All of our "personal experiences" are just that...reports of our experience. We would be wise to think the world is much bigger than our personal experience and to rely more on rigorously collected data.

Are you trying to set up a theory that gun owners are cowards and those that don't own guns are brave or something?

No...calling or implying that people are "wussies" is your shtick not mine. People are bad at understanding risk. The only derogatory comment I have made is that hucksters of all varieties routinely exploit our misapprehensions about risk.

 

[Hank Reardon]

No...calling or implying that people are "wussies" is your shtick not mine.

The wussies thing came from Ohio Guy when he said, "The fact that there are 600 million guns in the hands of private citizens tells me that we've become a nation of wussies who are essentially scared of their own shadows."

This was the catalyst for this branch of the conversation. For the record, your posts on the subject, while I haven't always agreed with you, have generally been thoughtful. Ohio Guy was just an ass.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

60% of those who own guns say they do so for "self-protection". I interpret that as they are afraid they may be attacked and they believe the gun will help protect themselves in that event. As we have discussed, people do all manner of things to protect themselves from even unlikely events. Multiple door locks, security systems, insurance, seat belts etc. That they are afraid of something and take steps to protect themselves is simply obvious. So let me recap what I am saying to be absolutely clear

I am saying that

1. people who take steps to protect themselves believe themselves to be otherwise at risk i.e., they fear something
2. those who perceive their risk to be greater (are more fearful) and naturally take more steps to protect themselves
3. people often don't understand risk. They over protect themselves against risks that are not at all likely and don't protect themselves adequately against risks that are likely.

I have presented evidence that gunbuyers (a) report wanting a gun for self-protection; (b) people in the country may actually be less safe than those in the city. The stuff about people in the country being more fearful than those in the city is my own personal experience. The data I presented says that everyone believes that cities are more dangerous than the country i.e., that my personal experience is inconsistent with the data.
To answer your questions. People in the country and the city own guns; people who own guns for self-protection do so because they are more concerned that their self needs protecting than those who don't; the previous statement is true of people whether they live in the city or country; it is true about criminals who illegally own guns but it is also true that some mean to use guns to commit crimes; people who own guns may or may not feel safer than those who don't--after all, they bought the gun to help them feel safer so presumably they feel safer than they would without a gun. The data such as it is shows that those who own guns are actually less safe than those who don't. Which is my point 3.
My friends in the country hear a great deal more gun fire than they used too and they aren't soothed by the sound. Typically we don't hear gun fire in the city. When we hear a sound that might be gun fire we typically think it is fireworks or a car backfiring. If it is obviously gun fire then we are properly thinking crime. Some areas of the city have a lot more gun fire than others. All of our "personal experiences" are just that...reports of our experience. We would be wise to think the world is much bigger than our personal experience and to rely more on rigorously collected data.
No...calling or implying that people are "wussies" is your shtick not mine. People are bad at understanding risk. The only derogatory comment I have made is that hucksters of all varieties routinely exploit our misapprehensions about risk.

I get it. You're a guy that doesn't understand guns or gun owners even a little bit. You may care too, but that's not clearly evident from your posts Those that have guns for self protection don't do it because they "fear" for their safety. They do it so they are prepared to defend themselves and their families if necessary. It's the same reason we have a military. It's the same reason we wear seatbelts. It's the same reason I wore steel toed shoes on the ship and a hard hat when in the shipyard's dry dock. It's why we have lifeguards at pools. It's preparation for things that could happen. It's smart, not stupid. It's logic, not fear.

The wussy thing was Ohio Guy's shtick. He said that all gun owners were "scared" and therefore "wussies." You just took up the theme.

 

[iu_a_att]

The wussies thing came from Ohio Guy when he said, "The fact that there are 600 million guns in the hands of private citizens tells me that we've become a nation of wussies who are essentially scared of their own shadows."

This was the catalyst for this branch of the conversation. For the record, your posts on the subject, while I haven't always agreed with you, have generally been thoughtful. Ohio Guy was just an ass.

Thanks for that. I have appreciated your posts as well. It sounds like it was Ohio Guy who offered the gunowners are wussies slur. It strikes me as a hurtful and puerile slur. We should do better.

 

[Ohio Guy]

The wussies thing came from Ohio Guy when he said, "The fact that there are 600 million guns in the hands of private citizens tells me that we've become a nation of wussies who are essentially scared of their own shadows."

This was the catalyst for this branch of the conversation. For the record, your posts on the subject, while I haven't always agreed with you, have generally been thoughtful. Ohio Guy was just an ass.

Since we’re quoting and paraphrasing here, I’ll go with Aloha Hoosier’s sentiment of calling out/name calling behind the anonymity of the internet.

And I stand by my comment. I never called anyone out specifically. I think gun ownership is a systematic problem in our society and one that gives a false sense of security to people who are afraid of their fellow citizens.

If you were offended by it that’s a ‘you’ problem.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Thanks for that. I have appreciated your posts as well. It sounds like it was Ohio Guy who offered the gunowners are wussies slur. It strikes me as a hurtful and puerile slur. We should do better.

Good grief. I didn’t realize how hypersensitive this forum is. Please note I didn’t call anyone out specifically. Our fixation with guns is crazy and a detriment to society.

The fact that gunowners’ feelings are so easily hurt and people who actually agree with me feel the need to apologize is a sad commentary.

Regardless of whether or not ‘wussy’ makes people feel bad my belief is unchanged. We’re a nation who are very afraid of each other and guns give a lot of people a false sense of security.

 

[iu_a_att]

Those that have guns for self protection don't do it because they "fear" for their safety. They do it so they are prepared to defend themselves and their families if necessary.

Those who have guns for self-protection do it precisely so they WON'T fear for their safety. If you sit in your car in the garage do you wear your seat belt? Do you wear your bike helmet around the house? I don't do either of those things because I am not worried about an accident when my car is not moving and I am not worried about bashing my head when I am walking around my house. If I don't have my seat belt on while driving or do not wear a bike helmet while riding I don't feel as safe. I don't see this as a character flaw on my part or a lack of courage. But I don't have an issue admitting that what I experience driving without a seat belt or riding without a bike helmet is the emotion fear. FDR said “Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” I don't understand your taking umbrage at the idea of fear as a response to perceived danger.

 

[iu_a_att]

Good grief. I didn’t realize how hypersensitive this forum is. Please note I didn’t call anyone out specifically. Our fixation with guns is crazy and a detriment to society.

The fact that gunowners’ feelings are so easily hurt and people who actually agree with me feel the need to apologize is a sad commentary.

Regardless of whether or not ‘wussy’ makes people feel bad my belief is unchanged. We’re a nation who are very afraid of each other and guns give a lot of people a false sense of security.

If you say that we are a nation of people who are afraid of each other and guns give people a false sense of security then I agree. But I don't think calling people wussies or otherwise attacking people because of their fears is helpful.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Cool. Next time you talk to a gun owner you're going to call him a wussy.

I think you’d be surprised by the real life conversations I have with gun owners.

I haven’t lost any friends over talks we’ve had, but it’s pretty clear where I stand.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I think you’d be surprised by the real life conversations I have with gun owners.

I haven’t lost any friends over talks we’ve had, but it’s pretty clear where I stand.

Did you call them wussies? Doing it in a joking way doesn't count.

 

[Hank Reardon]

And I stand by my comment. I never called anyone out specifically.

No, you didn't. You simply lumped ~40% of the population into one caricature and labeled them all the same. As if that's somehow better.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Those who have guns for self-protection do it precisely so they WON'T fear for their safety. If you sit in your car in the garage do you wear your seat belt? Do you wear your bike helmet around the house? I don't do either of those things because I am not worried about an accident when my car is not moving and I am not worried about bashing my head when I am walking around my house. If I don't have my seat belt on while driving or do not wear a bike helmet while riding I don't feel as safe. I don't see this as a character flaw on my part or a lack of courage. But I don't have an issue admitting that what I experience driving without a seat belt or riding without a bike helmet is the emotion fear. FDR said “Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” I don't understand your taking umbrage at the idea of fear as a response to perceived danger.

I just totally disagree with your theory because it makes no sense to me. I'll try one more time to explain it in another way. During my Navy career I've been involved in onloading and offloading a lot of armament - from small arms ammunition to Tomahawk missiles. Mistakes made in that evolution could cause massive destruction to the ship and many deaths. Knowledge of that possibility is necessary. Fear of it is absolutely unnecessary and harmful. The emotion of fear causes people to make mistakes, so does a feeling of nonchalance. Neither are permitted and if I see either one of them I will stop the evolution and remove that person from it and replace him with someone that has the right emotional state.

I will not dispute that some people buy a gun because of fear. Fear for their own safety for example. Some women have bought guns after being sexually assaulted. Some buy them because of crime in the neighborhood and they fear for their safety. However, most do not. They don't actually fear those things. They know those things could happen and they merely want to be prepared for it. The other fear might be that the government will take their guns away. If they like to shoot semi-automatic rifles for example, they might fear those being banned at some point in the near future (and they also might be logically thinking that given the desires of a significant portion of the country right now). I don't currently own a gun and those I've owned or used (outside of the military) were shotguns and rifles for hunting purposes when I was young. I've shot lots of handguns and rifles (and 5" guns and missiles as well, but not relevant to this small arms subject) and I enjoy shooting at targets. I've thought about buying one lately and joining my friends who like to shoot at the range. I'd buy it for enjoyment purposes. However, of course a secondary role of the weapon could very well be self defense. I don't have even the slightest fear that I'm going to suffer a home invasion, but if one occurred, the perpetrator might not live through it. Fear isn't a factor for me or any of the many gun owners I know. I don't relate to your insistence that it does for most gun owners. I honestly think you're dead wrong about it and I think it's because you don't understand guns or gun owners.

You want to continue the argument, I'm likely not going to participate because I don't think you're understand enough about the subject to make it worthwhile. Right now, I'm going for a three mile run. I'm not doing it because I fear bad health or something, but because I want keep in shape. More accurately, I'd like to get back to the better shape I was before I retired from the military.

 

[Cortez88]

Question for guy owners. What are your thoughts on those who visibly carry in public? Took the family out for dinner recently and a guy at the table across from us had a holster on his hip. We are in a nice safe suburb south of Indianapolis. As a citizens, I didn’t feel great about this guy looking like Clint Eastwood in a public restaurant.

 

[Ohio Guy]

No, you didn't. You simply lumped ~40% of the population into one caricature and labeled them all the same. As if that's somehow better.

If you’re distracted by what I wrote and that’s your takeaway from all of this, again, that’s a ‘you’ problem

 

[iu_a_att]

I just totally disagree with your theory because it makes no sense to me. I'll try one more time to explain it in another way. During my Navy career I've been involved in onloading and offloading a lot of armament - from small arms ammunition to Tomahawk missiles. Mistakes made in that evolution could cause massive destruction to the ship and many deaths. Knowledge of that possibility is necessary. Fear of it is absolutely unnecessary and harmful. The emotion of fear causes people to make mistakes, so does a feeling of nonchalance. Neither are permitted and if I see either one of them I will stop the evolution and remove that person from it and replace him with someone that has the right emotional state.

Fear is your body's way of telling you that you are in danger. Learning to control one's behavior in the face of danger i.e., to control one's fears is essential to properly dealing with life situations...particularly those that are dangerous. Seeing someone in a dangerous situation who is not properly responding to the present dangers is precisely what you say you look for when overseeing the onloading of armaments. An absence of fear leads to nonchalance. Being incapacitated by fear is also dangerous. If our only disagreement is whether a perception of danger is the same as fear then we are having a semantic dispute. But I don't think that is all there is to it.

The big picture here is that I think you believe that I am saying, for example, that people who buy guns for self-protection are not courageous. NO! You think I am suggesting that they are paralyzed by fear. NO! I am saying that most who are buying a gun for self-protection are not sensibly responding to whatever actual dangers they may face. I am saying that (and the data overwhelmingly support this finding) this response typically creates more danger for themselves and their loved ones. Perhaps you personally share this assessment because you have not bought a gun for self-protection. Buying a gun for target practice, for hunting, for varmint control, or even to commit crimes is another deal. In all those cases a gun is useful tool for the job. It is also worth noting that there seem to be lots of people who enjoy the experience of danger and fear. Degustibus non est disputandum.

 

[iu_a_att]

If our only disagreement is whether a perception of danger is the same as fear then we are having a semantic dispute.

I want to amplify one further thought here. I believe that we don't ever really "know" something without having an appropriate emotional reaction to it. For example, there is no "knowledge" of danger without the emotional experience of fear. True knowledge is not purely a conscious or rational state. Fear is a clue. To be fearless is to be clueless.

 

[RBB89]

Why is it that someone who might be interested in self protection is somehow living in fear? Do you lock your doors at night?

It's really not that complicated. Some people see a benefit to knowing how to use a firearm and having one at their disposal. Just in case. So what? That's not fear. I'm unlikely ever to need it. So what am I out? A couple thousand bucks and some range fees? And a locked up pistol that never gets used? How does that make me worse off than you? And why does it bother you so much?

A gun in your house increases the risk of homicide and suicide. There are studies on this. You may know how to handle a gun, but most people have no clue how to react in a firefight, so statistically all you’re doing is increasing the likelihood that you will die. And you’re out a few thousand bucks.

 

[Hank Reardon]

A gun in your house increases the risk of homicide and suicide. There are studies on this. You may know how to handle a gun, but most people have no clue how to react in a firefight, so statistically all you’re doing is increasing the likelihood that you will die. And you’re out a few thousand bucks.

The thing about statistics is that in most cases they're not applicable to individuals. Let's say there's a stat that says homes with guns are 25% more likely to have a homicide/suicide. That doesn't translate to, Hank buys a gun and is suddenly 25% more likely to be killed. If I left a pistol at your house for a month, would you suddenly be 25% more likely to be killed? No. Individuals do maintain some control over their own actions.

A few years back I took one of my first firearm classes. It was 8 hours. Four hours were nothing but classroom time talking about safety issues. One story that was told was that of a young boy somewhere in Indiana who found his Dad's gun under a sofa cushion and shot himself in the face. Tragic. And the Dad was a sheriff's deputy. So yeah, those things happen.

But on an individual level, such things are easily avoided. How hard is it not to leave a loaded firearm laying around? Answer...it's pretty easy to avoid such things. It's pretty easy to not shoot yourself. It's pretty easy to unload a weapon before handing it to someone, or checking a weapon that has been handed to you. It's about as easy to avoid shooting yourself or someone else as it is not slitting your throat with a knife. Contrary to what many are lead to believe, guns don't just go off.

I get that there are idiots out there contributing to the statistics. But that doesn't apply the statistic to every individual.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

I have presented evidence that gunbuyers (a) report wanting a gun for self-protection; (b) people in the country may actually be less safe than those in the city.

Regarding your evidence (a), the permitting process for handgun open carry or concealed carry requires gun owners to indicate whether the firearm will be used for hunting or personal protection. Since most folks hunt with rifles, the majority response for handgun permits is personal protection. Police will be suspcious -- perhaps rightly so -- of someone toting a pistol around the mall when their carry permit states 'for hunting.' Police will not be suspicious of someone toting a handgun in the back forty, even though their carry permit states for 'personal protection.' Thus, a personal protection permit becomes dual purpose.

Regarding your evidence (b), the earlier article you posted clearly stated that violent crime injuries are more frequent in cities than rural areas. It also conveyed that unintentional injuries (of a wide variety, not simply firearm related injuries) are the reason rural areas surpass cities in overall injury rates.

Edited to fix mispelling; was inuries, is injuries.

 

[iu_a_att]

The thing about statistics is that in most cases they're not applicable to individuals. Let's say there's a stat that says homes with guns are 25% more likely to have a homicide/suicide. That doesn't translate to, Hank buys a gun and is suddenly 25% more likely to be killed. If I left a pistol at your house for a month, would you suddenly be 25% more likely to be killed? No. Individuals do maintain some control over their own actions.

A few years back I took one of my first firearm classes. It was 8 hours. Four hours were nothing but classroom time talking about safety issues. One story that was told was that of a young boy somewhere in Indiana who found his Dad's gun under a sofa cushion and shot himself in the face. Tragic. And the Dad was a sheriff's deputy. So yeah, those things happen.

But on an individual level, such things are easily avoided. How hard is it not to leave a loaded firearm laying around? Answer...it's pretty easy to avoid such things. It's pretty easy to not shoot yourself. It's pretty easy to unload a weapon before handing it to someone, or checking a weapon that has been handed to you. It's about as easy to avoid shooting yourself or someone else as it is not slitting your throat with a knife. Contrary to what many are lead to believe, guns don't just go off.

I get that there are idiots out there contributing to the statistics. But that doesn't apply the statistic to every individual.

Absolutely true. Similar problems occur with pretty much any household item that is dangerous. Enough people burn down their houses deep frying turkeys and chainsaws are notoriously dangerous that one might similarly be advised to steer clear of them. On the other hand guns present some unique risks. For example, if you become suicidal the presence of a gun creates much larger risks for you than, say, a turkey fryer or a chainsaw. There are really great treatments available for those who become severely depressed but they may not get the chance to be employed in time if the person has a gun.

 

[iu_a_att]

Regarding your evidence (a), the permitting process for handgun open carry or concealed carry requires gun owners to indicate whether the firearm will be used for hunting or personal protection. Since most folks hunt with rifles, the majority response for handgun permits is personal protection. Police will be suspcious -- perhaps rightly so -- of someone toting a pistol around the mall when their carry permit states 'for hunting.' Police will not be suspicious of someone toting a handgun in the back forty, even though their carry permit states for 'personal protection.' Thus, a personal protection permit becomes dual purpose.

Regarding your evidence (b), the earlier article you posted clearly stated that violent crime injuries are more frequent in cities than rural areas. It also conveyed that unintentional inuries (of a wide variety, not simply firearm related injuries) are the reason rural areas surpass cities in overall injury rates.

You are correct on point b. Many of those violent injuries (as Dr. Hoops and Rockfish have pointed out in other threads) in the cities are concentrated in small areas. One hears the news but those events are about as relevant for many city dwellers as they are for those in foreign countries. Still, you are right about the report I cited. That report about the actual safety of those in urban versus rural areas actually makes another point..that perhaps those in rural areas have a greater need to be able to protect themselves than those in urban areas. In rural areas, for example, police may be a long way away. In urban areas not so.

I standby the discussion we have been having about those who claim to buy weapon chiefly for self-protection. You are right that such people may have dual uses too though. I am not sure I understand the deeper point you are making in part a. .

 

[zeke4ahs]

Absolutely true. Similar problems occur with pretty much any household item that is dangerous. Enough people burn down their houses deep frying turkeys and chainsaws are notoriously dangerous that one might similarly be advised to steer clear of them. On the other hand guns present some unique risks. For example, if you become suicidal the presence of a gun creates much larger risks for you than, say, a turkey fryer or a chainsaw. There are really great treatments available for those who become severely depressed but they may not get the chance to be employed in time if the person has a gun.

My gun views are partially influenced by the suicide rates. I know two people who shot themselves who had shown no suicidal tendencies at all. Both did something really stupid and got caught. The gun was the quick way out. Had they taken pills or something else they likely could have been saved. Their families are destroyed.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

You are correct on point b. Many of those violent injuries (as Dr. Hoops and Rockfish have pointed out in other threads) in the cities are concentrated in small areas. One hears the news but those events are about as relevant for many city dwellers as they are for those in foreign countries. Still, you are right about the report I cited. That report about the actual safety of those in urban versus rural areas actually makes another point..that perhaps those in rural areas have a greater need to be able to protect themselves than those in urban areas. In rural areas, for example, police may be a long way away. In urban areas not so.

I standby the discussion we have been having about those who claim to buy weapon chiefly for self-protection. You are right that such people may have dual uses too though. I am not sure I understand the deeper point you are making in part a. .

The deeper point for (a) -- which I actually didn't state -- is that respondents to the Gallup poll where 60% (?) indicated owning firearms for self-protection may have simply been regurgitating their response from the permitting process.

Edited to remove partial response to different post.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Question for guy owners. What are your thoughts on those who visibly carry in public? Took the family out for dinner recently and a guy at the table across from us had a holster on his hip. We are in a nice safe suburb south of Indianapolis. As a citizens, I didn’t feel great about this guy looking like Clint Eastwood in a public restaurant.

It's disconcerting. To me...and I realize I'm making assumptions about people I don't know...when I see a guy open carrying I see a guy trying to make some kind of point. And making a point just seems to be the wrong attitude to have.

I've argued with other owners about open carry. Legal or not I think it's borderline careless and unnecessarily provocative. But many disagree with me. That said, I rarely see it around here.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It's disconcerting. To me...and I realize I'm making assumptions about people I don't know...when I see a guy open carrying I see a guy trying to make some kind of point. And making a point just seems to be the wrong attitude to have.

I've argued with other owners about open carry. Legal or not I think it's borderline careless and unnecessarily provocative. But many disagree with me. That said, I rarely see it around here.

I can’t agree more. When I see someone open carrying I want to think it’s an off duty policeman but in reality it’s likely some chump who wears his politics on his sleeve.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

Question for guy owners. What are your thoughts on those who visibly carry in public? Took the family out for dinner recently and a guy at the table across from us had a holster on his hip. We are in a nice safe suburb south of Indianapolis. As a citizens, I didn’t feel great about this guy looking like Clint Eastwood in a public restaurant.

I agree with Hank -- it's disconcerting -- and I prefer concealed carry. Open carry is an invitation for the wrong person to sneak up and disarm someone.

 

[iu_a_att]

The deeper point for (a) -- which I actually didn't state -- is that respondents to the Gallup poll where 60% (?) indicated owning firearms for self-protection may have simply been regurgitating their response from the permitting process.

Edited to remove partial response to different post.

You could be right. The data is what it is...better than no data in my view.

 

[iu_a_att]

My gun views are partially influenced by the suicide rates. I know two peop,e who shot themselves who has shown no suidcidal tendencies at all. Both did something really stupid and got caught. The gun was the quick way out. Had they taken pills or something else they likely could have been saved. Their families are destroyed.

We all imagine that we will always be fully rational and careful at all times. Most of us are wrong about that. And the thing is that people can recover, completely, even from really bad depression. I agree with you, and my view about the risk of guns is heavily influenced by the suicide rates.

 

[Standard Issue]

I can’t agree more. When I see someone open carrying I want to think it’s an off duty policeman but in reality it’s likely some chump who wears his politics on his sleeve.

I usually assume penis problems. Guns are cheaper than a corvette or a small plane. The brilliant don't tell you how smart they are, the true believers don't tell you how religious they are and the confident don't strap on a glock to take their wife to suburban steak house.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Are we in "This Thread Sucks" territory yet? I feel like we might be in "This Thread Sucks" territory.