Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 355814 times)

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2450 on: April 13, 2017, 09:26:56 AM »
They made their choice.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
Exactly this.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8182
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2451 on: April 22, 2017, 08:27:10 AM »
But wait - these 3 invaded someone's home armed with potentially lethal weapons.  They had prepared to encounter occupants and deal with them violently.     This sort of incident explain why Americans keep firearms in their homes.    This I understand.

That's the bottom line. If someone enters my home forcefully with a weapon, I'm not leaving my family's safety up to the whim of a criminal with questionable judgment. Sorry.

I don't think you'll get too much argument from anybody on this.  It's a pretty clear cut case, if people are trying to hurt you you should be able to defend yourself.  There are also many cases where firearms in the house have been turned on family members (http://www.waff.com/story/35094235/father-accidentally-shoots-son-after-mistaking-him-for-burglar) . . . I doubt that you would find many claiming that this sort of incident explains why Americans keep firearms in their homes.  Owning a firearm doesn't always mean you'll be the hero, fighting off an armed robbery . . . sometimes it means that you'll be dad who killed his son by mistake.

The fundamental question seems to be "is ready access to guns a net positive or negative for society?", and (if the answer to that question is positive) . . . "is there anything we can do to reduce the tragic consequences of having guns while increasing the benefits?".  The problem is that research on the issue tends to be spotty and conflicting, so it's difficult to conclusively draw an obvious answer from data . . . leading to arguments based on emotion and worldview.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2452 on: April 22, 2017, 09:11:05 AM »
People need to know basic gun safety, which includes, always identify your target.  You must be sure that you clearly see the human being you are shooting at and know they are not a friend or neighbor, etc, and you must be aware of your surroundings to avoid terrible mistakes. 

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1947
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2453 on: April 22, 2017, 09:56:00 AM »
...  There are also many cases where firearms in the house have been turned on family members (http://www.waff.com/story/35094235/father-accidentally-shoots-son-after-mistaking-him-for-burglar) . . . I doubt that you would find many claiming that this sort of incident explains why Americans keep firearms in their homes.  Owning a firearm doesn't always mean you'll be the hero, fighting off an armed robbery . . . sometimes it means that you'll be dad who killed his son by mistake.
These kinds of tragedies get lots of press, but I wonder--how often does that kind of thing actually happen?

MsPeacock

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Location: High COL
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2454 on: April 22, 2017, 12:16:38 PM »
Here is some scientific data about the use of guns in self-defense and other instances:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/


A gun in the home does not make the occupants safer, contrary to popular belief and sales tactics.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2455 on: April 24, 2017, 08:20:07 AM »
Here is some scientific data about the use of guns in self-defense and other instances:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/


A gun in the home does not make the occupants safer, contrary to popular belief and sales tactics.

Survey data isn't scientific data. Secondly, it's very clear that whoever wrote this is not being objective. Based on what they cite as their bellwethers, it has the distinct feel that they had a conclusion in mind and looked for ways to support it. I haven't delved into each of the referenced studies, perhaps they're more objective. And perhaps better data is now available.

#4 is irrelevant. If the law is such that pointing a gun at anyone for any reason is illegal, then any DGU is therefore illegal.

 #7: Adolescents are more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one defensively. Well, duh... children aren't exactly allowed to carry guns. I wonder if dogs have guns used against them more of than they use them defensively as well?

#8: this just shows that if you're a criminal, you're more likely to get shot.

#9,10: What's a defensive use of a firearm? is yelling at the crackhead while holding him in the sights without firing a DGU?

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2456 on: April 24, 2017, 04:07:23 PM »
It's not about improved safety or net benefit to society.

It's about not being helpless.   The American cultural story is about being the good guy, self reliance, and grit.

If a gang invades your home & you're unarmed, you're pretty much helpless.   Even GuitarStv (who is a jiu-jitsu player and serious weight lifter IIRC) would have trouble driving off a gang armed with clubs and knives.

The only way to change the gun culture in America is to demonstrate that people won't be helpless without a firearm in the home.   The Swiss model might possibly work, but I suspect that  crime, poverty and racial conflict will prevent this for the foreseeable future.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8182
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2457 on: April 26, 2017, 06:05:45 AM »
It's not about improved safety or net benefit to society.

It's about not being helpless.   The American cultural story is about being the good guy, self reliance, and grit.

If a gang invades your home & you're unarmed, you're pretty much helpless.   Even GuitarStv (who is a jiu-jitsu player and serious weight lifter IIRC) would have trouble driving off a gang armed with clubs and knives.

The only way to change the gun culture in America is to demonstrate that people won't be helpless without a firearm in the home.   The Swiss model might possibly work, but I suspect that  crime, poverty and racial conflict will prevent this for the foreseeable future.

I have to disagree with you on that.

We live in a society because of the benefits that living in a society convey upon us.  If something hurts society as a whole it should not be tolerated.  At a very high level, that's the entire purpose of the rule of law.

To give a ridiculous example that illustrates my point, if Russia decided to invade my house tomorrow I don't have a thermonuclear ability to repel their attack.  I don't have land mines.  I don't have RPGs, or even hand grenades.  That leaves me pretty helpless against a modern military with tanks, APCs, helicopters, and fighter jets.  I have to wait and hope for the national defense to save me.  Society has decided that the benefit of keeping these weapons amoung the citizenry is outweighed by the disadvantages and thus they are restricted.  It doesn't matter at all that I'd be helpless in my home.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2458 on: April 26, 2017, 07:15:40 AM »
I have to disagree with you on that.

We live in a society because of the benefits that living in a society convey upon us.  If something hurts society as a whole it should not be tolerated.  At a very high level, that's the entire purpose of the rule of law.

To give a ridiculous example that illustrates my point, if Russia decided to invade my house tomorrow I don't have a thermonuclear ability to repel their attack.  I don't have land mines.  I don't have RPGs, or even hand grenades.  That leaves me pretty helpless against a modern military with tanks, APCs, helicopters, and fighter jets.  I have to wait and hope for the national defense to save me.  Society has decided that the benefit of keeping these weapons amoung the citizenry is outweighed by the disadvantages and thus they are restricted.  It doesn't matter at all that I'd be helpless in my home.

The issue I have with this philosophy is it reduces us down to the lowest common denominator, and ignores, well, freedom.  Do sodas have a positive impact on society?  Almost certainly not.  Cigarettes?  Doubtful.  Credit cards?  Again I doubt it.  Alcohol?  Hell no.  Speed limits over 45?  I think you could make an argument against it.  Advertising?  Tough call there too.  We could make the country WAY safer by forcing everyone to wear body cams and have cameras in their homes.  Think of the crimes that would prevent/stop.

At some point people have to be responsible for how they use things.  I guess it depends on the kind of society you want to live in.  Absolute safety requires absolute control.  Most people have some place they draw the line and say "I wouldn't want to live in a place with that much of a restriction on me" because a certain amount of freedom is enjoyable.  There's the whole "he who would give up freedom for safety deserves neither" quote that somebody important supposedly said, I think there's something to that.

To me guns are a very important aspect of democratic freedom.  It's power to the people. While it certainly doesn't fix everything, and has some serious downsides, it gives the people a pretty huge bargaining chip they don't get in many places.  The whole "people shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be a afraid of their people" philosophy in action.  Voting and protesting only works in certain societal formats, we're seeing results of countries protesting right now that have media completing ignoring the protests.  Even if the media covers it, unless another country decides to step in it doesn't really matter.  It's not hard for me to imagine a situation where a government mistreats its people and doesn't give a shit about signs and twitter posts. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2653
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2459 on: April 26, 2017, 07:56:27 AM »
To give a ridiculous example that illustrates my point, if Russia decided to invade my house tomorrow I don't have a thermonuclear ability to repel their attack.  I don't have land mines.  I don't have RPGs, or even hand grenades.  That leaves me pretty helpless against a modern military with tanks, APCs, helicopters, and fighter jets.  I have to wait and hope for the national defense to save me.  Society has decided that the benefit of keeping these weapons amoung the citizenry is outweighed by the disadvantages and thus they are restricted.  It doesn't matter at all that I'd be helpless in my home.

And yet insurgent forces all over the middle east have given the most powerful military in the world PLENTY of trouble with just small arms and IEDs.  Unless someone is truly going to "nuke us from orbit" then yes, small arms can be effective. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1947
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2460 on: April 26, 2017, 08:24:50 AM »
To give a ridiculous example that illustrates my point, if Russia decided to invade my house tomorrow I don't have a thermonuclear ability to repel their attack.  I don't have land mines.  I don't have RPGs, or even hand grenades.  That leaves me pretty helpless against a modern military with tanks, APCs, helicopters, and fighter jets.  I have to wait and hope for the national defense to save me.  Society has decided that the benefit of keeping these weapons amoung the citizenry is outweighed by the disadvantages and thus they are restricted.  It doesn't matter at all that I'd be helpless in my home.
Invading is not the same as occupying and assimilating.  Once the tanks have rolled past, it's a lot harder to keep a lid on things.  Even with Russia's 20,000 tanks, at some point, you have to put boots on the ground.  At that point, the 50 million gun owners become a bit problematic.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2461 on: April 26, 2017, 04:26:14 PM »
It's not about improved safety or net benefit to society.

It's about not being helpless.   The American cultural story is about being the good guy, self reliance, and grit.

If a gang invades your home & you're unarmed, you're pretty much helpless.   Even GuitarStv (who is a jiu-jitsu player and serious weight lifter IIRC) would have trouble driving off a gang armed with clubs and knives.

The only way to change the gun culture in America is to demonstrate that people won't be helpless without a firearm in the home.   The Swiss model might possibly work, but I suspect that  crime, poverty and racial conflict will prevent this for the foreseeable future.

I have to disagree with you on that.

We live in a society because of the benefits that living in a society convey upon us.  If something hurts society as a whole it should not be tolerated.  At a very high level, that's the entire purpose of the rule of law.

To give a ridiculous example that illustrates my point, if Russia decided to invade my house tomorrow I don't have a thermonuclear ability to repel their attack.  I don't have land mines.  I don't have RPGs, or even hand grenades.  That leaves me pretty helpless against a modern military with tanks, APCs, helicopters, and fighter jets.  I have to wait and hope for the national defense to save me.  Society has decided that the benefit of keeping these weapons amoung the citizenry is outweighed by the disadvantages and thus they are restricted.  It doesn't matter at all that I'd be helpless in my home.

I don't think you're disagreeing with me!  :-)  I personally tend to agree with your point of view - this is the way we should do things.   

I was trying to elucidate the American cultural view which leads to their need to own personal firearms.    In the American culture, it's more important to be able to look after yourself than any risks or negative effects this leads to in their society.    Of course, that's a sweeping generalization.    People in more liberal states will think more like we do.   People in more conservative states will think more in terms of their own independence and self-sufficiency.

It took a very long time for me to understand this, but I think I finally get it.