Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible). That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome. A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.
At this point on this topic, we're delving quite down the rabbit hole here. I don't disagree with your points of comparison that a gun is different from those things. The house fire analogy was meant to show one point, I do things to prevent things that I'm not afraid of in a fear standpoint but see as a possible outcome. Just because there's legitimate differences between fire alarms and guns doesn't mean that my point of the analogy is not proven. We all do things with the goal of improving a situation or preventing something bad
without fear being the actual motivation. None of your arguments against my analogy refute this point.
I don't agree. There is a chance of being struck by lightning every time you walk outdoors, yet you probably don't carry a lighting rod with you all the time. (I've been known to step outdoors without a lightning rod even when it's raining.) Why? Because the chance is negligible. It still exists of course (just as crime will always exist for the foreseeable future), but you don't need to eliminate lightning to step outdoors without a lightning rod.
I doubt we'll find any common ground on this one. Again, it goes back to your determination of something being negligible. There's an extremely small chance that I'll get attacked when I go outside, so you could say that's negligible. There's an extremely small chance anything bad would happen walking out in public with a gun on you (especially if you're a concealed carry holder, one of the lowest percentages of people committing crimes of most any demographic). You say the chance you'll get attacked is negligible, so why do it. I say the chance anything bad will happen because you're carrying a gun is negligible, so what's the big deal against carrying one. Negligiblity is in the eye of the beholder :).
There is absolutely a difference in the penetrating power and damage done by different rounds - I'm not arguing this. That's why I hunted partridge with a .22 and moose with a 30-06.
I will reiterate though, because we appear to be getting stuck here and this is probably my fault for not being clear enough. Hand guns are designed to kill other people efficiently. That's their only utility as a tool. A .22 hand gun is designed to kill. A 9 mm hand gun is designed to kill. A .45 hand gun is designed to kill. Now, all of them are less efficient at killing at range than a rifle. That doesn't mean that they weren't designed to kill efficiently by other metrics! They are designed to kill efficiently by being concealable, by minimizing recoil, by being light weight, etc.
If you want to debate the best possible caliber of hand gun to kill another human being given a particular situation, feel free to do so. While I will not join in that discussion I tend to think that President Kennedy might disagree with your analysis of the .22, given that he was assassinated by a .22 caliber revolver. You can cerfainly argue that some guns are more efficient at killing in particular scenarios than others . . . but don't argue that a gun is not designed to be efficient at killing. That is their raison d'être.
We're not going to agree on this either, and that's fine. My whole point is that you seem to imply that all guns were designed with only the intent to kill in mind and nothing else. My point is, if that were the case, then there's a crap-ton more of designed guns out there than necessary. I believe there are other intents in the design, and those can be more prevalent in the design intent of a gun than this blanket "every gun is designed to kill in the most efficient possible way period" view. At this point, though, even I can recognize I'm being a bit pedantic :), and this is not advancing the conversation, so I'm dropping this. Feel free to have the last word on this part if you'd like.
Agreed that they are making decisions. But the risk that they're taking is not only to themselves as you imply with your use of 'the' prior to 'risks' above. The risk extends to others. This is why we're having this discussion at all, if there was no risk to anyone else from the choice then there would be no reason to restrict it.
An analogy . . . driving a tank down the highway would make my family safer. We would have inches of heavy armor between us and the vehicles around us, and several tons of mass would mean that other vehicles would just bounce off were there to be a collision. This reduces risk for me and my family. Tanks don't have very good visibility though. This increases risks to every other person on the road.
In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased. There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft. It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home. There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake. There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.
I re-read your statement, and I read context into it that wasn't there. I will only say that yes, gun owners must rationalize living in a world where the risk of guns is increased because of guns. However, they live with the same risks themselves, so they are, so to speak, putting their money where their mouth is.
Is it possible to commit a crime without being both caught and then reported on in the local news?
It's certainly possible. I could have missed someone. Statistically speaking, the point remains. Literally millions of people have guns without actually using their gun in a crime. The anecdote is not really helpful anyways, so I'll stick with that.
I figured the discussion about alcohol was over when you refused to answer my question:
Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated? My experience has been that it is more difficult. You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting. Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?
You thought your anecdotal very hypothetical question refuted the entire point...seriously? I'll address your question directly instead of peripherally (which I did by commenting on practicality versus your anecdotal question - the point is moot because there are thousands of alcohol related deaths regardless of the answer). I don't know. We'd have to do a study on it to really know. Does it make it more difficult? Does it do it by only a tiny fraction (say 5%) in some people whereas it makes them 95% more likely to attack someone? It certainly does make it easier to kill someone on a highway if you don't have intent to hurt someone (like 99.999999999999% of people who drive) as seen by drunk driving statistics.
But yes, we can keep discussing it if you think it's important.
With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death. With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths. Alchohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause. Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?
Great, let's keep discussing it. I think it's very important because it illustrates the hypocrisy.
First, now who's being pedantic. It's the automobile that causes the death....um, ok, sure, and if the person wasn't driving it drunk, it wouldn't happen.
Second, glad you put in the caveat of causing the deaths of other people. I hate to put words in your mouth, but an
extremely high proportion of gun control advocates lump in suicides with all other gun deaths to make it look higher. Glad I can avoid using those numbers in future conversations with you :). Also on this topic, again, I want to point out that it's kind of interesting to me that people keep calling guns a "public health crisis" when they are a peripheral injury thing whereas alcohol
is a clearer public health crisis because it's ingesting something that slowly deteriorates the body's functions. Just more evidence that people give alcohol a free pass.
Ok, so I should have posted this to begin with. My bad:
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htmStatistics - 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year 2006-2010
32,000 gun deaths in 2013 per -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Statesof which 21,175 were suicides, so 10,825 non-suicide related deaths due to guns. (Sorry for the wiki, it's hard to find older years of gun deaths, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if a direct date to date comparison changes it dramatically, but I doubt it will).
Gun deaths are less than half of the overall 88,000 alcohol related deaths when you look at whole deaths on both sides.
Of this, drunk drivers alone were 9,967, almost equivalent to all non-suicide related gun deaths by themselves -
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statisticsThe WHO attributes 8% of alcohol related deaths to violence, so that's another approximate 7,000 deaths.
https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdfNow we're already at 60% more alcohol deaths other than the person drinking compared to guns (non-suicide), and again, of course, when you factor in all deaths caused by alcohol, it's over twice as much as well.
What we have is a clear cut case of alcohol causing at least as much and in reality more societal problems than guns. Yet the issues I listed above remain. The problem is there, and it's clear. Yet it's not addressed. Because it's easier to take away rights for something you don't care at all about or think of as other. That's the problem I'm addressing.