posted
So, I just read the Wikipedia article on OSC which says that he is "pro-gun control".
Truth be told, I hadn't seen any reference to this before, but when I googled, I found several comments by Mr. Card that would seem to indicate such, but most were in the nature of "why can't a supporter of X support Y, and why must a supporter of A support B?"
By no means is this meant to stir up an argument or debate on gun control, I'm just curious if anyone can point me to anything of substance on Mr. Card's views on the subject.
Many thanks!
Posts: 14 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing was defined. I'm just curious about his views.
A comment by him suggested he was a supporter of "moderate gun control", but didn't explore it further.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
gun registration is a good thing even for folks who own rifles, but anythign beyond that I think tends to start violating those freedoms provided to us by the people that established this country.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry, didn't know you were looking for his specific point of view, don't have a clue. Someone else probably will though.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only people who need me to "prove" I'm not a "right-wing nut" are people who are so fanatically left-wing that they can't tell a moderate from a cinderblock.
Nevertheless, to satisfy your curiosity:
Civilized people living in civilized places don't carry with them the means of killing strangers and innocent bystanders. When you tame Dodge City, you do it by disarming everybody and leaving the police with a monopoly on weaponry.
The statistics cited in recent years about how crime goes down in states with concealed carry laws have been exposed as hoaxes. There is no evidence that people are safer with guns proliferating.
Your children won't kill themselves or strangers with guns you and your neighbors don't have in your homes.
I have no objection to single shot hunting rifles. But you should permanently lose the privilege of owning or carrying such weapons the moment you are convicted of any violent crime.
I think the "collecting" of assault weapons is a grave danger to society. People have no more "right" to a gun collection than they have to a recreational drug collection.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
Except, of course, I really, really think that people need assault rifles for deer hunting. You never can tell when those deer are all-of-a-sudden just going to gang up on you.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gun control: Relax, focus on the sights lining up, and breathe out slowly. Squeeze the trigger. If you blink, you miss.
Now that is gun control!
Actually, whether gun ownership helps . . . I think the people who think that the research is a hoax may be jumping to conclusions. Evidence not clear. It IS clear that gun control does not help. Consficating them doesn't work. Look at Australia.
I grew up in a western community where guns were in almost every home. No problems, no killings, no accidents. The real problem is a general social breakdown, where criminals do have guns, and others are afraid of them.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I grew up in a western community where guns were in almost every home. No problems, no killings, no accidents. The real problem is a general social breakdown, where criminals do have guns, and others are afraid of them.
I think that you have to look at gun control in context, because there really are only two reasons to use a gun:
1. Hunting for food. 2. Killing (defense, offense, justified, whatever)
How many of us need to do either of these?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Civilized people living in civilized places don't carry with them the means of killing strangers and innocent bystanders. When you tame Dodge City, you do it by disarming everybody and leaving the police with a monopoly on weaponry.
That's never made sense to me. If you're going to outlaw guns, do you expect people who commit crimes with them to suddenly stop because owning a gun is illegal? I mean, if a person is going to murder someone or rob a store/bank/person with a gun, I'm pretty sure they won't run down to their local gun shop, wait five days to be cleared during their background check, then go back out and use a traceable gun to commit a felony.
I guess my main beef with that line of thinking is: how will making guns illegal dissuade criminals from using them?
I mean, I can understand limiting gun ownership, and requiring people to, say, pass a proficiency and safety test to get their license. Beucase if you know how to safely lock up your firearms, you won't have a problem.
I grew up in a home with firearms, and besides locking them up, my father would regularly lecture me on the importance of gun safety. Never point a gun at anyone, even if you think it's unloaded. Always check the chamber to make sure it's empty. Always empty a gun before putting it away. Keep it locked up and out of reach at all times. Never place your finger on the trigger unless you intend to fire. Never fire at anything unless you know what it is and that it presents a direct threat to your safety.
I've yet to blow someone's head off, rob a bank, or accidentally shoot a loved one.
I mean, you should realize a gun is not dangerous unless handled inappropriately or with intent to do wrong. A gun doesn't kill people; the person who pulls the trigger, willingly or without respect to the danger of their action, kills someone.
Suppose we do successfully keep guns out of the hands of criminals. (I seriously doubt that's possible either; banning drugs hasn't stopped them from becoming widespread.) They'll just find something else to use as a weapon. Are we going to end up banning all objects that can be used to kill someone or pose a threat if not handled with care?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only people who need me to "prove" I'm not a "right-wing nut" are people who are so fanatically left-wing that they can't tell a moderate from a cinderblock.
I don't need anyone to "prove" anything - I was simply looking for clarification of what you believed to be "moderate" or "civilized" gun control.
Truth be told, I'm not left-wing - far from it. I like to consider myself a moderate right-wingish type, and I'm in complete disagreeance with your stance on gun control. That doesn't mean that reasonable discourse can't be established and maintained.
I simply wished to know what you referred to, and I thank you for your posting.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that you have to look at gun control in context, because there really are only two reasons to use a gun:
1. Hunting for food. 2. Killing (defense, offense, justified, whatever)
How many of us need to do either of these?
I'm gonna go with a 'no' on this one. There is a third and excellent reason to own and operate a gun that is open to anyone and everyone. The reason being: sport. It is fun to fire a weapon at a target. It is even more fun to fire an explosive weapon at a fragile target.
Obviously, an act being fun is not validation if that same act infringes on anyone else's fun, but I can see no way that firing a weapon at a target harms anyone but the target. Granted, if one uses a projectile weapon without the proper education it can be very dangerous, but that isn't the gun's fault, it is the users.
Hell, isn't it an Olympic sport? So is archery. Well, the only reason to shoot a bow and arrow is to kill something, right? No, wrong. People like to shoot at targets for competition and/or fun.
I also disagree that there is a problem with people having an exotic firearm collection. I agree that it should be a little harder to complete that collection (it is apparently pretty easy to get an AK), and there should definitely be extensive files and background checks (done by the distributors) on anyone interested in purchasing high powered weapons. But I have friends with great collections and they are a lot of fun. We have never killed or injured anything or anyone with them, we just have fun, no one gets hurt.
Also, I feel the need to point out that just because you disagree with someone on any particular topic does not make you an extremist or mean that you think that they are an extremist. Even if you ask them questions about it.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Suppose we do successfully keep guns out of the hands of criminals. (I seriously doubt that's possible either; banning drugs hasn't stopped them from becoming widespread.) They'll just find something else to use as a weapon. Are we going to end up banning all objects that can be used to kill someone or pose a threat if not handled with care?
But at least it would make it harder to kill someone or to threaten someone with death. Surely that is a positive outcome.
I think the idea is: it makes it that much harder to accidentally kill someone (and that goes back to gun safety and teaching new gun users never to aim a gun at something they don't intend to kill), and it makes it that much harder to kill someone in the heat of the moment, and it makes people who want to kill someone work that much harder at it. Like in a book I read: at one point the main character was in battle and thought that handguns were too light, made it too easy to kill someone, that swords were better because at least you'd have to grunt for it. An odd way of looking at it, maybe, but for the average non-professional killer, the longer they have to wait and the harder they have to work to commit the crime, the more time they have to rethink things and maybe change their mind. Good thing, no?
And I'm skeptical about the defense argument, that guns are needed to defend yourself against criminals. In my experience, the people who say that are the ones who think it's automatically self-defense to kill someone who breaks into your house and that it's a great outrage whenever someone who puts that barroom law knowledge into practice actually gets charged for murder, and that's why they keep a loaded pistol in the drawer of their bedside table. Those the kind of people you want with a gun? Not me. I'd just as soon trigger-happy maniacs who dream out loud to their friends about what they'll do when (oops, sorry, what they'd do if) some criminal came into their house in the dead of the night didn't have the means to enact their fantasies. Same with people who want handguns to carry around with them "just in case." Something tells me they're much more likely to get into an accident--discover that the burglar was just their kid coming back from sneaking out, their attacker was just an ordinary man, they forgot to put the safety on--than actually be attacked by a bona fide criminal in such a way that the only way to defend themselves is to pump the person full of bullets. (Especially considering that the person who is totally self-assured, just waiting for someone to go ahead and make their day, is not exactly the ideal victim for most attackers.) Come on: learn self-defense (how to neutralize the threat with a minimum of actual violence), learn how to avoid getting yourself in that kind of situation to begin with, and you've protected yourself pretty well already.
The idea behind gun control isn't to stop people from killing each other; it's to make it significantly harder so that people who want to kill other people might choose not to do it, and are much easier to stop if they still choose to do it, and are much less likely to be successful at doing it. And to prevent accidents and to stop crimes-of-passion-in-the-making. First-degree murder isn't the only kind; don't we also want to prevent second and third-degree murder and, what's the legal name for what's right below manslaughter, where someone dies because the other person was criminally negligent, that kind too? Any kind of death at all?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I told you ... all I had time for was the brief version. The summary. I know all the arguments in favor of freer availability of guns (I come from Utah, for pete's sake! <grin>), and I understand them. Some of them might even be right. But for me, at least, the danger of accidental or mental-illness related tragedies from proliferation of gun ownership far outweighs any benefit from gun ownership. If I actually have my guns locked up and put away so they pose no danger to my family or friends, then exactly what kind of danger would I be able to deal with? Watching an armed man SLOWLY approach my home while I rush and unlock my gun cabinet and load my weapon with bullets kept in a separate safe? Hmmmm.
We thrive best when we live in a culture where guns are rare and the police attentive to our defense.
The deer rifle exception is partly because I DO believe that the people need to retain some means of staging the occasional revolution <Grin>. Against the domination of deer.
posted
The deer ARE taking over here in New Jersey. This state has deer the way normal states have squirrels. I see at least one new dead deer by the side of the road EVERY DAY on my way to work, victims of deer-car collisions. I think the excess deer should be shot instead, and the venison donated to the poor.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes guns are fun to shoot on an established, controlled, managed range. But they USUALLY infringe on the space of others in other venues. Anyone who enjoys hiking in western public lands has had to endure shooters vandalism everywhere they go. I suspect it is the same in the east only you plant trees over the damage.
And, Yes guns are interesting and fun to look at. I really enjoy some of the classic collections such as the Browning Arms collection in Ogden and the old Harrahs collection in Reno. The artillery collection at Rock Island IL is super too. But, you don't need one in your basement to do that.
Hunting OK. Walking arround shooting up the countryside, No. Self defense is just a red herring. If you really want the "combat experience" join the National Guard and do something useful.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bit about revolutions is ridiculous; what are you going to do against a modern military? It was quite sensible when muskets were the main source of even regular firepower, with the occasional popgun cannon for backup; in an ear when people will blow down buildings with artillery on the suspicion that enemies might be hiding in them, it doesn't work.
As a compromise, though, how about strong restrictions on handguns, few or none on rifles? (The model, none too incidentally, used by Norway and Switzerland, both of which have strong militia traditions, very high gun ownership, and way fewer gun fatalities per capita than America. A rifle is sort of awkward for carrying concealed into a bank; it makes a little more sense than a handgun for staging a revolution, and it's just as useful for home defense (not very much, that is, as OSC points out).
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Gun control: Relax, focus on the sights lining up, and breathe out slowly. Squeeze the trigger. If you blink, you miss.
quote: By no means is this meant to stir up an argument or debate on gun control, I'm just curious if anyone can point me to anything of substance on Mr. Card's views on the subject.
debate? I dont see a debate!
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bit about revolutions is ridiculous; what are you going to do against a modern military?
Guerrila tactics, IED's, and VASTLY more manpower than the military. . . seems to be working for the "insurgents" in Iraq. Why couldn't it be done here?
How many in the military (all branches)? How many "gun-owning revolutionaries?" How many in the military would desert to join the "gun owners" thereby bringing some weaponry of the "modern military" into the hand of the revolutionaries?
Methinks you underestimate the will of those who would stage such a revolution.
That said, I don't own a gun. I don't ever plan to either. America has been largely tamed, and for all the news reports you hear of crime, well. . . the fact that it's on the news means it's an anomaly. I may be the victim of a crime at some point, but the actual odds of that are quite low -- certainly not so high that I feel the need to buy a gun. But there are those who do feel that need, and it is their right to do so as well.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:seems to be working for the "insurgents" in Iraq.
In what sense is it "working" for the "insurgents" in Iraq?
Sure, it's causing lots of mayhem. It's killing a lot of people - mostly Iraqis.
They're objective is overthrowing the first democratically elected government in Iraq in decades and, as best I can tell, that government still exists.
What, exactly, is "working" for them?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the media is willing to report on even a trivial number of casualties, the importance of hand guns and even knives has returned.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with OSC. Especially about the Dodge City comparison. Or maybe I've just seen Wyatt Earp one time too many .
And what good could having a single rifle do to fight off an enemy? In the revolution scenario, you imagine that the people you're fighting are the American army right?
Start with this, the first thing they do is find every gun registry in the area, and find all the local gun owners. Your houses are first on the chopping block. That still leaves plenty of guns, and especially with hunters, maybe only with hunters, people who know how to use them. It's one thing for there to be insurgents with AKs running around the streets trying to spray American tanks and such with bullets hoping for a hit. It's quite another to have Americans hiding out all over the place waiting to pick off enemy soldiers with rifles and high powered scopes.
Handguns are one thing. Rifles are another. A society that owns a lot of rifles like that is a nation of snipers in the making. If I were one, I'd make it my mission to kill one enemy soldier a day. Just one. If everyone in the nation made that their goal, either everyone being occupied ends up dead really fast, or the occupation ends really fast. But the situation wouldn't be nearly the same as it is currently in Iraq.
I don't think people should carry concealed weapons. Keeping a loaded pistol in your home in a lockbox with the safety on, that's something I could probably get behind. It's easily accessible, but not dangerous to other family members. Hunting rifles I believe in too.
But ALL assault rifles are totally without necessity. I don't necessarily think that we should be a nation totally without guns, but I also don't think there is an unlimited right to own a small armory in your home.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I worked at Eckerd's about 10 years ago there was a pharmacist who was looking to trade his AK-47 for a motorcycle. He carried it in his trunk wherever he went, just in case he met someone that wanted to trade. As far as I know, no one got hurt. I'm not sure what point this makes, but I thought it was pretty odd at the time.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's one of the biggest reasons I respect Mr. Card. Even when I disagree with him on a point, I at least know that he has indeed weighed the opposite viewpoint and leaves open the possibility that he might change his view, given convincing new evidence or argument.
Where I differ from OSC in this case is that his viewpoint makes the tacit assumption that the police can adequately defend the people. If this were true, then yes, his version of gun control would be tenable. By extension, it would also mean that the world would be safe if all nuclear weapons were under the control of the UN.
Any idea with utopian elements (like Communism or Libertarianism) ultimately fails because human beings simply are not perfect and never will be. In the gun control case, crime still happens because people are not perfect. It happens because there can never be enough policemen to guarantee everyone's safety 24 hours a day (the horrors of a police state are worse than open access to guns). It happens because power does tend to corrupt imperfect human beings--even the police.
Guns cannot reasonably be replaced as defense weapons because of the equalization factor--bullets travel the same whether fired by a 25-year old Marine sharpshooter or a 90-year old WWII veteran. The same cannot be said for a baseball-bat fight. In the ten minutes it takes for a policeman to respond to a home invasion call, a strong criminal could beat every weaker resident to death with a golf club and scoot out the back door before the cop could shoot him. Without guns, there is truly an "arms" gap--and its that bit between the wrist and the shoulder--not weapons.
Now, to be fair to Mr. Card, our society actually is tame enough, for the most part, for the danger of accidental shootings to be greater than the danger from aggravated assault. Still, accidents happen with perfectly innocuous tools as well--traffic fatalities account for as many deaths each year as were lost by the United States during the entire Vietnam War.
The key to manageable gun ownership is the same as the key to manageable car ownership--reasonable licensing restrictions and focused training. Children should be exposed to the realities of guns at an early age to reduce curiosity-based or media-induced accidents. Dad started training me at 8. A friend trained his boy at 5 in pretty much the same way: take a good sized pistol (not a .22), go out to an outdoor range, and shoot a couple of times at paper bulls-eye targets only. The BOOM of a .357 Magnum round, coupled with the realization that the only resultant "kewl destruction" being a hole punched in a sheet of paper that didn't even look like a man, tends to sour a kid on gunslinger fantasies in a hurry. (People who train kids with .22s shattering bottles and exploding soda cans ought to be thrown in jail. All that does is teach kids that guns make funny things happen, so they want to show their friends when Daddy's not home...)
I readily admit that my plan also falls victim to the imperfect-human flaw. ("Hey, Johnny! I bought ya a .22! Grab that 6-pack of Fresca out of the fridge and hop in the car, we's a-gonna-go blow sh*t up!" "YAAAAY!") Yet, in the absence of live-in policemen, a gun in the hands of a properly-instructed individual is about all the protection one can reasonably exercise.
In my opinion, Sev
Posts: 12 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet, in the absence of live-in policemen, a gun in the hands of a properly-instructed individual is about all the protection one can reasonably exercise.
Would you be willing to ensure this is the case by requiring gun licensing and registration?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I am not opposed to gun registration any more than I am opposed to vehicle registration. As far as licensing goes, I am also not opposed to owner licensing, as long as the provision is "shall issue". (For the record, I am licensed to carry a concealed firearm in my state, which is a "shall issue" state--some states/municipalities withhold licenses on the whim of the local police chief or sheriff. "Shall issue" laws require the permit be issued unless the registrant has a criminal record or some other disqualifying condition.)
While I do not believe the police to be infallible, I do not believe them to be corrupt to a man, either. There is a certain level of trust that simply must be maintained in order for any social compact to survive. They trust me to carry a gun, I trust them not to arbitrarily seize my guns based on registration.
Regards, Sev
Posts: 12 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Guerrila tactics, IED's, and VASTLY more manpower than the military. . . seems to be working for the "insurgents" in Iraq. Why couldn't it be done here?
Well, IEDs do not require access to guns, I would note. And it's a good IED that will stop a modern tank.
'Vastly more manpower'; why would you assume that? If you've really got 100% of the population behind you, then it's pretty safe to assume that the military won't be fighting you anyway; they're recruited from the same population, after all. Even in your war of independence, surely the textbook example of wide popular support, the population was about 33% Tory. I don't think you'll find any revolution with actual fighting where the government had less support than that. And there's also a vast difference between 'supports the cause of X' and 'is willing to take potshots at their soldiers'.
Then again, it seems to me that you are assuming the same kind of government we have now, not willing to inflict civilian casualties; but if you're going to be fighting it at all, you would think it would be rather more repressive and generally evil, yes? (Which incidentally is why the 'one-soldier-a-day' someone mentioned wouldn't work. If I were in charge of pacifying a city, I'd take a leaf from the old Imperial German army : Every time a soldier is shot by a civilian, ten hostages are hanged. Make sure that the hostages are from the upper classes.) For a slightly less bloodthirsty approach, just level the building the shot came from; warning the tenants is optional. Pretty soon the people who just want to be left alone will patrol the buildings themselves, thank you, or else there won't be any sniper vantage points left.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kythri, I didn't mean YOU. I meant the hypothetical people to whom you wished me to address my remarks <grin>.
People can die from butter dropped on the floor, on which they slip and break their heads. But let's not work on butter registration till we have the far more lethal gun problem under control. People DO kill themselves with butter, but only slo-o-o-owly.
I knew a kid who pulled a gun out of his pocket while walking with his girlfriend home from school and shot himself quite deliberately in the head. He might not have done something so final with, say, a knife. The thing with guns is, you don't have a chance for second thoughts, whereas with car exhaust or gas or even slit wrists and sleeping pills you have a brief interval in which you can change your mind and call for rescue.
To me, unrestricted gun ownership is not worth the danger, not just to the families who live with the guns, but to everyone around them.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I thought I was the only person frightened by the casual discussion of ways to pacify rebellious cities.
I mean, I might talk about ways to take over the world with my friends, far away from any recording devices, but never on a public forum with a permanent record.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: King of Men, you scare me.
Eh, what? I thought you were the student of history. It's not as though the Germans were being particularly uncivilised by the standards of the day. And they certainly didn't have a guerrilla problem in the parts of France they occupied.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even so, you never know which of your friends could be wearing a recording device.
That's true...especially with the type of friends who would have a discussion with me about ways to take over the world...Does anyone know where to get that thingy they use in spy novels to check for listening or recording devices?
quote:It's not as though the Germans were being particularly uncivilised by the standards of the day. And they certainly didn't have a guerrilla problem in the parts of France they occupied.
The standards of whose day? Ours or theirs?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: King of Men, you scare me.
See?? You need a gun!
J/k. You're statistically more likely to shoot a family member than anyone else. Think about THAT when you buy your next gun folks.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, all I know is that the first thing fascist governments do when they take power is remove the citizen's right to defend themselves. And, that I was taught how to fire a gun safely before I could ride a bike. My dad gave me a 12 gauge and told me how to hold it, and I promptly knocked myself on my butt, and since then, I have had a deep respect for them. I go out a few times a year to practice, and I have had no incidents, simply by practicing basic rules. It has taught me discipline, and focus, and that is one thing I DONT see enough of nowadays.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second thing fascist states do is build highways and make the trains run on time. Are you going to object to the freeway system too?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, all I know is that the first thing fascist governments do when they take power is remove the citizen's right to defend themselves"
Actually, I'm pretty sure the first thing they do is kill or 'disappear' any and all intellectuals that slightly defect from their predetermined ideology.
If you don't have intellectual, free thinkers, you are less likely to have someone stage rebellion.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isnt removing the intellectuals a method of destroying the people defense, because those people are those who would stage a rebellion?
Eisenhower managed to create the U.S. freeway system without creating a fascist government, so I am going to have to say no to that.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There you go then. "Fascist governments do X" is not an argument against X; it may possibly be an argument against fascist governments, depending on what X is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guns actually are fun. Deer hunting is hard work, but fun.
But gun control centers on handguns, and that is where I part company with the esteemed OSC (do you think he knows I have Left the Building? Nah!)There are many examples of legitimate self-defense use of handguns. The Lott studies are NOT discredited, they are just controversial.
Self defense gun use is like the starfish thrower story, where the protagonist says, "it made a difference to _that_ one!" I don't live in a dangerous area, have no easy access to a handgun. But those who live in bad places need one. WE have lots of bad places in this country. If you research self defense use of guns, there are thousands of people who are (arguably) alive today because they showed a handgun to a perp. Those are actual people, not statistics. It is hard for me to imagine handguns being taken would be better for those individuals.
Here is an interesting site giving the case for / against concealed carry laws. It discusses in a fair way the Lott studies. It deals with the attacks on Lott and his replies. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3974638b1416.htm
A parable: Once at ski training, my son fell on some ice and got a concussion (years ago when helmets were less used). The ski patrol wanted an ambulance. I imagined the 45 minute wait for that, another 45 minutes to the ER, and interminable waiting.
I threw Jeff into the car and headed down the canyon, took him directly to a physician I knew and had him evaluated before the ambulance would have gotten there.
That's why I don't think depending on police is a good idea. My experience is that by the time they get to your house, the perp has moved to North Carolina, taken a new identity, and is getting ready to break into OSC's home.
Perhaps only those of us who have extensive experience with firearms are fully capable of analyzing the situation. If you haven't used them, you are likely to react with too much ill-thought-through emotion. Guns scare people until I take them to the range, throw a few skeet (them's good eatin') and watch the grin as they hit one.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
RE: Likelihood of using a gun on family members, this is not actually true.
The most likely things is that you will grow old, die, and pass the guns on to a family member.
Which is more dangerous: A family with a handgun at home, or a swimming pool?
Your child will live longer - statistically! - if she goes to the handgun house. Relatively the risks of guns is extremely low.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lynn, I'm glad to see you've read Freakonomics :-D
Handguns pose an unnecessary risk to your family, however. If you have an emotionally unstable kid, for example, you might wake up and find him, or his friend, or your spouse, or yourself, dead. Suicide by gun is rarely survived, and almost always results in massive retardation if you survive it.
To be fair, I wonder how many people a year actually die because they weren't carrying a legal gun with them?
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
