Gun possession

Post Reply New Topic

This is an interesting insight into the value of having a gun for self protection.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121512.htm

Police departments have been saying that for a while, but its good to have scientific back up.

A gun might be important for defense is in the middle of nowhere, when the threat is from wild animals more than people, but in a dense urban environment it is an accident waiting to happen.

Old fact. People are irresponsible and reckless. Not sure if it's appropriate to ban gun possession, though. The implications of banning possession go farther. Not simply just the whole fascism/Nazi thing but also the implication on society. You ban guns here, there will be a violent reaction from an otherwise barely peaceful population. It would very likely provoke a civil war. These people don't care about elections and wars but if you go anywhere near legislation about their guns and they will get up off their asses and move.

The society itself couldn't move that way yet. Maybe with better education and educating of those facts and emphasis on both the responsibility needed of owning a gun and the numbers regarding how irresponsibility still comes through would help. But even then, it's not likely. Unfortunately the midwest is much more like the mideast than Europe...their tendency will be more to regress socially and technically than move forward.

And, of course, the religion of the people is what encourages them to regress like that.

Hmm, Doctors weighing in on guns again, eh? I'll poke some gaping holes in this study when I get home, (I'm in welding school atm) but I will point out very quickly that medical doctors have about as much expertise concerning firearms as the Amish have about the internet, more to come.

I am not sure about the methodology being used by this study. It is basically reasoning that people who own guns are more likely to be shot, ergo guns are a problem. The issue is that a causal mechanism seems necessary for this research to be valid, otherwise nothing is shown about guns necessarily. After all, just owning something like a gun won't magically attract bullets, and there are likely a lot of personality issues that are going to correlate with gun ownership.

This isn't to say anything wrong with the study necessarily, just I am not sure what is really proven.

Flawed study- people with guns may have been more likely to be shot because people in more dangerous parts of the city would be more likely to keep a gun on them. Gang members (who presumably would often be armed) may also be skewing that statistic.

People concern me.


Especially violent dumb people with the internet who want to rebel against their (seemingly to them) fascist government.

Biased study.

Having been trained as a police officer, I can tell you that owning a firearm and not knowing how to properly care, store and use it means it's more of a danger than a help to you.

However, for those properly trained (which isn't all that much training), a firearm does make a huge difference. The problem is that most people who go out and buy a firearm don't get trained in how to properly care, store and use it.

In the country or in the city, a firearm is the great equalizer. All other means of self defense depend on ability and skill to have any success. A firearm, with minimal training, can empower the 75-pound grandmother to take down a 250-pound burglar in her home.

Gun possession is the raison d'etre of the united states.

It really depends on how the community promotes fire arm education. Some states allow to carry, some require permits. All with success and failure stories. Even in law enforcement, the train to use the gun at the very last resort. The best ones probably pulled the gun out a few times in decades. Of course, people are trigger happy these days.


In New York, banning guns except with a license is a nice idea but really who ends up having guns? The police and the bad guys. Everyone else is helpless. FAIL

In Montreal, no guns allowed. Bad guys can always get one so the police and citizens are helpless. FAIL

The only thing that make sense to me is to allow anyone to have a concealed gun. This way, nobody, even bad guys, knows who's armed and who's not. Psychologically, it'll make people think twice before starting something. Even the bad guy doesn't know if he's going into a robbery against zero or 5 guns. With that in mind, things are generally steered away from armed crimes.

With any system, accidents ALWAYS happen. The only way is to minimize or redirect these accidents. An authoritarian approach to ban guns for all or some is never an answer for gun control because the bad guys can always get one. This is almost always the correct answer to political and economic gains, but never solves the problem for citizens.

----------

Issues of weapons etc are really based upon how the community is knit together and how it's maintained. For instance, in the meat packing industry, there is a ZERO tolerance for anger. because everyone has a knife and they practice cutting flesh for years. People step in to help others with their problems and issues. True that people are 'forced' to be not angry, but I say this is a whole lot better than having someone reach down into the dark side and come up twisted. Help comes before it's too late.

-----------

I say, let guns roam free. The constitution supports it.