20/20-- April 10

Ok yes, sensationalism journalism at its.. best?  But it has had me in tears all night.  Talking about  gun control in terms of the real world: if you are armed, how capable are you of defending yourself?  children accidentally shooting friends.  a small little black boy with... such high aspirations and I believe the silver tongue to get him there.  I mean I know these shows are designed to make you cry or angry or tug at your heart stings... but this really got to me.

With the shootings lately, its obvious how despondent many of us are.

Did you see the show?  Did you think it was blatant propaganda (I agree with it and I thought it was)?  How do you feel about gun control-- beginning with licensing, through training, and then restriction....   And last, if you watched, did you cry?

I didn't see it.

But it wouldn't make me get rid of my gun.

To answer your question, I am a lot more capable of defending myself than I would be without my gun.

I am very conflicted about gun control-- what their experiment showed was that the most experienced was actually worse with the gun.  And the police (swat something) saying that if you wanted to be protected, you needed to have their level of training and not go more than a month without the training.

I am a lot less afraid of people with training than people without.  And their miniature not very scientific probably not worth citing study showed that the armed persons were more likely to die.

I guess I am not asking about whether or not you have the right to  bear arms ( I disagree with our president, and the president before him, I dont think that the 2nd amendment gives us that personal right, but well until the Supreme Court decides to overturn their very most recent decision, my opinion mean buptkus) but rather the ... level of intervention that the government should maintain between the citizen and their gun.

Hey,

I'm a Police Officer in NYC. I have seen a lot of suffering over the years, but for the life of me I don't know the answer to the "gun issue" in this country. The deaths your seeing lately are not new, google gun related deaths and you'll see, but our country is a gun culture and I don't see it changing.

I grew up with guns in my home, I hunted and I have/had friends who hunt etc.. I did at one time own a few guns, now just have my service weapon. 

 I no longer hunt it seemed to lose it's thrill after I served in US Army ( in combat).

I believe that self-defense is a basic human right.  Anyone who doesn't know that it's not ok to hurt other people deserves, in my opinion, to be the one getting hurt instead.

Gun ownership is a responsibility, just like driving a car.  Both can hurt other people badly if you aren't careful.  I am not comfortable with the government deciding who is and isn't responsible enough to own a gun, although I'll admit I don't have any easy answers.  But it seems to me that the consequences of irresponsibility are serious enough to justify themselves ... in other words, if you understand that your kid could get hurt playing with the gun, you'll be smart enough to keep the gun where the kid can't get it.  I don't know that throwing somebody in jail is going to control their behavior more than contemplating their child being hurt or killed.

armed persons were more likely to die.

I always thought that this was an interesting perspective.

The answer to guns....is take them away.

Its just a fact that in other countries where guns are illegal, the gun related crimes are much much lower. People do stupid stuff, having easy access to firearms isnt helping anyone.

And dont give me the "we have to protect ourselves!" stuff.... if someone robs your house, are you really planning to shoot it out with them? Because people do that...and it ends up being their kid (or its actually a robber, and the robber takes you to COURT and WINS because its unreasonable force).

Who else are you protecting yourself from? Attacking english?.... Im sorry, but if a country attacks, you with a couple guns isnt going to stop them (because *gasp* technology has advanced far past the point where a few firearms is the turning point in a war).

Some places should be able to have guns though. Places where there is a real need for protection from animals (like alaska). But joe-shmoe with a few kids and a drinking habbit / short temper living in the suburbs doesnt need to have a bunch of weapons around....because when his kid gets picked on at school and decides to get revenge....its a lot less harmful for the kid to lash out by getting in a fight than for him to play rambo and shoot everyone.

The answer to guns....is take them away.

I LOVE the idea of a country where the government has all the guns and the people have none!  It sounds like ... North Korea!

President Obama wants to revive the assault weapon ban.  Gun-rights folks call it the "black gun" ban because there are plenty of semi-automatic rifles, like the .308 Winchester, that would still be legal.

If they ban black guns, can I still get one of these?

If you didn't see it, most of the show was to see if being armed really helps you in armed robbery, Virginia-Tech type situation, or other gun-type crimes.  It basically boiled down to the fact that shooting at a stationary paper target in a gun range does little or nothing to prepare you for a crisis situation where having a gun *could* be useful, and that most people don't think straight in such situations and end up putting themselves or bystanders in more danger than if they didn't have a gun. 

Hey

The topic has no easy answer, that's for sure. I don't think that Americans will give up their guns, I do think that some of the fault lies with the state laws and the ability for people to acquire guns all to easily. Of course even if we toughen the laws etc.. there are 230 million guns in this country right now so guns will always be with us.

PS I have been a cop for a long time, and have found common sense is not common at all, so don't expect people to act responsible just because their age might indicate that they should.

Original Post by lysistrata:

The answer to guns....is take them away.

I LOVE the idea of a country where the government has all the guns and the people have none!  It sounds like ... North Korea!

 .....you think if the government decided to dominate the populace, our guns would make a difference?

You realize they have...uhh...tanks? And uhhh...bigger guns? And uhhh....a WIDE variety of other tools?

And thats not even considering that type of thing isnt really possible with our current society (the people in the military wouldnt go along with it). Remember, the people in the government come from normal society...police...military...they are all raised with the same ideals those in the normal population are.

Im sorry to tell you this, but its not 1775 anymore.... a few rifles and handguns are pretty much useless to the weapons we have now. You couldnt even scratch a tank with those weapons....most cant even penetrate personal body armor.....the argument that our weapons are protecting us from government or any other power is just crazy.

I guess I never understood why people think they are safer with a gun...  If someone comes up and points a gun at me and asks for my wallet... I give it to them, they say "Thanks a lot!" and run away.  The wost thing that happens is that I spend the next two months replacing all the cards in my wallet and I have to buy a new pair of underwear.  If I pull out a gun and start shooting, I better hope that he's a worse shot than I am! 

Personally, I would rather lose my wallet and buy some new underwear.

Original Post by loriklorik:

Original Post by lysistrata:

The answer to guns....is take them away.

I LOVE the idea of a country where the government has all the guns and the people have none!  It sounds like ... North Korea!

 .....you think if the government decided to dominate the populace, our guns would make a difference?

You realize they have...uhh...tanks? And uhhh...bigger guns? And uhhh....a WIDE variety of other tools?

And thats not even considering that type of thing isnt really possible with our current society (the people in the military wouldnt go along with it). Remember, the people in the government come from normal society...police...military...they are all raised with the same ideals those in the normal population are.

Im sorry to tell you this, but its not 1775 anymore.... a few rifles and handguns are pretty much useless to the weapons we have now. You couldnt even scratch a tank with those weapons....most cant even penetrate personal body armor.....the argument that our weapons are protecting us from government or any other power is just crazy.

I think you are missing the whole "liberty" thing about a person deciding for him/herself how to protect themselves.

Original Post by burninlove:

I guess I never understood why people think they are safer with a gun...  If someone comes up and points a gun at me and asks for my wallet... I give it to them, they say "Thanks a lot!" and run away.  The wost thing that happens is that I spend the next two months replacing all the cards in my wallet and I have to buy a new pair of underwear.  If I pull out a gun and start shooting, I better hope that he's a worse shot than I am! 

Personally, I would rather lose my wallet and buy some new underwear.

Situational awareness is what keeps you safe.  The gun just evens the playing field.

+1 to everything Lorik said.

Also, I can think of a few countries besides North Korea where the per capita gun ownership is extremely low (or zero) in comparison to government police/military personnel. Lets see: Costa Rica, Norway, Greece, Japan (handguns banned), England (handguns banned), Germany, Australia, France...ummm.....ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE.

Its weird that Lys would use North Korea as the example no-gun country when soooo many other countries would have worked...most of them democracies. You seem to be using the fact that people have negative perceptions about North Korea (for totally unrelated foreign policy reasons!) to sway the debate about gun control.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by burninlove:

I guess I never understood why people think they are safer with a gun...  If someone comes up and points a gun at me and asks for my wallet... I give it to them, they say "Thanks a lot!" and run away.  The wost thing that happens is that I spend the next two months replacing all the cards in my wallet and I have to buy a new pair of underwear.  If I pull out a gun and start shooting, I better hope that he's a worse shot than I am! 

Personally, I would rather lose my wallet and buy some new underwear.

Situational awareness is what keeps you safe.  The gun just evens the playing field.

 That's not the point.  Unless an attacker is coming after you to kill you (in case you pissed off the mob or something) they are simply using the gun to persuade you to do what they want.  Once you pull out a gun, you have now forced them to try to kill you to protect themselves. 

Original Post by burninlove:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by burninlove:

I guess I never understood why people think they are safer with a gun...  If someone comes up and points a gun at me and asks for my wallet... I give it to them, they say "Thanks a lot!" and run away.  The wost thing that happens is that I spend the next two months replacing all the cards in my wallet and I have to buy a new pair of underwear.  If I pull out a gun and start shooting, I better hope that he's a worse shot than I am! 

Personally, I would rather lose my wallet and buy some new underwear.

Situational awareness is what keeps you safe.  The gun just evens the playing field.

 That's not the point.  Unless an attacker is coming after you to kill you (in case you pissed off the mob or something) they are simply using the gun to persuade you to do what they want.  Once you pull out a gun, you have now forced them to try to kill you to protect themselves. 

Or, I am giving them an opportunity to rethink their course of action.  Who says a gun is only a deterrent if you fire it?

Original Post by lysistrata:

Or, I am giving them an opportunity to rethink their course of action.  Who says a gun is only a deterrent if you fire it?

 

Which is my larger point: Are you willing to give up your life for your wallet if you mis-read the attacker and wrongly assume how he will respond to you whipping out a gun and pointing it at him?

Edited to add: Remember, if they are robbing people at gunpoint, chances are they aren't the sharpest tool in the shed...

Original Post by azirra:

+1 to everything Lorik said.

Also, I can think of a few countries besides North Korea where the per capita gun ownership is extremely low (or zero) in comparison to government police/military personnel. Lets see: Costa Rica, Norway, Greece, Japan (handguns banned), England (handguns banned), Germany, Australia, France...ummm.....ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE.

Its weird that you would use North Korea as the example country when so many other countries would have worked. You seem to be using the fact that people have negative perceptions about North Korea (for totally unrelated foreign policy reasons!) to sway the debate about gun control.

Hmm ... yes, and there's also Russia with its handgun ban and its murder rate that is about five times that of the US.

A comparative study of 59 nations showed that nations with high rates of private gun ownership also tended to have higher rates of political, economic and individual freedom, as well as lower rates of corruption.  Read it for yourself at 13 Texas Review of Law & Politics 1 (2008).

North Korea is a country that is notoriously oppressive, which is exactly what I think of a government that would deny me the right to defend myself as I see fit.

Original Post by burninlove:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Or, I am giving them an opportunity to rethink their course of action.  Who says a gun is only a deterrent if you fire it?

 

Which is my larger point: Are you willing to give up your life for your wallet if you mis-read the attacker and wrongly assume how he will respond to you whipping out a gun and pointing it at him?

Edited to add: Remember, if they are robbing people at gunpoint, chances are they aren't the sharpest tool in the shed...

No, but I am willing to shoot somebody who stupidly keeps trying to rob me.

See, the difference between you and me is, you are assuming you will be the victim.  I am not.