Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Statistically, more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one.

Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless. That is what makes having a gun more dangerous to me than not having one as I am more likely to provoke a violent response and am more likely to have the gun taken from me. I also don't have the money or time for proper training in how to use a firearm.

Not saying that other people shouldn't be able to have guns. I do think gun ownership should require significant training though. It's too easy to get a gun. I got given one basically at random with no input from me.

Regardless, the PSA is stupid...taking someone's stuff that you aren't entitled to is bad...Bringing a gun to school is stupid and likely to result in the kid being expelled.

 skyth wrote:
Statistically, more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one.

Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless. That is what makes having a gun more dangerous to me than not having one as I am more likely to provoke a violent response and am more likely to have the gun taken from me. I also don't have the money or time for proper training in how to use a firearm.

Not saying that other people shouldn't be able to have guns. I do think gun ownership should require significant training though. It's too easy to get a gun. I got given one basically at random with no input from me.

Regardless, the PSA is stupid...taking someone's stuff that you aren't entitled to is bad...Bringing a gun to school is stupid and likely to result in the kid being expelled.

Really?

Can you provide those statistics?

 skyth wrote:
Statistically, more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one.

Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless. That is what makes having a gun more dangerous to me than not having one as I am more likely to provoke a violent response and am more likely to have the gun taken from me. I also don't have the money or time for proper training in how to use a firearm.

Not saying that other people shouldn't be able to have guns. I do think gun ownership should require significant training though. It's too easy to get a gun. I got given one basically at random with no input from me.

Regardless, the PSA is stupid...taking someone's stuff that you aren't entitled to is bad...Bringing a gun to school is stupid and likely to result in the kid being expelled.

Aside from the fact you didn't address anyone's questions, can you at least show the source for your statistics? Frankly I think you are making it up.

Given a gun at random with no input? Seriously? Ever hear the phrase "No thanks, I can't accept that."

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

And yet:

“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

So, out of between 500k and 3 million defensive uses of guns in 2010, at best 1/5th of the incidents involved injury or death. And that injury or death was not necessarily the guy/gal defending themselves...

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Link to page with the report: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

 Hordini wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Hey, it's all about competency. If our police were competent, they could cross the 30-40 miles in 10 seconds.

No, they couldn't. Competence =/= breaking laws of physics.

I agree. I'm still waiting to hear your ideas about what people who live in areas where police response times are 20+ minutes should do though.

Depends. What are you doing to get so high response times? Are you living out on the country? Then that might actually be the problem.

If you feel concerned that they'd be too slow to reach you, consider smacking up your house somewhere closer/inside the city.

If you live in the city and you get high response time anyway, then the police is at fault.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Hey, it's all about competency. If our police were competent, they could cross the 30-40 miles in 10 seconds.

No, they couldn't. Competence =/= breaking laws of physics.

I agree. I'm still waiting to hear your ideas about what people who live in areas where police response times are 20+ minutes should do though.

Depends. What are you doing to get so high response times? Are you living out on the country? Then that might actually be the problem.

If you feel concerned that they'd be too slow to reach you, consider smacking up your house somewhere closer/inside the city.

If you live in the city and you get high response time anyway, then the police is at fault.

Our police per population ratio is very similar to Sweden. Our population is spread out over 22 times the area that Sweden is though. So it's pretty easy to see why our response time is so much higher.

To focus it down some more, New York City has a police force of 35,000. That one city makes up 4% of the entire nations police force. 3.5 million square miles of country, 4% of the police cover 470 square miles... I don't feel like doing the math for all of the major urban centers, but you can see that it's going to leave a MUCH smaller foot print for the rest of the nation.

 djones520 wrote:


That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...

You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.

They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.

That's pretty scary.

And when you don't lay a hand on it, they're a complex paper weight. Nothing more.

The one wielding it is the "scary" part of the equation.

 djones520 wrote:
And when you don't lay a hand on it, they're a complex paper weight. Nothing more.

The one wielding it is the "scary" part of the equation.

So is a nuclear warhead, but it still has the inherent potential to be the most devastating weapon on the planet.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And when you don't lay a hand on it, they're a complex paper weight. Nothing more.

The one wielding it is the "scary" part of the equation.

So is a nuclear warhead, but it still has the inherent potential to be the most devastating weapon on the planet.

Not until someone pushes the button that starts the molecular reaction that splits the atom.

Atoms don't just randomly split. Bullets don't just fire. It takes a human element to make it happen. You remove that human element, and there is no danger.

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And when you don't lay a hand on it, they're a complex paper weight. Nothing more.

The one wielding it is the "scary" part of the equation.

So is a nuclear warhead, but it still has the inherent potential to be the most devastating weapon on the planet.

Not until someone pushes the button that starts the molecular reaction that splits the atom.

Atoms don't just randomly split. Bullets don't just fire. It takes a human element to make it happen. You remove that human element, and there is no danger.

Except that's not really true is it? If removing the human element removed all danger then I'm sure you're wanting AI police with no emotion, or AI soldiers with no emotion? A tool can only be as dangerous as the person using it, yes, but that doesn't mean that the inherent danger in all tools is equal without a person wielding them.

An eraser will, barring some crazily unlikely scenarios, never have the potential to cause as much destruction as a nuclear warhead, which can harm even without people detonating it and through no result of human action. The casing could become damaged, leaking the nuclear material, for instance.

"If the police take too long to get to you, rather than own a gun, you should simply move" is an argument with a lot of logistical problems. I don't know about the feasibility of moving the entire population of Detroit.

 skyth wrote:
Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless.

Well, if that's how it is, that's how is. I won't cheapen your pacifism, I can totally respect the idea that you'd rather die than kill someone else. I simply don't personally adhere to it, if someone breaks into my house and it's our lives vs a home invader, I feel pretty comfortable coming down on the side of my family and I, in the "who gets to live" debate.

For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes, I believe there are plenty of people that would have trouble pulling the trigger as well. It's called empathy. Any hesitation can mean your gun could be turned on you.

Interesting article...www.hupi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Hey, it's all about competency. If our police were competent, they could cross the 30-40 miles in 10 seconds.

No, they couldn't. Competence =/= breaking laws of physics.

I agree. I'm still waiting to hear your ideas about what people who live in areas where police response times are 20+ minutes should do though.

Depends. What are you doing to get so high response times? Are you living out on the country? Then that might actually be the problem.

If you feel concerned that they'd be too slow to reach you, consider smacking up your house somewhere closer/inside the city.

If you live in the city and you get high response time anyway, then the police is at fault.

In New Orleans one morning at 2 am, I had to wrestle a gunman down and restrain him in a joint lock for 10 minutes until the police came to collect him. This was in the lobby of a large hotel on Canal street. The place was quiet, with only 4 people on the scene.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...

You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.

They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.

That's pretty scary.

Alcohol is engineered to mess up people's systems and causes almost 3 times the deaths that guns do, with kids having easier access That is also scary.

 skyth wrote:
For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes, I believe there are plenty of people that would have trouble pulling the trigger as well. It's called empathy. Any hesitation can mean your gun could be turned on you.

Interesting article...www.hupi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Of course... nothing is every "black & white".

However, I would rather live in a place where I have a chance to survive on my own, rather than rely on someone else for my safety... especially since police work is mostly a reactive response, rather than a preventative force.

 skyth wrote:
For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes,

Well, if we're just going to make up imaginary arguments that haven't been made in this thread....

Also, your link isn't working. Presumably it's the Kellerman study that shows having a gun in the home places you at an increased risk of homicide, but I presume you're glossing over that it's a lower risk of homicide than simply living alone, or renting rather than owning your home

Perhaps we should form foundations to warn people of the dangers of living alone, or non-home-ownership.

Skythe, before you fire off on another tangent, would you please go back and respond to some of the requests for you to back up your claims.

 skyth wrote:
Statistically, more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one

Yeah, where's the source for this?

Because otherwise, I'm going to claim that 40 million children an hour are saved from pedophile cannibal clowns by responsible AR-15 owners.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...

You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.

They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.

That's pretty scary.

By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?

 DarkLink wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...

You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.

They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.

That's pretty scary.

By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?

Aluminum container, actually.

 DarkLink wrote:


By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?

Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.

So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:


By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?

Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.

So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.

Town, I see what your point is, but alcohol is essentially a type of poison that does far more damage in a year than guns do. If there was any type of medication on the market that wreaks the havoc alcohol does, it would have been long ago pulled and the manufacturers bankrupted by lawsuits.

Relapse wrote:


Town, I see what your point is, but alcohol is essentially a type of poison that does far more damage in a year than guns do.

Oh I agree, alcohol abuse is a very serious problem. Very difficult to tackle as well, just like gun violence, with no easy solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
If there was any type of medication on the market that wreaks the havoc alcohol does, it would have been long ago pulled and the manufacturers bankrupted by lawsuits.

I think it would have been instantly classified as a class A drug (or however drugs are organised in the US). The only reason alcohol isn't on the list of controlled substances is its historical nature (most cultures develop it early on, before such programs) and taxation. So it becomes part of a societies culture and then a money maker for governments.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Town, I see what your point is, but alcohol is essentially a type of poison that does far more damage in a year than guns do.

Oh I agree, alcohol abuse is a very serious problem. Very difficult to tackle as well, just like gun violence, with no easy solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
If there was any type of medication on the market that wreaks the havoc alcohol does, it would have been long ago pulled and the manufacturers bankrupted by lawsuits.

I think it would have been instantly classified as a class A drug (or however drugs are organised in the US). The only reason alcohol isn't on the list of controlled substances is its historical nature (most cultures develop it early on, before such programs) and taxation. So it becomes part of a societies culture and then a money maker for governments.

The irony is the amount of economic damage alcohol does when you look at lost work, along with health and family problems that have to be dealt with on taxpayer dollars.

Relapse wrote:


The irony is the amount of economic damage alcohol does when you look at lost work, along with health and family problems that have to be dealt with on taxpayer dollars.

Same with cigarettes, on the health costs at least

 Ouze wrote:

 skyth wrote:
For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes,

Well, if we're just going to make up imaginary arguments that haven't been made in this thread....

People have said the macho pro-good guy with a gun bits in this thread...plus I was referring to a general idea that is plenty of places. Any time someone spouts off that they would use their gun to protect their family, etc...that right there is the good guy with a gun argument. One that ignores how hard it is to pull the trigger.

Also, your link isn't working. Presumably it's the Kellerman study that shows having a gun in the home places you at an increased risk of homicide, but I presume you're glossing over that it's a lower risk of homicide than simply living alone, or renting rather than owning your home

Perhaps we should form foundations to warn people of the dangers of living alone, or non-home-ownership.

It was a link to an analysis of that study that showed that arguments that the national gun manufacturer's association were making (like the one you mentioned) are nothing but hot air. That question was controlled for in the study.

What is your backup for the claim that its ''hard to pull the trigger''?

If I'm in danger or someone I know is in danger it would be the easiest thing in the world to pull the trigger.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.

So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.

I guess I think the guy willing to commit the act of killing is a lot scarier than any tool he may use. The tool on its own honestly instills zero fear in me. It is an inanimate object that doesn't even move without a person controlling it. Cutting deadfall with a big chainsaw is a lot more dangerous and makes me a lot more nervous than handling any gun/weapon ever had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

People have said the macho pro-good guy with a gun bits in this thread...plus I was referring to a general idea that is plenty of places. Any time someone spouts off that they would use their gun to protect their family, etc...that right there is the good guy with a gun argument. One that ignores how hard it is to pull the trigger.

Pulling a trigger is not hard. Dealing with the aftermath may be difficult, and more so for some, but pulling the trigger is surprisingly easy when you are in the position where it is a you and your loved ones or the other guy. Heck, pulling the trigger can be almost a conditioned response to stimuli (hence the Army's use of man shaped pop up targets).

Care to address the CDC study I linked to? Or to show your stats for "more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one," or are you just pulling 'facts' from where the sun don't shine?

 Grey Templar wrote:
What is your backup for the claim that its ''hard to pull the trigger''?

If I'm in danger or someone I know is in danger it would be the easiest thing in the world to pull the trigger.

And people were trying to say that macho good guy with a gun rhetoric wasn't in this thread...

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
What is your backup for the claim that its ''hard to pull the trigger''?

If I'm in danger or someone I know is in danger it would be the easiest thing in the world to pull the trigger.

And people were trying to say that macho good guy with a gun rhetoric wasn't in this thread...

I'm pretty sure Templar HAS pulled the trigger before. Nothing macho about speaking of personal experience.

You'd do yourself a favor to not go around trying to insult people though. And to back up some of your outlandish claims, though I'm sure you'll ignore that as well.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
What is your backup for the claim that its ''hard to pull the trigger''?

If I'm in danger or someone I know is in danger it would be the easiest thing in the world to pull the trigger.

And people were trying to say that macho good guy with a gun rhetoric wasn't in this thread...

How is that macho good guy with a gun rhetoric? That's ridiculous, what Grey Templar is talking about has more to do with human instinct and empathy for loved ones than any macho rhetoric. Many people are capable of a lot more violence than they realize, especially if it comes down to a life or death situation involving people they care about. Saying that someone claiming they'd pull the trigger to defend themselves or their loved ones is macho rhetoric is just as ignorant and condescending as someone telling you your posts about how you have too much empathy to defend yourself or your family is just the holier-than-thou humblebrag of someone who is too much of a coward to defend an innocent person from a violent attacker even if they had the chance.

But nobody is saying that because we're actually trying to treat your posts and your opinions with a bit of respect. So it would be nice if you made an attempt to do the same to those of us who don't happen to be anti-gun or anti-self defense (or whatever you want to call being unable to defend yourself or your loved ones out of fear of harming a violent attacker).