| Author |
|
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12708
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 6:34am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Without analogy (cars, etc.), without comparisons (tasers, etc.), what is the indispensable intrinsic value of privately owning a gun?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 7:08am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I would not paint myself as a 2nd Amendment advocate but I did carry a firearm professionally for 10 years. After I changed career paths, I sold my firearm to buy a nice guitar. I was required to have a conceal/carry permit for my job but I never carried a firearm with me when not in uniform/on duty/on my way to and from work. I still have the permit (it's a lifetime permit in Indiana). While on duty, I have had to draw a firearm, I have looked at the face of another human being through my firearm sights (thankfully never having had to discharge it) in the middle of violent situations. I have had to forcefully remove a firearm out the hands of a violent offender. I do keep a 12 gauge shotgun unloaded in a gun locker in my den, ostensibly for home defense. Until very recently, I haven't had it out other than to clean it in probably 10 years. I have considered selling it to finance new guitar pedals. My home is loaded with baseball bats, swords, tactical knives, etc. There is some species of melee weapon that myself, my wife or my son can pick up and easily wield in a home invasion in every room. I have often said that my shotgun is the least concern for anyone coming onto my property looking for trouble. Two Friday nights ago around midnight, some jackass started shooting in the neighborhood rear-adjacent to my backyard. I put my family in the basement. I got my shotgun out of the locker, loaded it, turned off the lights and watched. The police did not send a car for 30 minutes. I stayed up until 2am listening to the police dispatch until it was all clear. Then I unloaded my shotgun, locked it back in my gun safe and collected my family from the basement. I am an advocate for substantial gun ownership reform. Only those trained professionally and with demonstrable gun safety skills (which I was required to demonstrate every 6 months for 10 years) should carry them. I will never carry a firearm with me in a public area. But I am unlikely to sell my shotgun until we start reprioritizing public safety and proper police training/staffing/tax support and get back to a model of community policing.
Edited by Craig Robinson on 27 April 2014 at 7:17am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Doug Centers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 February 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 5591
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 7:14am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Michael, I would think hunters are one group that would think a gun is indispensable. I do not hunt myself but I know a couple guy's that do and come hunting season that's the only thing that matters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 7:59am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I would think hunters are one group that would think a gun is indispensable. I do not hunt myself but I know a couple guy's that do and come hunting seasonthat's the only thing that matters.•• Cuz, you know, it's impossible to get food any other way.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 8:02am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
During a mall shooting in Oregon, there was a licensed handgun owner in the mall at the time and he was in a position where he could have done something about the shooter - however he did not feel that he could fire at the shooter without putting himself and other people at risk and so he NEVER fired his weapon. This is an example of a responsible gun owner. And if the anti-gun crowd would spend half as much time recognizing that there are such people in the world as they do demonizing every gun owner - the issue of gun control would be a done deal. •• Wow! The hoops get bigger and bigger! The NRA, and most gun fetishists, argue that if there were MORE guns, random shootings such as Sandy Hook could be reduced, or at least rendered less lethal. Yet here is precisely that scenario, and the gun-owner in the crowd doesn't use his gun! Because, you know, he's being "responsible." Does it hurt, talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 9:05am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Sorry didn't see Matt's question previously, so I am editing this post to answer it and clearing up some language in the original post.
“Let's stay on the topic of guns and gun legislation instead of throwing up smoke screens about accidental death by shower curtain or cases of a kid dying by swallowing anti-freeze. That's the discussion that started this thread and that's the discussion we should be having. In that light, tell me one, just one, regulation that the NRA has allowed to pass without raising the slightest objection.”
Why do I have to defend the NRA? I actually said in my first post that I support tighter gun control laws. I just pointed out that the individuals who perpetrated the mass shootings at Columbine High School, the Boston Naval Yard and Newtown Conn, had *established* prior histories of dangerous behavior. Several people (among them law enforcement and their parents) knew that Columbine shooters were torturing animals out in the woods. The mother of the Newtown shooter took her son (who was undergoing the treatment because of his at times violent behavior) off the medications and had a history of missing appointments in his ongoing therapy. The Naval Yard shooter had a prior arrest for shooting out a person’s tire. But oddly when writing the arrest report for incident – the documenting officer never mentioned that a weapon was used). Had he done so, the naval yard shooter would never have been able to pass a background check nor would he have gotten the security clearance which gave him access to the yard in the first place. He also made numerous calls to local police claiming that he was hearing voices and the government was beaming signals into his brain….
To any REASONABLE person these are not these are red flags that warrant further attention and yet NOTHING was done. So when I said that the government could eliminate a lot of these incidents just by doing what it’s supposed to do. I was told that:
“The government is at fault because it gives ANYBODY (aside from proper authorities) access to guns!”
That is the position that I disagree with.
I actually argued against another person in another forum who suggested that had he been in the Dark Knight Screening he would have been able to take out the shooter because his position was patently ridiculous given the reality of the conditions in the theater that night.
"Does it hurt, talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time?"
Not at all. For a very clear reason which you seem completely unable to grasp. I am not a member of the NRA - therefore I am not simultaneously claiming that more guns = less crime. But even then your point is incorrect, an application of the NRA's logic would include the argument that another person carrying a weapon might have been in a better position (perhaps during another moment in the shooting) and been able to take a safe shot which would have ended this person's attempt.This sort of logic is even applicable outside the issue of guns - if two people get into a physical altercation, there will be times when another person will chose to intervene to "break it up" and times when they won't and simply have to wait for the authorities to arrive. They perform the mental calculus of weighing risks to themselves and others (and even what might happen while they wait for the cops to arrive) and then decide on a course of action.
What I find so laughable is that some here apparently argue that we can only trust authorities with firearms because the average person isn't trained to handle them under high stress situations but they really haven't done much research on how well police actually do when discharging their weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagew anted=all&r=0
Proponents of complete bans demand that private owners meet an unrealistic standard of firearms proficiency that even the "authorities" don't meet.
Again, I'm less afraid of the licensed owner who didn't fire his weapon at the Mall Shooter in Oregon than I am of the MILLIONS of texting teenagers driving on the road.
Also note that I refer to my opposition in more respectful tones, since you seem incapable of arguing civilly and refer to people you disagree with as zealots and gun fetishists, I'm going to bow out now.
Have fun with the rest of the debate and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Edited by Tony Smith on 27 April 2014 at 12:30pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 12:02pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
What I find so laughable is that some here apparently argue that we can only trust authorities with firearms because the average person isn't trained to handle them under high stress situations but they really haven't done much research on how well police actually do when discharging their weapons. --- That's an over-simplification of the arguments in this thread. Purposefully so, I suppose. You have to be licensed to pilot an airliner. Licensed airline pilots crash planes nonetheless. Ergo, anyone should be able to pilot an airliner regardless of training and licensing because of... what, the law of averages?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 12:41pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Craig,
Since I was editing the previous post, I saw this, so I'll comment quickly and then be off.
Where did I claim that people who want to buy guns shouldn't have to demonstrate sufficient training with them to be able to purchase a weapon? This is in fact one of the areas where I vehemently disagree with the NRA.
I just don't agree with Mr. Byrne's logic that the only solution to the problem of gun violence in this country is for the government to not let ANYONE (trained or not) buy a gun.
There is a middle ground in this debate. Unfortunately people on either extreme refuse to budge.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12708
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 1:53pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I just don't agree with Mr. Byrne's logic that the only solution to the problem of gun violence in this country is for the government to not let ANYONE (trained or not) buy a gun. There is a middle ground in this debate.
***
Respectfully, Tony, that still leaves this question unanswered: without analogy (cars, etc.), without comparisons (tasers, etc.), what is the indispensable intrinsic value of privately owning a gun?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14857
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 2:21pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Also note that I refer to my opposition in more respectful tones, since you seem incapable of arguing civilly and refer to people you disagree with as zealots and gun fetishists, I'm going to bow out now.
-----
You are not referring to people in respectful tones. You are painting people with the same broad brush that you accuse others of doing. It's hilarious that you don't see that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15950
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 2:32pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Even if you think that guns should be allowed for home defence, or for hunting or as a last line against a rogue government (!), none of these things require guns being permitted in churches and bars.
Guns being carried around in public by the general populace is not a good idea. Guns being carried around in public by the general populace under the influence of alcohol is plain nuts.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
"You are not referring to people in respectful tones. You are painting people with the same broad brush that you accuse others of doing. It's hilarious that you don't see that."
Cite ONE example, where I referred someone in a tone similar to "gun fetishist" or "zealot", or used language similar to "the people that don't see this issue the way I do don't care about the lives of others" or heck, let's even try "the other side of the issue would see things differently if someone they loved had been killed".
I've posted enough comments in this thread for you to be able to actually find such a quote, so put your cards on the table. The only point where I came even close to being uncivil was when people completely mischaracterized my position and attacked me for something I didn't actually say.
I began my involvement in this conversation with agreeing that we need tougher gun laws - people demanded that I defend the NRA.
I pointed that I would have no trouble requiring people who want to buy guns to go through training -- and I'm asked to defend people who think they're Annie Oakley.
Also it boggles my mind that you guys would seem to think that my concerns that people operate motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol somehow translates that I would be okay with people bringing privately own guns into bars.... Not exactly sure HOW you got to that point. Perhaps one of you could enlighten me?
While I can't speak for everyone, were I to actually want to buy one (I don't) one of the factors that I would consider is the fact that the average response time for police in most major metropolitan areas is about 9 minutes and in some cities about 12-14 minutes.
And before anyone suggests that when guns are removed from the equation completely there will be less crime - let us not forget that it's going to take awhile to accomplish that and during that time the criminals aren't going to be marching into police stations to turn their weapons over. The only thing that will have changed immediate future is the criminal breaking into a house now knows that the owner is much less likely to be armed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
