Keith Devens .com

You are right. The difference is that guns are designed to shoot stuff, and are usually used as weapons. Alcohol isn't designed to poison people and is widely used as entertainment. You can't point a bottle of vodka at somebody and kill them.

When will pro-gun people realise that guns need to be treated specially because a squeeze of a trigger can take somebody's life? Most pro-gun people accept that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to construct atomic bombs, so they realise that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Why do they not draw the line where it's easy to kill somebody?

Why do they not draw the line where it's easy to kill somebody?

That argument would have force if guns didn't have perfectly legitimate and safe uses. In fact, unlike vodka, guns can actually serve to keep you from harm.

To me it's about personal responsibility. On the face of it, it's as silly for someone to blame the gun in case of an accident as it is to blame a car in the case of a car accident, or alcohol in the case of alcohol poisoning.

That argument would have force if guns didn't have perfectly legitimate and safe uses.

I can see your point, but the "perfectly legitimate and safe uses" are in a minority and can be confined to specially-licensed gun club premises (I assume you are talking about shooting as a sport or collecting).

In fact, unlike vodka, guns can actually serve to keep you from harm.

This argument would only hold up if there was no such concept as non-lethal weapons. Yes, I know that some "non-lethal" weapons can occasionally cause more harm than intended, and that some can be misused, but the fact remains that it's a lot harder to kill or maim somebody with them, and just as easy to defend yourself with them.

On the face of it, it's as silly for someone to blame the gun in case of an accident as it is to blame a car in the case of a car accident, or alcohol in the case of alcohol poisoning.

Indeed. But in context of a society that shows day after day that a large number of people can't be trusted with guns, it's hard to legitimize the fact that pretty much anybody without a criminal conviction can get a gun and do what they like with it. If guns contributed to society like cars do*, then I might be swayed, but they don't.

* Alcohol doesn't contribute to society, but when you are irresponsible with alcohol, you usually endanger yourself and not others.

I can see your point, but the "perfectly legitimate and safe uses" are in a minority and can be confined to specially-licensed gun club premises (I assume you are talking about shooting as a sport or collecting).

I was talking about those, and hunting as well, but primarily I meant self-defensive uses, which aren't in the minority. I think everyone would be safer if more people had guns. It makes perfect sense to me that the more likely a given person is to be armed, the less likely anyone will be attacked. There have been entire books written about this.

This argument would only hold up if there was no such concept as non-lethal weapons... [it's] just as easy to defend yourself with them.

I disagree. The majority of the time when someone uses a gun defensively the criminal capitulates or runs away without a shot having to be fired. Non-lethal weapons have nowhere near the deterrent factor and aren't as effective as guns in other ways.

it's hard to legitimize the fact that pretty much anybody without a criminal conviction can get a gun and do what they like with it

That's not actually true. Most states require special carry licenses, though they have different criteria which determine in what circumstances a license will be offered. Those range from "demonstrable need" as in "you work in security or do some other dangerous line of work", to "will-issue", which means as long as you don't have a criminal record they have to give you one. Besides carry, however, states such as California regulate how you keep your property in your own home... they require that guns be locked up, unloaded (I think), with ammo kept separately.

What it comes down to, though, is that you can feel free to disagree, but I think you should be a little more reluctant to want to take people's rights away. Personally, I've never been able to understand the tendency to want to make guns unavailable to law-abiding citizens, since then only criminals will have guns.

I think everyone would be safer if more people had guns. It makes perfect sense to me that the more likely a given person is to be armed, the less likely anyone will be attacked.

That really doesn't make sense to me. Why not hand out nuclear warheads right away then?

Why not hand out nuclear warheads right away then?

That doesn't make sense to me. What does that have to do with anything?

Well, according to your logic, the more dangerous the weapon a person has, the less likely he will use it. I could be wrong though

Next time, please make a serious argument. It's insulting.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
I was not trying to insult you in any way.

First, please don't just read this post and dismiss it like you dismissed Martijn's -- I think you insulted him with that comment -- I was almost offended -- it was unnecessary. Now that that's said...

It makes perfect sense to me that the more likely a given person is to be armed, the less likely anyone will be attacked.

Do you truly believe this? It's not that simple for me -- I wonder how much thought you've given this. Have you thought about why criminals kill -- what in their nature makes them kill and what are their motives?

Just as you so plainly and strongly believe in your view quoted above, for me, I think it's simple to realize that criminals are criminals are criminals and will continue to be criminals whether or not their attackees are concealing weapons or not -- it's in their nature, it's who they are:

The same goes for criminals who want money, sex, drugs, or anything else: It's theirs, by divine right. Samenow's view of criminals as selfish, impulsive, and undisiplined accurately describes just how these people think, and how it differs from responsible citizens. Ultimately we must remember that criminals are dangerous, selfish people who act out of their own selfish interest with no regard to the responsible members of society who seek to make the world a safe place to live in.

If a criminal wants something, they think "it's theirs, by devine right." If they want it, they're going to go after it -- I don't think the very criminal nature of their being will be altered by the thought that their would-be attackee might be concealing a weapon. If the would-be attackee then brandishes that weapon, which is the only view I think you're seeing, it's a different story -- the criminal might get scared, yes, I agree with you here, I'm not totally dismissing your position -- they might run away, leaving the victim unscathed, yes -- but, I don't think that would be the case in a majority of attacks -- this leads us to understanding the motive and psychological state of the attacker -- is the attacker a punk, will he get scared and run, fearing for his own life, or, is he a criminal, living an already immoral life, knowing that he might die any day, willing to kill first to avoid being killed? I think you're almost giving criminals too much credit -- I don't think they'll punk out, I don't think they'll run away, and, if the attackee "pulls a 'rod," I do think more people involved in the attack will be shot/killed than if the attackee submits, gives the criminal his/her purse/wallet and let's the criminal get away -- I'd rather risk a few hundred bucks and my new Nike's than my life.

To close, as I admit it might do me some good to read the texts that you've recommended we read about how an increase of guns in an area leads to a decrease of crime in that area, I hope you'll take a lesson from my honesty in lack of knowledge about your side of the argument and at least admit that it's possible some more thought needs to be done on your end about why criminals kill and the nature of crime -- a few texts below are suggested to get your started -- no, I haven't read them, but their descriptions/users comments are intriguing enough to make you question whether a real criminal will back down in the face of the potential of being killed during an attack.

====================

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det.../104-8137947-0083908?v=glance&s=books

What makes people kill? Specifically, what are the motivations behind serial, mass, and spree killings? Drawing from cases such as the mass murder in Dunblane, Scotland, in which a lone gunman mowed down 16 children and their teacher, the still-unsolved Tylenol poisonings, and the Unabomber, former FBI profiler John Douglas and coauthor Mark Olshaker try to explain the unthinkable. What sets The Anatomy of Motive apart from so many of the theories about these horrific acts of violence is that Douglas and Olshaker have no obvious political agenda. They don't look for easy answers and they don't provide easy solutions. They do, however, offer some insight into the twisted kind of thinking that can lead a person to believe that the solution to his problems lies in bloodshed. They also provide some danger signs that may help to identify the potentially violent criminal before he has a chance to act out his morbid fantasies. Every crime is a mystery story with a motive at its heart.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det.../104-8137947-0083908?v=glance&s=books

The same goes for criminals who want money, sex, drugs, or anything else: Its theirs, by divine right. Samenow's view of criminals as selfish, impulsive, and undisiplined accurately describes just how these people think, and how it differs from responsible citizens. Ultimately we must remember that criminals are dangerous, selfish people who act out of their own selfish interest with no regard to the responsible members of society who seek to make the world a safe place to live in.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det.../104-8137947-0083908?v=glance&s=books

It approaches each criminal incident as its own universe of behaviors and relationships.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det.../104-8137947-0083908?v=glance&s=books

There are millions upon millions of firearms in the US. However... Did 70 million gun owners commit gun crimes yesterday? Did 10 million? 1 million? 500k? 100k? 1k? Its been ruled on in court that the police are NOT responsible for protecting inviduals, but rather only to enforce the law, and serve the community. I'd rather have a fighting chance with a gun then be at the mercy of a criminal with a weapon. So, what if compliance is you letting them kill you, and then rape and murder the rest of your family? While having more guns isn't an answer to crime, banning them isn't a cure either. If the US government cannot keep a 150lb mexican illegal out of our borders, how can we keep them from carrying illegal firearms into this country? We have vast land borders, while places like australia and britain have sea surrounding them. I think gun crime is blown vastly out of proportion too. You are far more likely to die in a car accident, or be stabbed or beaten to death. And your children are far more likely to drown in a bucket of water than be shot. Just look at the US CDC webpages. You'll see the numbers first hand. The money WASTED by my government on anti-gun measures should be spent on education and measures to get back jobs lost to NAFTA. Poverty is a TRUE cause of crime. Guns are innanimate objects.