The Great Gun Debate


Sure, I’ll admit my bias. I really do try to hear the other side but I don’t see any real information being shared.

This subject is personal for me for two reasons.

  1. As you can tell from my avatar, I spent 22 years in military service. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That doesn’t mean I see the other side as enemies, but it does mean the Constitution is dear to me… all of it.

  2. I have been in a position where I had to use a gun for self and family protection a few times. No, I did not have to shoot anyone or even fire the gun, but I would have if necessary. Even that is a shattering and life changing event. I can assure you I was not jumping up & down all happy about maybe getting to shoot someone. Those events scared the snot out of me because of what I might have to do.

I see firearms as tools. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil. A screwdriver is a tool intended to fix or assemble something, but it can easily used to stab someone. For either one, the difference is the person holding it.

In my house I have a wife, my 18 year-old grandson, my 20 year old granddaughter and my 2 year old great-granddaughter. We live on a nice street in a very low crime town, but no place is completely safe. If someone decided to invade my home, I must assume they’re not there to swap oatmeal cookie recepies with my wife. They’re there at lest to steal and I have no way of knowing what else they might do. I can either rely on the good will of criminals not to harm anyone, or I can meet them with overwhelming force in the attempt to assure my great-granddaughter has a chance to grow up.

As horrible as it would feel to have killed someone, that pales in comparison to holding that little girl’s body because I did nothing.

Oh, and no flames from me. That’s not the way I roll unless I’'m being attacked. So far this has been a frustrating but rather pleasant discussion.


One more thing. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I hold a License to Carry a Handgun (known as a LTC in Texas) and I am always armed even inside my house.

Every year the Texas Department of Safety publishes the crime statistics of all LTC holders in the state. They also publish the same statistics for all Law Enforcement Officers in the state. Guess who has the lower crime rate by a large margin.


And that’s my point. For all your reading from your “opponents” you see no information. Are you able to imagine that they see the same result coming from your direction? No information? Or same old same old. As you probably also conclude with what your opponent says. Both “sides” think they have all sorts of “information”. But the other “side” doesn’t see it according to each side. So to dismiss out of hand anything your opponent says is insulting. Maybe you like to be insulting.
To claim not seeing “any real information” is the tell. You’re already closed. There’s no discussion.

Anyway…what do you care what some anonymous hick from a foreign land thinks :slight_smile:


Must make taking a shower a bit of a chore.

How do you keep the suds out of the clip?


So you keep your assault rifle at your side and drawn to defend yourself all day - or perhaps just when you are walking down a dark alley? Remind me not to visit Texas.


OK, time for me to bow out. I don’t feel that I was being emotional, but I’ll take your word for it. I had the same feeling about you when you asked: What possible difference does the method of death make?

One further point about “outlawing guns.” To me that means outlawing all guns. Some guns are already outlawed (full auto, for example) I’d agree that the proposed legislation you cite is not likely wise legislation. Most definitions of “assault rifle” end up including what they look like and to me that is irrelevant. To me the parameters that matter relate to how easy the weapon is to conceal and what kind of magazine capacity it has.


That is wrong. It’s actually 0.010256410256410300%

As you say later on suicides will find any way to kill themself. That’s not the problem.
But: Without any gun you could save all the other 40%'s life.

It’s actually 0.004102564103% per YEAR
Within a person’s life (80 years) it grows to 0.328205128205%, i.e. 1 of 300 persons are killed by gun.

The comparision is illegal! Automobiles are made to get from A to B. Guns are made to … kill.
Automobiles are used thousands of million times a day, the deaths are most of the time accidents.
Guns are used much less, but the deaths are most of the time WANTED.

That IS a big difference, don’t you agree?

Btw. 35.000 deaths by vehicle is not “far more” as you say. 5,000 are suicides (motorbicyclers :stuck_out_tongue: )
Half of the deaths within the cars were due to the lack of using the belt.


First, I think this is a fairly reasoned discussion without flames – even if Z is hoping. :slight_smile:

The number of rounds allowed seems to be an outgrowth of the mass shooting events. Even when clip size was limited in the past, they could be found. I think this is really the politicizing that goes on. Mass shooting are a major news item and our first stop is to propose a new, ineffective law.

We are also at the the figures don’t lie but…

Compared with the rest of the world, we are the murder capital. Is the easy answer our love of guns or is it societal?

We’ve got a copycat phase in many areas. One result is fame. People with low self-worth can find that attractive. Even bigger than firearms is the suicide vest and that’s not our problem but happening all over.

When did we start seeing these events? It is a recent phenomenon. Not that many years ago we wouldn’t have believe such numbers and occurrences.

Guns are a convenient scapegoat. The Time Square attack used a truck. And no, I don’t think rental trucks should be outlawed.

While terrorism is a component, it isn’t the root cause here. It seems to be societal issues that we then lump into the gun debate – which avoids addressing the real issue.


Politicians don’t really care about the deaths. If they cared, they’d do something about alcohol and the deaths attributable to that, but they don’t.

They care about getting re-elected.

They have no idea what to do about people getting killed by guns, so they want to do what they always do, write some more ineffective legislation. Then they can claim to have done something come campaign time.


I’m glad I stayed out of this, until now, for a few reasons;

I was angry that the original title “Real World” duped me because I failed to note the category and assumed a) it would be hearing related and b) I wouldn’t expect the topic to even come up here. That Abram changed the title, almost immediately, because he “wanted to make sure everyone knew what they were getting into” validates my angst.

I have experienced this debate on bike forums where they usually turn ugly by about post 6.

Like z10user2, I am a foreigner, alien or just a know-nothing, effing Canadian who needs to MYOB, even though that is both censor and censure.

Since it has been relatively civil, I can join in, briefly, because TexasBob brings me to the same question I haven’t been able to shake for some time;

Why then, are mass shooters not taken out by a citizen before LEO arrives? Even if we take the schools and Vegas sniper out of the equation, there have been multiple others, including military bases, where someone must have been carrying.

For example, “The attack, which took place in the Navy Yard’s Building 197, began around 8:16 a.m. EDT and ended when Alexis was killed by police around 9:25 a.m. EDT.”

Further, and I ask this sincerely;

Would where you live not have something to do with that?

How does the bad guy know to leave you alone? Do you carry a sign or have a “look” that telegraphs?

In it all, I just wish my Seattle friends weren’t so insecure, they won’t visit, because they can’t come armed.


Well the pols addressed alcohol once with disastrous results. :slight_smile:

They addressed marijuana and filled our jails with people and now it is getting legalized and nothing changed much.

There is no law that will address self-destruction or illegal intent.

Some Libertarians propose making worse drugs available. It conforms to their ideal. It may even be a rational approach to the reduction of criminal activity that services the addicted.

We all talk about laws being the solution. We need other solutions and those need the discussion and passion that this silly gun debate engenders.


SEE you don’t even read the post: Bob said- I hold a License to Carry a Handgun (known as a LTC in Texas) He didn’t say anything about a AR-15… You live in a different World down under!


I have known a number of gun enthusiasts over the years and the one thing that all of them seem to have is a fear that “THEY” are coming and they will protects themselves when “THEY” come and to do this they arm themselves to the teeth. They also seem to have this NEED to conceal and carry so they can either be ready when “THEY” come or be the guy on the white horse and come to the rescue of others. Many of these G.E. also seem to love “strategically” placing guns all over their house so they are never too far away from them when “THEY” come. So far none of the people I know have ever had to use any of their guns other than to shoot them at the range, yet their they sit every night watching TV with their gun at the ready almost hoping that today will be the day! To me this is a sad and depressing way to live your life!


Another thing that amazing me about the gun lobby and gun enthusiast is they are always saying they are going to confiscate and take away all the guns. They must be listening to something or someone different than I am listening to. I don’t think I have ever heard any politician say they want to take away all the guns; the talk seems to be about banning a particular type of weapon, bump stocks. high capacity magazines and having a more thorough background check that would include BGC at gun shows, online sales, etc. and making it harder or impossible for people with mental illness or other things in their past from being able to purchase a firearm.

When we as a country lead the civilized world in gun crimes, it becomes clear that we have a problem and we need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t be allowed to own them. You can try and use other forms of dying: car accidents, abortions, falls at home, etc. to justify the low number of deaths from guns, but in the end the person who has been killed with a gun is just as dead and died at the hand of a gun.
[Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher.[13] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns.[13] In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.][QUOTE].


Maybe you just hang with a weird crowd, Seb. :slight_smile:

Anecdotal evidence comes from both sides of the argument.


Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[3] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is “typical” requires statistical evidence.[4] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the “person who” fallacy (“I know a person who…”; “I know of a case where…” etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical. Compare with hasty generalization.


No these people come from all walks of life and have included: police officers, realtors, teachers, business people, etc. None would stand out as weird until you see or listen to the way they talk about guns and “THEM” coming.

What part was anecdotal? I could give a lot more examples and also give facts that rip the NRA’s “logic” apart piece by piece but it would unfortunately fall on “deaf” (please forgive the pun) ears,


What part was anecdotal? All the piecemeal data you obtained and the reliability is address in the first line in the Wikiquote. “Gun nuts” like to talk about where a person with a gun thwarted this or that. Same applies.

I do agree with you that the statistics for violent death here are in need of addressing. I like it when that’s a part of the discussion. It really boils down to what is causing this problem. You mentioned that people fear their confiscation. Another mentioned they are around in the millions. How can any new law resolve the issue? We need to look beyond the gun controversy.

Simplistic solutions seldom address the true issue.



You must know that from the viewpoint of the world looking in at the U.S.A, that your arguments don’t make any sense at all.

We have a very simplistic solution for the “problem” in the U.K.

You ban gun ownership.

Very simple. Yes, although I concede the acquisition of sporting rifles and such may be possible with a license, but the rules are very restrictive.

I know my views of the american system are probably ignorant and naive. And I know how the culture of gun ownership is steeped in history, including the wild west and protection of ones kin, but I think you are absolutely crazy. Arguments about freedom etc, and amendment rights. Absolutely bonkers and stark raving mad. And to have lobbyists and an industry based on it is even worse.

You can blame the perpetrators, but the fact is that we live in a society which gives too many reasons for one to want to go out and blow somebodies head off, if they have half the chance. You say, let’s address those problems, but you live in one of the most unequal and racially diverse societies in the world. So good luck with that.

That is my 5 pence (reverting to english). I know my views are totally naive, and yes, I don’t understand the background of why things have come to be in America, and no - I don’t want to criticise America, which is a great country with fantastic energy. But for god’s sake - from an outsider looking in, your gun laws and gun culture is scary. I once went to Buffalo and stayed in a hotel and by chance there was a gun convention there over night, with thousands of guns laid out on tables in a big hall, that wasn’t even guarded. Any nutjob could have made off with a small arsenal and nobody would have been any the wiser.


Where did I use the quote “gun nuts?” I don’t need to cherry pick the correct answers are out there, you just have to listen and do the research. The simple solution is to have common sense gun laws that screen out as many people who are not fit to own a firearm as you can and make sure that those that own them are held liable for there safety and are also held accountable if their gun or guns should turn up missing. Contrary to what our President has said the shootings at the schools is not just a mental health issue and arming the teachers will not stop them, in Florida we had first one deputy on site and then three more and they were armed and failed to engage the shooter and just stood by behind a barricade and listened to the gunman kill and wound his victims, so even having someone who was trained to react to just such a situation was not able to put an end to it.

How do you look beyond the gun controversy when that is the problem? When was the last time you heard of someone going into a crowd and in less than 10 minutes were able to kill over 50 and wound over 500 with a knife or a sword? Just look at the other civilized societies around the world. How many gun deaths do they have? Just looking to Japan, they have comprehensive gun laws and on average they have less than 10 gun deaths (homicides) per year.

And guns number in the hundreds of millions in the U.S. and that does not include the weapons in the hands of the military.