• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuff"

Bazeel

New Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

First, I think you misread my intentions, but that is okay. I mean 'survival of the fittest' without the use of firearms, or another 'leveling' weapon. The strong will be able to do as they wish to the weak, should they so desire, if police intervention is not readily available.

Second, Pepper spray is certainly a viable option, though it is not unknown to have people fight through it, or have a delayed effect. I'm not contesting that in the least. Stun-guns are always tricky, considering the need to get within physical striking distance to use one.

The third point that you bring up should be marginalized with proper situational awareness. While I believe the best way to prevent this sort of thing is to keep away from 'out of the way' areas at night, or staying away from crime prone areas, this is not always an option. Someone who knows there is an element of increased danger in their area should be keeping an eye out for people following them, and so on, and be able to take measures to reduce the possibility of being caught unawares, or at least turn to confront the individual as needed. Note that I am not saying 'Draw and gun 'em down', but simply turn, inquire of their intentions, or something similar. This is fairly common knowledge to most people who live within a city, or a high-crime region.

Finally, this is a moot point, as it is an obvious lack of proper storage of the firearms. Weapons and ammunition should be stored separately, both locked. If there are misgivings about people whom live in your household getting their hands on these weapons, then the keys / combinations should not be shared with them.
 

Term_the_Schmuck

Most Interesting Man on FAF
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

http://youtu.be/NHb2_P1Xd7g

Because they're not a sure thing. Plus, if someone's trying to kill you, you can't pussyfoot around.

Again how is it a sure thing if a weapon is already trained on you? A gun in a situation where someone is trying to explicitly kill you with a gun is only good if its already out. Otherwise you're hoping that the two seconds you try to pull out your gun the other guy hasn't already popped a few rounds in you.

So seriously, what is the point?
 

TeenageAngst

Banned
Banned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Again how is it a sure thing if a weapon is already trained on you? A gun in a situation where someone is trying to explicitly kill you with a gun is only good if its already out. Otherwise you're hoping that the two seconds you try to pull out your gun the other guy hasn't already popped a few rounds in you.

So seriously, what is the point?

What if the robber has a knife? What if it's a mugger who'd leave you bleeding in the street instead of shooting you dead? What if it's a group of people who beat you and steal your money? We could play this game all night. In some situations a gun won't help, in some it would.
 

Term_the_Schmuck

Most Interesting Man on FAF
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

So I guess we should just not live/work in places where there's gang activity. Except us folks with lower income levels can't afford to do that, so... yeah. Unless you're willing to chip in some of your righteous indignation in the form of rent assistance of course, otherwise we need to defend ourselves.

I see news reports everyday in the New York Daily News about someone who's been shot and killed. A lot of these attacks are either surprise hits or arguments that escalated into someone pulling a gun to prove a point.

I don't really see how owning a gun is truly defending yourself. If someone is trying to mug/kill you they most often don't telegraph to you in such a way where you'd honestly have enough time to react by pulling your own weapon out of a secure box or a concealed holster. Seriously, it's about as good as using a paper weight and you give you just as much true security.

Bad area or not there's still simple things you can do to try and protect yourself that don't involve adding a gun to the scenario.

Having a gun doesn't solve the problem, it's merely a rational response to living in a violent area. If you're in a dangerous part of town, you purchase protection. If you're poor, that protection is a Saturday night special.

And as I mentioned, criminals then find a way around your rational response of buying a weapon, either by getting the drop on you or bringing more gun to the fight then you. So really, in the long run you're only perpetuating the need for more guns or ones that are more effective at killing people. Your response adds to the problem, especially if you don't have the sense to secure the weapon. More on that later.

First, I think you misread my intentions, but that is okay. I mean 'survival of the fittest' without the use of firearms, or another 'leveling' weapon. The strong will be able to do as they wish to the weak, should they so desire, if police intervention is not readily available.

Not seeing the point of this but alright.

Second, Pepper spray is certainly a viable option, though it is not unknown to have people fight through it, or have a delayed effect. I'm not contesting that in the least. Stun-guns are always tricky, considering the need to get within physical striking distance to use one.

Most confrontations in a mugging scenario happen within 3-5 feet. In the case of a home invasion its even shorter. That's usually well within the effective range of a pepper spray or a stun gun. Really I'd be looking for something that gave me the ability to run away, not kill my assailant. And really, again if we're going on a nurse scenario where is she hiding her gun? Not exactly conceal carry type clothing. And the moment an assailant sees her going for her bag unsolicited you don't think he'll know something is up? I mean this is just common sense here whereas the gun argument is nothing more than a false sense of security with more potential for harming yourself and your family members than protecting them.

The third point that you bring up should be marginalized with proper situational awareness. While I believe the best way to prevent this sort of thing is to keep away from 'out of the way' areas at night, or staying away from crime prone areas, this is not always an option. Someone who knows there is an element of increased danger in their area should be keeping an eye out for people following them, and so on, and be able to take measures to reduce the possibility of being caught unawares, or at least turn to confront the individual as needed. Note that I am not saying 'Draw and gun 'em down', but simply turn, inquire of their intentions, or something similar. This is fairly common knowledge to most people who live within a city, or a high-crime region.

Proper situational awareness would prevent your need to have a gun in the first place. If you take a specific route to and from places that you know is brightly lit/has access to locations that have phones/are heavily crowded/are on known police patrol routes you'll be more effective at protecting yourself than strolling down the block with a 9mm in your pocket. If it means having to take a cab/go the long way to and from somewhere to avoid trouble streets or areas, it's worth it. I've done plenty of work in sketchy areas and I follow the above exactly. And I feel secure enough where I don't feel the need to add a gun to that list.

Finally, this is a moot point, as it is an obvious lack of proper storage of the firearms. Weapons and ammunition should be stored separately, both locked. If there are misgivings about people whom live in your household getting their hands on these weapons, then the keys / combinations should not be shared with them.

Yet therein lies the catch-22 of the gun for home/personal defense argument. If you live in such a bad neighborhood where you honestly feel like any second some guy is going to barge in and rob the place, why are you leaving a gun locked up like its in the Smithsonian where you can't quickly access it? Or where you wouldn't have a full magazine on stand-by or already loaded into the weapon? Proper storage only takes you so far anyway, because if you have someone in your house who is honestly determined to kill somebody, then a lock box sure as shit ain't stopping them, just as locking your medicine cabinet isn't keeping your kids from getting to the painkillers you have stored away. It doesn't work for the practical purpose of using a gun for defense and it certainly wouldn't keep a determined individual from getting the weapon(s).

What if the robber has a knife? What if it's a mugger who'd leave you bleeding in the street instead of shooting you dead? What if it's a group of people who beat you and steal your money? We could play this game all night. In some situations a gun won't help, in some it would.

At least in my scenarios the victim doesn't end up becoming a murderer themselves. Trying to whip out a weapon or use those sweet moves you learned in self defense class will more likely cause a situation to get worse than simply cooperating with a mugger. I'd rather take my chances that the guy will just take what he wants and leaves rather than attempt to try and fight them off and give them no option but to use lethal force on me. I'm not going to lull myself into a false sense of security by carrying around a weapon I more than likely wont have enough time to use to defend myself in the first place.
 

TeenageAngst

Banned
Banned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Term, you're not going to win this one. Until you've been in a run down apartment complex late at night carrying a wad of cash in your pocket, waiting in a dark doorway with your back to the dark woods with the sounds of domestic disputes echoing off the walls, until you've felt *that* and can confidently say you would rather not be armed, we can't discuss this further. You're speaking from some deluded moral high ground but I'm glad you think people should not kill each other. Fact of the matter is though, I don't have that luxury, and neither do a lot of people. Like I said, a gun isn't always the answer, but I'd rather be safe and have it just in case I can use it, than sorry and end up some hood rat's gang initiation trophy.
 

Bazeel

New Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

I can't respond to most of this in a 'civilian' manner, as I am former military, and still think much of the same; Situational awareness is still the key aspect to most of the 'They will just get you no matter what' sort of mentality I am seeing here. I suppose some people won't simply lay down and give up, and others will. That's totally fine, and I understand that! Personal choice is a wonderful thing! However, it is rather evident that the 'debate' is turning into a circular argument, which is what typically happens in this sort of situation, where the two parties will never really come to agree on any middle ground.

Before stepping out of the discussion, I will say that I am strongly supporting of more firearm purchasing regulations, especially with mandatory training and safety classes. Luckily, I was able to get my CHP with nothing more than my DD214, which showed proper training in a military setting. I'm not entirely sure what the process is in VA for civilians, but I believe it is much the same when it comes to showing positive proof of training. Education, training, and proper handling should be mandatory before picking up a firearm, as should be registration (in my opinion). That's all! Have a nice morning, FAF!
 

Term_the_Schmuck

Most Interesting Man on FAF
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Term, you're not going to win this one. Until you've been in a run down apartment complex late at night carrying a wad of cash in your pocket, waiting in a dark doorway with your back to the dark woods with the sounds of domestic disputes echoing off the walls, until you've felt *that* and can confidently say you would rather not be armed, we can't discuss this further. You're speaking from some deluded moral high ground but I'm glad you think people should not kill each other. Fact of the matter is though, I don't have that luxury, and neither do a lot of people. Like I said, a gun isn't always the answer, but I'd rather be safe and have it just in case I can use it, than sorry and end up some hood rat's gang initiation trophy.

"BOOHOO YOU HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT I'VE SEEN AND BEEN WHERE I'VE BEEN SO UR WRONG"

Yeah, okay buddy.
 

TeenageAngst

Banned
Banned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

"BOOHOO YOU HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT I'VE SEEN AND BEEN WHERE I'VE BEEN SO UR WRONG"

Yeah, okay buddy.

Just remember, folks, this guy's a mod.
 

TeenageAngst

Banned
Banned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Your name is blue in my browser, but I'm on my phone.
 

Bazeel

New Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Clearly you haven't been on FAF long.

Would making sniping remarks at users by administration be standard on these forums? Educate me, I'm not a frequent visitor here- I do main site work.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

It simply shouldn't be this easy for the general populace to het their hands on an arsenal.
Criminals will always manage to get their hands on guns, that doesn't mean it should be easy for an insane guy who plans a school shooting as well!
 

TeenageAngst

Banned
Banned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Uh, captain, the last guy who pulled a mass shooting rigged his apartment to explode with homemade bombs. It contained enough explosives to damage surrounding buildings. I don't think such a person would be dissuaded by additional background checks or legal restrictions or state legislation. I think such a person would, in a gunless society, probably have blown the movie theater to kingdom come. These people are insane but they're not stupid.

Plus, gun restrictions will lead to a larger black market. And, you know, if a criminal is buying off the black market anyway, they're going to get the best kind of weapon they can. So instead of a semiautomatic pocket pistol or a revolver, it might be a machine pistol.

And lest we forget just how successful all our previous attempts at legislating away the ills of society have been. Last I heard they can't even keep illegal drugs out of our maximum security prisons, let alone off the streets or out of the hands of criminals.

Just keeping it real.
 

Sarcastic Coffeecup

Hand. Cannot. Erase.
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Uh, captain, the last guy who pulled a mass shooting rigged his apartment to explode with homemade bombs. It contained enough explosives to damage surrounding buildings. I don't think such a person would be dissuaded by additional background checks or legal restrictions or state legislation. I think such a person would, in a gunless society, probably have blown the movie theater to kingdom come. These people are insane but they're not stupid.

Plus, gun restrictions will lead to a larger black market. And, you know, if a criminal is buying off the black market anyway, they're going to get the best kind of weapon they can. So instead of a semiautomatic pocket pistol or a revolver, it might be a machine pistol.

And lest we forget just how successful all our previous attempts at legislating away the ills of society have been. Last I heard they can't even keep illegal drugs out of our maximum security prisons, let alone off the streets or out of the hands of criminals.

Just keeping it real.
I think restricting gun distribution would have quite the impact on this. Even though you can buy from black market, I'd think there's a connection with the gun handling in the US and school shootings. You've got quite many school incidents Whereas countries with stricter gun laws have a lot less. Also you got a lot of firearm murders compared to other countries.
You got about 140 school shootings where the rest of the world has got 42

And trying to legislate the ills away does reduce the usage of the said thing. It can never be completely removed, but it can be hindered severely.
 

Lhune

Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

The funny part of this is that all the pro-gun folks seem to completely disregard the fact that there are numerous developed countries out there where firearms are illegal to have for the common civilian. Why not just compare the two situations?

---

"In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those,8,775 were caused by firearms." (source; http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state )

8775 / 314944737 (current population of the USA) = 2,78e-5 (0,0000278 ) , times 100.000 = 2.78 per 100.000 citizens killed by firearms.

"In the Netherlands, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 2009: 0.57" (source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/netherlands )

---

Now these numbers obviously don't tell you everything, the majority of murders that involve guns in the Netherlands happen in Amsterdam (densely populated, high tourism rates, trafficking of drugs and people and so on), in that same way the USA has regions where the rates of murders that involved firerarms are much higher and in some they are much lower. Guns are not necessarily hard to come by in the Netherlands, if you're above the age of 18 and have been a member of a shooting range for a year you can legally own a firearm of your own. However, because it's not the social norm, far less people have guns than would be possible. I'm guessing that the rates still being relatively high in the Netherlands are due to the fact that guns are so easy to come by for people who do want to cause harm or just have a fascination with guns. If this was somehow stopped or regulated better, I'm pretty confident that the rates would be lower.

Living in a country where so few people own firearms (3,8 per 100 people) doesn't make me feel unsafe at all. The chances of you getting shot or even threatened with a gun in your life are very low as most people who have this happen to them are either involved in criminal organisations themselves or own a shop of some kind. There are always the odd few cases where common people are shot out of revenge or due to someone just "going crazy", but none of those cases could possibly have been prevented or solved by people owning guns themselves as they are very rare cases that you can't possibly prepare yourself for. I don't see or feel a need for everyone to have guns available to them, the only possible situation I can think of in which a gun would be useful to have is if you have to deal with wild predators on a regular basis (bears, pumas and so on). I can't imagine a situation that involves people where you would absolutely need a gun; even if people are breaking into your house and they do have guns, if you start shooting at them and they aren't alone, chances are pretty big someone's going to get killed. If someone breaks into a house here, even if they are armed (which isn't always the case), the chances of someone getting shot is always pretty low since the house owners rarely have a gun and as such don't pose enough of a threat to shoot down.

Just my two cents. I know that last sentence might sound pretty terrible to some of you, but if someone with a gun breaks into my house I would be much more likely to just comply than to try and fight them and most likely lose my life (not to mention that if I did have a gun and shot them, it would be classed as murder and I would much rather have some of my possessions taken from me than to be sent to jail for protecting them). Stolen money or items can be replaced, my life can't.


 
Last edited:

Anubite

That White Guy
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Germany does a fantastic job regulating firearms.
 

Gryphoneer

20 Quatloos on "disruptive"
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the 'even playing field' argument. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but wouldn't severe limiting of firearms, or the ability to legally carry them, result in a 'Survival of the fittest' sort of encounter, whenever dealing with criminals? If, say, Joe Bad-Guy was 240 lbs of muscle, and Mary Nurse was 100 lbs of 'I work at the Hospital', wouldn't Joe win whatever he wants with her, should police not be within shouting distance?
It's kind of a flawed scenario, isn't it?

Firearms are force-multipliers and consequently give puny guys the power to wreak more damage than ever before, which is why they're the primary users (in the civilian sector).
 

Attaman

"Welcome to FurAffinity Forums, gentlemen."
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

I'm wondering, since it was brought up by people who don't seem to have the ability of reading comprehension:

1) When the hell Self Defense was meant to be a permanent solution that also included the roles of Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Or is this an example of the sort of mental reaching one needs to do for the argument that "Second Amendment pertains to well-regulated militia" = "GIVE AK-47's TO EVERYONE"? Self-Defense's "It isn't murder" is intended to be there for those who in the heat of the situation made mistakes and could not be expected to make rational decisions. It is not there for anyone who feels threatened to kill their attacker because they deserve it / they must do anything it takes to defend their life / etcetera.

2) When the hell the ability to carry switchblades, stun-guns, pepperspray / mace, riot prods, and so-on was considered "unarmed". Term's argument is not "All law-abiding citizens must go out like cattle and hope never-speedy police are there to save them", and arguing as though it is, well, is outright disingenuous. He's arguing that maybe, maybe some people can't be trusted with fairly lethal self-defense equipment (which, considering the above "I can't defend myself if I can't kill someone from a block away", seems fairly likely) and should instead be given items that are non-lethal but still hurt like fuck to be on the receiving end of / can readily repel many attackers.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

'x is more dangerous than guns therefore guns should be left alone' appears to be a popular mantra.

In most of the provided examples 'x' has other important functions- notably the example of surgery, which is why those things are not under such intent regulation, or intent to be regulated. [although in the example of surgery it is heavily regulated for obvious reasons]

Weapons do have other functions, but they often tend to encompass horrid things such as bloodsports- so somebody's desire to kill and wound wild animals for fun may not exactly be as justifiable to everyone as life-saving surgery.

The main crux, in my view, concerns guns as a form of self defence. If more of us arm ourselves to defend ourselves we should be aware that our enemies will also increase their arms, and that both groups will experience a mutual increase in accidents. Maybe it's not a race we should take part in.
 
Last edited:

Schwimmwagen

Well-Known Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Weapons do have other functions, but they often tend to encompass horrid things such as bloodsports- so somebody's desire to kill and wound wild animals for fun may not exactly be as justifiable to everyone as life-saving surgery.

Yeah, the world of gun sporting is truly horrible.

Those poor targets and clay pigeons, who will feed their kids?

Also we could have the 10,001st debate on population control of animals/vermin if you want.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Yeah, the world of gun sporting is truly horrible.

Those poor targets and clay pigeons, who will feed their kids?

Also we could have the 10,001st debate on population control of animals/vermin if you want.

No I don't care about clay pigeons, but large amounts of metal impurities becoming concentrated in ecosystems...and killing animals for sport...

I feel ambivilent about population control or the removal of nonindigenous species.
 

Schwimmwagen

Well-Known Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

No I don't care about clay pigeons, but large amounts of metal impurities becoming concentrated in ecosystems

Because clay pigeon shoots are done in the wild and not on privately owned and fenced open fields or dedicated firing ranges and stuff like that.

Also for an extremely long time, ammunition has been manufactured to be tipped with environmentally friendly metals (i.e. not lead) and in recent years, people have been pushing to take that even further.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Because clay pigeon shoots are done in the wild and not on privately owned and fenced open fields or dedicated firing ranges and stuff like that.

Metals used in shooting fall to earth, they are corroded and leached into the ground water and transported through the water system to rivers and lakes.
This may explain why waterfowl in the UK have a strangely high level of lead poisoning, because that element is present in above-normal concentrations in their environments as a result of the legacy of shot that has found its way into the water system.
 

Schwimmwagen

Well-Known Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

This may explain why waterfowl in the UK have a strangely high level of lead poisoning, because that element is present in above-normal concentrations in their environments as a result of the legacy of shot that has found its way into the water system.

Read my edit above. And explain to me how the ammunition I own personally that has absolutely no lead content - or that of any other harmful compounds - is causing this problem.

Besides military organisations like NATO have been fighting to keep their ammunition tipped with metals that aren't harmful, like lead. Because lead is expensive, melts easily, and the difference between other choice metals and lead being used in ammunition has a meaningless difference in terms of effectiveness, so they opt for the more environmentally-friendly choice when possible, and the amount of non-lead ammo in proportion to lead ammo is increasing over time, due to lead becoming obsolete and dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Read my edit above. And explain to me how the ammunition I own personally has absolutely no lead content - or that of any other harmful compounds - is causing this problem.

Bismuth let me guess? As long as you're not killing things or keeping the guns and ammo at your house/outside the range I don't think I have any objection.
 
Top