Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by Birnando

Aye, I'm sure those figures are correct.
Noone ever said driving a car was safe, nor should it be seen as an argument for making gun deaths any lesser or more acceptable.

54 dead children under the age of 13 dead that year, not a huge number but 54 children deprived of life nonetheless.
With a reduced portion of homes actually owning a gun, then that figure might just drop.. A good thing, no?

By that logic we should ban any alcoholic substance, tobacco, cars, unhealthy foods, swimming pools, staircases, hard surfaces -- The list could go on.

Yes, 54 children dead is sad, but it must also be put in context.
Relatively speaking guns are not a significant threat. Just because something is technically a hazard doesn't mean it's significant.
Example, if you're driving your car, you may be hit by a meteor that just happens to land exactly where you are driving, and kills you.
Unlikely, but it -can- happen. Getting hit by another car is an enormous risk and one of the most common ways to die in our society.

I propose that a gun responsibly owned and kept for self defense is infinitely more likely to be an asset to keeping a child's life safe rather than a hazard which could take it.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Now, for measuring crimes that don't happen because the criminal is deterred being difficult.
I agree, that is indeed a hard thing to do, much like measuring how much the presence of a gun actually escalated that very same situation.
Violence breeds violence and all that.

Discussing deeply within the realm of hypothetical scenarios is tricky, but I'll go out on a limb and say that I personally cannot see how a firearm would be likely to escallate a situation. In fact it's key purpose is the exact opposite. I've been through the police academy, seen thousands of confrontation videos, read reports, talked to other officers, self defense instructors, FBI agents. I, and they had all had to pull their weapon, but never ever shoot it. Picture this situation: You are an agreesor approaching an individual with angry threatening words and raise your hands. He pulls out a weapon and aims it at you. Do you A: continue or B: stop dead in your tracks and turn around and run.

The only people I've seen or heard of going for option A are people who are heavily influenced by drugs. People, generally speaking, are very scared of getting shot.

Originally Posted by Birnando

One thing I never did though, was to bring that BUL 9mm 1911 out of those perimeters.
It was left at the club.
Worked out pretty good for me..

Cool, I have two 1911's but both in 45 ACP.
Of course we have less of a need for defensive use arms here in Norway where poverty, violent crime and murders are very infrequent. BTW: Norway actually has the 11th most firearms per capita of any country, and sweden 10'th. (Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Comparing apples to apples is necessary to get an appreciation for the benefits of firearms posession for self defense.
When I lived in Arizona I lived in a decent neighborhood, but the neighbor town was very meth infested. That crime unfortunately bled out to our town. Anyways, during my stay there (only 6months) I had TWO people try to break into my apartment while I was still in it.
I happen to be a 6'2 190lb male in decent shape, who can fight okay, who also happened to be armed to the teeth. So when I pulled out my weapon and yelled "who the explicit are you? STOP" They both had mini heart attacks and scattered.
But what if I wasn't armed? maybe they had a knife or other weapon and decided they could take me? what if I was an unarmed woman? a single mom? Imagine the potential horrific outcome that could have happened from these scenarios under slightly different circumstances. Unfortunately those scenarios DO happen, daily.

edit: spelling

Originally Posted by Mats

By that logic we should ban any alcoholic substance, tobacco, cars, unhealthy foods, swimming pools, staircases, hard surfaces -- The list could go on.

Yes it could, and you know what? We are doing that. Implementation of security regulations on car manufacturers, more is done to reduce DUI, unhealthy foods are taxed heavier to promote the healthier varieties, regulations on pool owners to secure the area,.
Why for instance do we hace speed limits on our roads? To reduce the possibility for incidents.
So, as you see, law makers are implementing regulations on everything that represent a hazard.

Originally Posted by Mats

Yes, 54 children dead is sad, but it must also be put in context.
Relatively speaking guns are not a significant threat. Just because something is technically a hazard doesn't mean it's significant.
Example, if you're driving your car, you may be hit by a meteor that just happens to land exactly where you are driving, and kills you.
Unlikely, but it -can- happen. Getting hit by another car is an enormous risk and one of the most common ways to die in our society.

I propose that a gun responsibly owned and kept for self defense is infinitely more likely to be an asset to keeping a child's life safe rather than a hazard which could take it.

Now, here we are at the crux of the matter.
I wholeheartedly agree that a gun responsibly owned and kept represent a low risk for a child. Or any other for that matter.
Then again, the level of responsibility is where the numbers don't add up.
Guns kill a lot of people, clearly those guns are not then treated with the needed level of responsibility.
I don' t think all that many could argue they don't, the debate is wether or not the law-abiding,and responsible majority should as a result of a minority with bad habits, pay the price for their actions.
In my opinion, yes.

Sounds unfair right?
undemocratic even?
Sure it does, but that is the price we all pay each and every day for others actions in modern society.
Everything around us, like banks, retail shops and your local gas-station are made they way they are these days due to what others have done to those places in the past, or what someone might fear will happen. That imparts everyday life for everyone, and I accept that as part of modern life.

Originally Posted by Mats

Discussing deeply within the realm of hypothetical scenarios is tricky, but I'll go out on a limb and say that I personally cannot see how a firearm would be likely to escallate a situation. In fact it's key purpose is the exact opposite. I've been through the police academy, seen thousands of confrontation videos, read reports, talked to other officers, self defense instructors, FBI agents. I, and they had all had to pull their weapon, but never ever shoot it. Picture this situation: You are an agreesor approaching an individual with angry threatening words and raise your hands. He pulls out a weapon and aims it at you. Do you A: continue or B: stop dead in your tracks and turn around and run.

The only people I've seen or heard of going for option A are people who are heavily influenced by drugs. People, generally speaking, are very scared of getting shot.

Oh there are tons of situations where a gun present will escalate a situation.
Now, let's use me as an example, a burglar entering this home unarmed will meet me, also unarmed.
We have at it, he gets a good old beating, I call the cops and we are done.
Well, technically, I might be the one beaten up, and the one without a computer, watch and other valuables, but standing six feet five, weighing about 230 pounds and holding a 3Dan blackbelt , on top of my desire to protect my family and myself, he'd better be pretty good at what he intend to do to inflict harm my way

None of the above scenarios include anything worth getting killed for, nor becoming a murderer though.
The absense of guns will, imo, lessen the risk of any life getting lost in that scenario.
Oh sure, he could use a knife, a vase or any number of other household items to obtain that, but the crux of the matter is, gun presence add to mortality rates , no question about that, imo.

Originally Posted by Mats

Cool, I have two 1911's but both in 45 ACP.
Of course we have less of a need for defensive use arms here in Norway where poverty, violent crime and murders are very infrequent. BTW: Norway actually has the 11th most firearms per capita of any country, and sweden 10'th. (Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Comparing apples to apples is necessary to get an appreciation for the benefits of firearms posession for self defense.
When I lived in Arizona I lived in a decent neighborhood, but the neighbor town was very meth infested. That crime unfortunately bled out to our town. Anyways, during my stay there (only 6months) I had TWO people try to break into my apartment while I was still in it.
I happen to be a 6'2 190lb male in decent shape, who can fight okay, who also happened to be armed to the teeth. So when I pulled out my weapon and yelled "who the explicit are you? STOP" They both had mini heart attacks and scattered.
But what if I wasn't armed? maybe they had a knife or other weapon and decided they could take me? what if I was an unarmed woman? a single mom? Imagine the potential horrific outcome that could have happened from these scenarios under slightly different circumstances. Unfortunately those scenarios DO happen, daily.

edit: spelling

Yes, I seem to remember the volunteer shooting society up here represents the biggest number of members out of all volunteer activities, including football.
My brother is an avid hunter himself, he seems to enjoy that a lot. There are many like him in that regard all over the world I would imagine.

The 1911's was not what I was loking for to use as a sporting weapon in that club, but at the day I was to purchase one, a Israeli weapons representative from BUL was present and giving a demonstration of that 9mm.
A man more in control of his sidarm would be hard to imagine.
He impressed the heck out of me, and left no doubt as to what that gun would be able to do in the right hands.
So, a BUL I bought

As to that scenario, sure a gun might be just the ticket.
I'm also convinced that a gun present at the right time, and in the right hands has indeed saved lives.
No question about it IMO.

At the end of the day though, the obvious advantages of a gun at a situation like that does not outweigh the overall impact guns has on a society.

An armed society is a polite society is often used as a catch phrase for gun ownership.
To me that reads, an armed society is a fear ridden society with a few major problems to solve.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Yes it could, and you know what? We are doing that. Implementation of security regulations on car manufacturers, more is done to reduce DUI, unhealthy foods are taxed heavier to promote the healthier varieties, regulations on pool owners to secure the area,.
Why for instance do we hace speed limits on our roads? To reduce the possibility for incidents.
So, as you see, law makers are implementing regulations on everything that represent a hazard.

I don't feel like this example is applicable to what is advocated.
Guns, storage and use of guns are already subject to the exact same types of regulations and laws, only way stricter.
Buying a gun today anywhere in the US requires at the minimum a background check which includes criminal history, mental issues and other barring factors. The weapons them selves are extensively tested for security compliance with regard to safety mechanisms and drop resitance and other accidental disrcharge situations. As far as I can see that is the exact equivalent to the examples you made. But the wish you expressed was that all guns be outright gone. That isn't regulation comparable to what was mentioned above. The equivalent to that would be removing cars, removing anything but healthy foods, removing alcohol.
None of which, for the record, I think are good ideas.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Now, here we are at the crux of the matter.
I wholeheartedly agree that a gun responsibly owned and kept represent a low risk for a child. Or any other for that matter.
Then again, the level of responsibility is where the numbers don't add up.

But how can you ban an item because it is occasionally used irresponsibly by irresponsible people? Who's to say they don't drive like idiots, eat unhealthy, play with fireworks or do a thousand other equally irresponsible and foolish things. I've never seen anyone who handled a gun irresponsibly yet was a model citizen in all other areas of life. Stupid is stupid!

Originally Posted by Birnando

Guns kill a lot of people, clearly those guns are not then treated with the needed level of responsibility.

We've already established that the number of people who die from accidental deaths are realtively speaking incredibly low.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Oh there are tons of situations where a gun present will escalate a situation.
Now, let's use me as an example, a burglar entering this home unarmed will meet me, also unarmed.
We have at it, he gets a good old beating, I call the cops and we are done.

Well, technically, I might be the one beaten up, and the one without a computer, watch and other valuables, but standing six feet five, weighing about 230 pounds and holding a 3Dan blackbelt , on top of my desire to protect my family and myself, he'd better be pretty good at what he intend to do to inflict harm my way

None of the above scenarios include anything worth getting killed for, nor becoming a murderer though.
The absense of guns will, imo, lessen the risk of any life getting lost in that scenario.

Let me preface what I'm about to say with this: You seem like a wonderful kind intelligent person, and I have a great deal of respect for you. So with that in mind, and I genuinely mean no offense in the slightest degree, but that is absolute fairytale unrealistic, unapplicable story.

Yes, for this specific incident you are discribing you would be correct. But how on earth would you know in advance that the guy breaking into your home trying to fight you doesn't have a gun? doesn't have a knife? how do you know it's him alone? how do you know what his motives are? What if he originally came there to rape someone? Who's to say he doesn't kill you first and then do what he had planned?
I follow and understand your logic behind this, because we live in a country where such a thing would be unheard of. The reality is that many places on earth have a very different level of crime than we could ever dream of. the US in 2010 had:
14,748 murders 84,767 rapes 367,832 robberies and 778,901 aggravated assaults.

There have been multiple examples of people breaking into a house, killing the man of the home, raping all the women(and girls), and then killing everyone to not leave any witnesses.

I'd entertain your example if we were talking about our home towns here in Norway, but as a blanket statement to illustrate how nobody needs guns anywhere in the world, it's no good.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Oh sure, he could use a knife, a vase or any number of other household items to obtain that, but the crux of the matter is, gun presence add to mortality rates , no question about that, imo.

I don't necessarily agree to that, as I have never seen any statistics to back that up in the slightest degree. But as macabre as this may sound, what if the best case scenario IS adding a person to that mortality list? Let me clarify; the only scenario that I can picture being much worse than having to shoot and kill another man in self defense is the alternative, which would be him killing me or my family. If posed with the choice it's still an easy decision.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no way of knowing exactly what a persons motives are when they break into your house, but it would be foolish to not assume the worst only to be surprised when your worst nightmares are realized.

Originally Posted by Birnando

As to that scenario, sure a gun might be just the ticket.
I'm also convinced that a gun present at the right time, and in the right hands has indeed saved lives.
No question about it IMO.

At the end of the day though, the obvious advantages of a gun at a situation like that does not outweigh the overall impact guns has on a society.

I respectfully disagree, and even if I did agree we're not discussing the same thing necessarily. Understand that banning guns is not the same as removing guns from the face of the earth. I remember in highschool (ungdomskole?) there was a class mate who asked me if I knew of anyone who wanted to buy a gun. Now this guy was sort of shady, and not a friend, but the fact that a young lad actually had an illegal weapon which is highly restricted, in our neighborhood of upper scale first would country like Norway tells me that no matter what we do there have been too many guns created to ever be able to take every single one off the streets. Criminals don't care about the laws, and the damage is already done. The only consequence of stricter laws at this point is restricting the people who follow them, which coincidentally are the people who should have guns.

Originally Posted by Birnando

An armed society is a polite society is often used as a catch phrase for gun ownership.
To me that reads, an armed society is a fear ridden society with a few major problems to solve.

It's a culture difference.
I've grown up most of my life in Norway and I was scared first time I saw a gun.
However after weeks and months and years of learning more, and being with the enthusiasts who shoot them, I've come to understand what they are and what they are not. There is alot of superstition tied to things we don't understand, but at the end of the day nobody is more likely to shoot someone because they lose their temper than they are stabbing them with a kitchen knife or just beating someone to death (easier than most people think).

With respect!
Mats

Edit: I can't spell

An example of the kind of cold brutal crime that is common in the states:
Armed robbery goes wrong, shootout in Texas convenience store, caught on camera - YouTube