Gun Culture

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
So does this mean that the argument that having guns makes one safer from crime is actually false?

It would be nice to clear up that point, as the first on the list of assumptions supporting American gun culture -- that criminals will be deterred by the presence of guns in a law-abiding citizen's home and/or workplace and/or upon their person. In other words, the cultural conception of a gun as a "peacemaker," an instrument of protection.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
An interesting profile in today's SF Chronicle about an ex-con who tries to mediate disputes in Oakland, which is plagued by gun violence:
Guns a big problem

The crux of Oakland's violent crime rate, which is among the highest in the state, according to FBI statistics, is easy access to cheap guns, he said. Criminals can obtain assault rifles for a few hundred dollars, and in neighborhoods already plagued with poverty, unemployment and general hopelessness, guns provide quick answers to usually trivial problems, he said.

The result is an endless cycle of retaliation, he said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article...ims-to-broker-peace-4145606.php#ixzz2GCKVZZv3


Also this today:
Connecticut has more restrictions on gun ownership than most states, so gun-rights advocates argue the Dec. 14 schoolhouse massacre there illustrates the futility of gun control.

But a new study by a San Francisco organization reaches the opposite conclusion: States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tough-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-deaths-4145605.php#ixzz2GCLcPipU
 

sulong

It's a matter of what is.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
127
Location
Portland OR
If I were the sort of person that didn't have full confidence in the ability of law enforcement to protect me around the clock, I might think that the guns you don't see and don't know about, are the most dangerous.

Surprises can suck sometimes.
 

Maze Runner

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
5,489
Reaction score
609
So does this mean that the argument that having guns makes one safer from crime is actually false?

It would be nice to clear up that point, as the first on the list of assumptions supporting American gun culture -- that criminals will be deterred by the presence of guns in a law-abiding citizen's home and/or workplace and/or upon their person. In other words, the cultural conception of a gun as a "peacemaker," an instrument of protection.

I mean, I find it an interesting question. Could be yes, they are safer if they are home and can get to their guns. But if they are not at home, they could be marked for a break in.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Hmmm.

I think the real problem is legally, constitutionally separating responsible gun owners from irresponsible folks with inferiority issues.

I therefore offer the following petition to the White House at whitehouse.gov.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl


Because I feel that if you truly need a weapon, you'll use it even if it doesn't give you a "man card."

Take a read. If you agree, sign it. If not, it's a free country...no matter what color our Rugers are.
You caught me - though it would be at best questionable to discriminate on the basis of the color of a gun (and now this reminds me of the title of a Piers Anthony book).

I heard something about Piers Morgan waving around an "illegal in Washington DC gun clip" on one of the Sunday Morning TV news/interview shows - there are FOUR petitions on the White House site about him, two to keep him and two to kick him out of the USA. Yes, it's in the news.

It's fun looking at those petitions - here's an interesting one:
we petition the obama administration to:Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them

Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
Where's my popcorn?
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
So does this mean that the argument that having guns makes one safer from crime is actually false?

It would be nice to clear up that point, as the first on the list of assumptions supporting American gun culture -- that criminals will be deterred by the presence of guns in a law-abiding citizen's home and/or workplace and/or upon their person. In other words, the cultural conception of a gun as a "peacemaker," an instrument of protection.

If a gun owner believes in the 'peacemaker' idea, I think that is an irresponsible gun owner. Stolen guns are hugely detrimental to society, and they obviously circumvent every background check we could propose to give anyone. Pulling a gun out in an argument is the easiest way to make things life-or-death, etc.

I've advertised being a gun owner with gun-owner friends a couple of times to creepy strangers in the neighborhood who were asking about whether I lived alone or had a boyfriend, I'll admit. I was bothered enough by their behavior (strange staring at me, too) to want to let them know that I am not a submissive target at all. (The sheriff response time out here is slow, which matters very much, I think, too.)

As a woman, it's hard that way. If we weren't seen as automatically vulnerable without a male in the house to some folks, I'd certainly keep any firearm habits to myself.

Overall, I'd definitely not want anyone to know if there were no good reason for them to be aware of it. I hate the fact that stolen guns aren't taken very seriously by the government, because those guns are bound to cause a lot more damage out in society after being stolen than being stored in a fully checked-out individual's place (a household with no children, in any case).

eta: I'll note that the break-in/possible rape attempt I did have here happened while I was in the shower. I have no gun in the shower ;) My guard dog solved that while my neighbor was on the phone with 911. The gun did not help. The cops didn't either, lol. It wasn't their fault, but that's just the way it is. They were happy for my big ole dog :)
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
I mean, I find it an interesting question. Could be yes, they are safer if they are home and can get to their guns. But if they are not at home, they could be marked for a break in.
So that's one not-safe-at-all and one maybe-safe. Doesn't sound like a good return on the investment to me.

Then there's this:

If a gun owner believes in the 'peacemaker' idea, I think that is an irresponsible gun owner. Stolen guns are hugely detrimental to society, and they obviously circumvent every background check we could propose to give anyone. Pulling a gun out in an argument is the easiest way to make things life-or-death, etc.

I've advertised being a gun owner with gun-owner friends a couple of times to creepy strangers in the neighborhood who were asking about whether I lived alone or had a boyfriend, I'll admit. I was bothered enough by their behavior (strange staring at me, too) to want to let them know that I am not a submissive target at all. (The sheriff response time out here is slow, which matters very much, I think, too.)

As a woman, it's hard that way. If we weren't seen as automatically vulnerable without a male in the house to some folks, I'd certainly keep any firearm habits to myself.

Overall, I'd definitely not want anyone to know if there were no good reason for them to be aware of it. I hate the fact that stolen guns aren't taken very seriously by the government, because those guns are bound to cause a lot more damage out in society after being stolen than being stored in a fully checked-out individual's place (a household with no children, in any case).

eta: I'll note that the break-in/possible rape attempt I did have here happened while I was in the shower. I have no gun in the shower ;) My guard dog solved that while my neighbor was on the phone with 911. The gun did not help. The cops didn't either, lol. It wasn't their fault, but that's just the way it is. They were happy for my big ole dog :)
This is why I'd go for a dog over a gun just about every day. A dog is like having an alarm system and potential self-controlled weapon in one. Plus the kids can play with it. Only the most irresponsible people in the world let their kids play with their guns. So far in life, I have never had a break-in, but I did have two interesting experiences in the days when my family had a dog.

1. One day, every apartment above and below us in our building was robbed -- except ours. We were the only family with a dog at that time in that part of the building.

2. One day, in a different building, our dog went suddenly wild with barking and growling in the hall way while we were eating dinner. My mother went to see what was happening and found our usually laid back mixed breed standing stiff, with hackle raised, growling at the front door. As she came in saying, "What's going on?", she heard footsteps walking away from the door rapidly. A few days later, she noticed marks on the wall paper by our door. Someone had written in pencil the word "dog." She checked elsewhere in the building. Every apartment that had a dog, had "dog" written by the door. A woman whose dog had recently died, had "dog" crossed out. That building was very prone to burglaries. We never got broken into.

It is perhaps or perhaps not remarkable that none of the doors had "gun" written next to them, though I'd be very surprised if no one in that building had a gun.
 

EMaree

a demon for tea
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
839
Location
Scotland
Website
www.emmamaree.com
This is why I'd go for a dog over a gun just about every day. A dog is like having an alarm system and potential self-controlled weapon in one. Plus the kids can play with it. Only the most irresponsible people in the world let their kids play with their guns. So far in life, I have never had a break-in

Agree 100% with this. I can also take a dog with me when I'm walking at night, and I don't need to worry about my eyesight and aim or the chance of freeezing up: that dog's miles ahead of me, spotting strangers in the dark and deterring them just by standing there with his big goofy grin.

I'd say that anyone who feels unsafe and needs more security should head down to their nearest shelter... but I've seen too many idiots abuse and aggression-train their dogs to recommend that. :( I guess there are people who'll mistreat any form of self-defence, whether it's a gun or a living breathing canine.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
I mean, I find it an interesting question. Could be yes, they are safer if they are home and can get to their guns. But if they are not at home, they could be marked for a break in.

This. It is easy for criminals to determine when someone is home and when they are not, and any bad guy worth his salt knows the usual places where things are hidden. The dipwad with the huge lawn sign is making his own home a target, not his neighbor's.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Dogs scare me, but on an irrational level.

Guns scare me, but on a rational one.
That seems bizarre, considering that dogs can act irrationally, yet guns cannot. Fear of an animal with big teeth and its own volition is rational; fear of a mechanical device with no volition of its own, not so much.
This. It is easy for criminals to determine when someone is home and when they are not, and any bad guy worth his salt knows the usual places where things are hidden. The dipwad with the huge lawn sign is making his own home a target, not his neighbor's.
Have you got big "Gun Free Zone" signs on your front and back door to keep those nasty burglars away? :rolleyes:
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
Have you got big "Gun Free Zone" signs on your front and back door to keep those nasty burglars away? :rolleyes:

Nope - and yes, my parents' house was broken into and had a ton of stuff taken when I was a child. They took a bunch of our silver, her jewelry, my father's wedding ring and beat the shit out of our poor dog. It was fairly traumatizing for a nine year old. I'm not someone who thinks it can't happen.

But it happened while we weren't home. Which is the way most criminals like it.

eta: I have a young child in the house. Any gun kept in a safe enough place that he'd never be able to get to it would do me no good in a home invasion situation. And fwiw, I've been in one of those too. The heroin addict next door was beating his GF, my boyfriend and I tried to help and he came after my boyfriend. The details are a bit fuzzy, but I remember planting my foot firmly on his ass and kicking him through the door, slamming it shut after him, then waiting for the cops to get there. Which they did, in short order. At no time during the entire incident did I catch myself wishing I had a weapon.
 
Last edited:

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
The idea about guns as a self-defence right seem to rest on the principle that I would have the right to kill anyone that wronged me, or threatened to wrong me. I don't buy that, in general.
 

sulong

It's a matter of what is.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
127
Location
Portland OR
The idea about guns as a self-defence right seem to rest on the principle that I would have the right to kill anyone that wronged me, or threatened to wrong me. I don't buy that, in general.

Wronged you? That's an interesting choice of words while discussing using deadly force.
 

ladyleeona

fluently sarcastic grandma offender
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
932
Reaction score
138
Location
wherever the Jose is.
I'm going to backtrack to earlier in this thread when I mentioned how shooting an intruder in the UK is illegal even when they represent a threat on your life.

Is there an equivalent US law to the UK's "grossly disproportionate" and "disproportionate force" laws?

Eh, I'm not exactly sure, but I'd say it's somewhat circumstantial. If someone breaks in to your house and threatens you/your family, you are within your rights to shoot them. That's always kind of been a given. But I heard of one occasion where some trigger happy loon shot a would-be robber as the guy was running away (having already been frightened off when the owner popped up). Shooter was rightfully charged with something (can't remember what). So the degrees of threat--and the resulting force necessary--are somewhat open to debate.

ETA--I'm no lawyer, but I think even if you aren't formally charged by the state/county/whatever, you can still be subjected to civil lawsuits by the family of burglar, etc.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
Wronged you? That's an interesting choice of words while discussing using deadly force.

Well, isn't it the right word then?

There seem to be a conflict between:

"I have a right to kill you if you appear, or threaten, to do something against me." That's the case for bringing in the gun. A gun kills. It's designed to kill. It's not designed to ward off or threaten or scare away. It is instant escalation into deadly force.

and

"I killed someone because I attempted to ward off, threaten or scare away someone that appeared, or threatened to, do something against me". This is about escalating responses that go from protest, and may end with someone killing someone else.

I don't buy the first. I accept that sometimes people die when doing the second.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Along those same lines, am I the only one that's disturbed whenever people start talking about "the bad guys"?

I guess it's easier to "shoot the bad guys" than to think of it as killing another human being. It's disgusting.
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,216
Reaction score
18,302
Location
A dark, evil place.
I'm assuming it's someone breaking into your house, threatening you or your family with harm, someone stealing from your car, someone beating up someone else in the street....
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I'm assuming it's someone breaking into your house, threatening you or your family with harm, someone stealing from your car, someone beating up someone else in the street....

"Criminal" or "intruder" should be sufficient, then, as well as more accurate.

I feel like "bad guys" is dehumanizing. In the movies, the good guys shoot the bad guys. It doesn't matter if the bad guys die. You're a hero if you kill the bad guys. I feel like using the term encourages that kind of thinking.

When it's "the bad guys" who do something bad, no one needs to stop and think "why did this person feel the need to do this and how could we have prevented him feeling that way." Because the bad guys are always bad. They're flat characters. There are no therapists for the bad guys.

It's as stupid as that "axis of evil" crap.
 

sulong

It's a matter of what is.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
127
Location
Portland OR
Well, isn't it the right word then?
Well, no. At least not to my way of thinking.
Lets say a husband got caught having sex with a girlfriend.
Was the wife "wronged"? Probably. But I don't see the justification to shoot the two people who "wronged" her.

There seem to be a conflict between:

"I have a right to kill you if you appear, or threaten, to do something against me." That's the case for bringing in the gun. A gun kills. It's designed to kill. It's not designed to ward off or threaten or scare away. It is instant escalation into deadly force.

and

"I killed someone because I attempted to ward off, threaten or scare away someone that appeared, or threatened to, do something against me". This is about escalating responses that go from protest, and may end with someone killing someone else.

I don't buy the first. I accept that sometimes people die when doing the second.