4 ms·

I find it odd that there is all these hate for cops (we can't trust them, etc)..yet, allowing citizens to own guns for their own protection is frowned upon by t

I find it odd that there is all these hate for cops (we can't trust them, etc)..yet, allowing citizens to own guns for their own protection is frowned upon by those same people.

ori_b 11y ago
Well, the thing is that guns aren't a very effective means of protection -- especially not from cops, who have more guns, more manpower, and tend to frown upon being shot at. And considering that one of the few times I'd consider lethal force justified would be when someone actually pulls a gun on a cop, that makes them especially useless. I mean, what scenarios do you see guns being a good solution for, compared to nonlethal self defense tools like pepper spray?
- wavefunction 11y ago
  I hate to say this, as someone who is pretty incensed by police brutality yet also believes in the right to responsible gun ownership in the US, that it is often better to kill an intruder to your house than wound or "incapacitate" them, as there is a precedent of criminals who have invaded homes and been wounded by the owners suing and winning financial judgements against the owners of the property.
  - izacus 11y ago
    You know what's even better (and for example, what local law here demands you to do)? Not HURTING anyone. It's just a damn TV.
    - hga 11y ago
      I find it strange how you can know ahead of time the intentions and potentials of home invaders. What I call "strong Castle Doctrine" laws, in effect in many states, allow residents to use lethal force without warning, let along divining the intent of an intruder, because it can be presupposed in the US that someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he come across, which happens all too often.
      - Retra 11y ago
        I take it you've never heard of selection bias?
        hga 11y ago
        Could you sketch out how you think it's relevant?
        Retra 11y ago
        The phrase "someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he come across, which happens all too often," seems to be ignoring the cases when it doesn't happen, or when someone dies when they were in fact unwilling will kill anyone.
    - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AKfcc2rM_xI#t=75 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AK... Why do you assume if you're not violent the home invader won't be?
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "Well, the thing is that guns aren't a very effective means of protection -- especially not from cops" It's not about protecting yourself from cops. It's protecting yourself from criminals..but it seems with all of the latest news stories, criminals are protected, adored, and idolized. It's also not even about the actual effectiveness of the gun. When it's well-known that you have a weapon, crime decreases. "I mean, what scenarios do you see guns being a good solution for, compared to nonlethal self defense tools like pepper spray?" Pepper spray is also heavily regulated in nearly every state and isn't really that effective. The way I see it, if I can't legally own a gun and a criminal hurts myself or my family, the people that passed the laws prohibiting me from protecting my family (and those that supported these laws) should go to jail as well.
  - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
    > It's also not even about the actual effectiveness of the gun. When it's well-known that you have a weapon, crime decreases. Do you have some citation for that? Curious to read it.
    - mdpopescu 11y ago
      This is a fun read (I've stayed in Kennesaw for a while in 2000 and people told me about this law): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-11df-b53e-00144feab49a.html#slide0 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-11df-b53e-00144feab4... More generally, Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" is a study on the subject - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime - though not without opposition.
    - paulhauggis 11y ago
      I even see it in bank robberies in my local area. Bank tellers are instructed to just give the robber whatever they want, which usually ends up being roughly $3000-$5000 in cash. So, the result is an increase in bank robberies. Because the criminals don't really care about the laws and know they will always be given cash, it puts more people in danger when they get the money and run. People potentially (and do) get hurt, etc.
- joesmo 11y ago
  Until the police are willing to give up their guns, why should the people give up their guns? Personally, I would consider mutual disarmament, but certainly not a one-sided one that gives even more power to the already too-powerful, incredibly corrupt, and incredibly violent police. The right to have a gun is a much more powerful force than the actual act of having a gun, assuming that people do actually take advantage of that right, which they do. It makes the police and military think twice about breaking into people homes and taking them over, committing violence against them, or killing them. Mind you, just because they think twice about it doesn't mean they'll make the sane decision and not knock down doors in the middle of the night serving warrants to the wrong house (in which situation the police are asking to be shot at so I can't really feel bad for them and their insane decisions). Yes, the police and military have much bigger and better guns so the situation is not quite balanced, but it is as balanced as it's going to get. Without the right to bear arms, it's almost impossible to enforce one's natural rights, spelled out in the constitution. The police, who don't want you enforcing those rights, are certainly not going to help you. It is the right itself and the exercising of the right to bear arms itself that keeps most of the violence away without even a single shot being fired. So no, pepper spray will not help.
m_mueller 11y ago
Why is gun ownership almost always brought up in such discussions? I'm from a country with high gun ownership and low crime - yet I really don't think the crime rate has anything to do with the guns people have at home (mostly military rifles), since the crime rate is mostly the same as in other European countries with low gun ownership. So, just to be clear, I'm pro liberal gun laws (for different reasons), I just think crime and police brutality are not going to be solved with gun laws in either direction, it's a separate issue.
venomsnake 11y ago
Mostly because you need very hard, rigorous, proper training to be able to defend yourself and not endanger bystanders. Also an attacker can kill you a couple of thousand times before you can even pull out your gun from the holster.
- hga 11y ago
  Citation Needed. Seriously, as someone who's had "hard, rigorous, proper training", I am continuously amazed by all the people without it who responsibly defend themselves. Over two million times a year in the US (in the vast majority of these cases no shot is ever fired). And your latter point seldom holds true, when it's gun vs. gun, the armed citizen is generally smart enough to draw his gun when he believes his assailant won't have enough time to respond. One of the reasons the canard about criminals taking guns away from women never seems to actually happen.
asddubs 11y ago
what good is owning a gun going to do you in the face of police brutality. What, you're going to shoot the policeman? I'm sure that will work out great

I find it odd that there is all these hate for cops (we can't trust them, etc)..yet, allowing citizens to own guns for their own protection is frowned upon by those same people.

ori_b 11y ago

Well, the thing is that guns aren't a very effective means of protection -- especially not from cops, who have more guns, more manpower, and tend to frown upon being shot at. And considering that one of the few times I'd consider lethal force justified would be when someone actually pulls a gun on a cop, that makes them especially useless. I mean, what scenarios do you see guns being a good solution for, compared to nonlethal self defense tools like pepper spray?

wavefunction 11y ago
I hate to say this, as someone who is pretty incensed by police brutality yet also believes in the right to responsible gun ownership in the US, that it is often better to kill an intruder to your house than wound or "incapacitate" them, as there is a precedent of criminals who have invaded homes and been wounded by the owners suing and winning financial judgements against the owners of the property.
- izacus 11y ago
  You know what's even better (and for example, what local law here demands you to do)? Not HURTING anyone. It's just a damn TV.
  - hga 11y ago
    I find it strange how you can know ahead of time the intentions and potentials of home invaders. What I call "strong Castle Doctrine" laws, in effect in many states, allow residents to use lethal force without warning, let along divining the intent of an intruder, because it can be presupposed in the US that someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he come across, which happens all too often.
    - Retra 11y ago
      I take it you've never heard of selection bias?
      - hga 11y ago
        Could you sketch out how you think it's relevant?
        Retra 11y ago
        The phrase "someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he come across, which happens all too often," seems to be ignoring the cases when it doesn't happen, or when someone dies when they were in fact unwilling will kill anyone.
  - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AKfcc2rM_xI#t=75 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AK... Why do you assume if you're not violent the home invader won't be?
paulhauggis 11y ago
"Well, the thing is that guns aren't a very effective means of protection -- especially not from cops" It's not about protecting yourself from cops. It's protecting yourself from criminals..but it seems with all of the latest news stories, criminals are protected, adored, and idolized. It's also not even about the actual effectiveness of the gun. When it's well-known that you have a weapon, crime decreases. "I mean, what scenarios do you see guns being a good solution for, compared to nonlethal self defense tools like pepper spray?" Pepper spray is also heavily regulated in nearly every state and isn't really that effective. The way I see it, if I can't legally own a gun and a criminal hurts myself or my family, the people that passed the laws prohibiting me from protecting my family (and those that supported these laws) should go to jail as well.
- bjelkeman-again 11y ago
  > It's also not even about the actual effectiveness of the gun. When it's well-known that you have a weapon, crime decreases. Do you have some citation for that? Curious to read it.
  - mdpopescu 11y ago
    This is a fun read (I've stayed in Kennesaw for a while in 2000 and people told me about this law): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-11df-b53e-00144feab49a.html#slide0 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-11df-b53e-00144feab4... More generally, Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" is a study on the subject - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime - though not without opposition.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    I even see it in bank robberies in my local area. Bank tellers are instructed to just give the robber whatever they want, which usually ends up being roughly $3000-$5000 in cash. So, the result is an increase in bank robberies. Because the criminals don't really care about the laws and know they will always be given cash, it puts more people in danger when they get the money and run. People potentially (and do) get hurt, etc.
joesmo 11y ago
Until the police are willing to give up their guns, why should the people give up their guns? Personally, I would consider mutual disarmament, but certainly not a one-sided one that gives even more power to the already too-powerful, incredibly corrupt, and incredibly violent police. The right to have a gun is a much more powerful force than the actual act of having a gun, assuming that people do actually take advantage of that right, which they do. It makes the police and military think twice about breaking into people homes and taking them over, committing violence against them, or killing them. Mind you, just because they think twice about it doesn't mean they'll make the sane decision and not knock down doors in the middle of the night serving warrants to the wrong house (in which situation the police are asking to be shot at so I can't really feel bad for them and their insane decisions). Yes, the police and military have much bigger and better guns so the situation is not quite balanced, but it is as balanced as it's going to get. Without the right to bear arms, it's almost impossible to enforce one's natural rights, spelled out in the constitution. The police, who don't want you enforcing those rights, are certainly not going to help you. It is the right itself and the exercising of the right to bear arms itself that keeps most of the violence away without even a single shot being fired. So no, pepper spray will not help.

m_mueller 11y ago

Why is gun ownership almost always brought up in such discussions? I'm from a country with high gun ownership and low crime - yet I really don't think the crime rate has anything to do with the guns people have at home (mostly military rifles), since the crime rate is mostly the same as in other European countries with low gun ownership. So, just to be clear, I'm pro liberal gun laws (for different reasons), I just think crime and police brutality are not going to be solved with gun laws in either direction, it's a separate issue.

venomsnake 11y ago

Mostly because you need very hard, rigorous, proper training to be able to defend yourself and not endanger bystanders. Also an attacker can kill you a couple of thousand times before you can even pull out your gun from the holster.

hga 11y ago
Citation Needed. Seriously, as someone who's had "hard, rigorous, proper training", I am continuously amazed by all the people without it who responsibly defend themselves. Over two million times a year in the US (in the vast majority of these cases no shot is ever fired). And your latter point seldom holds true, when it's gun vs. gun, the armed citizen is generally smart enough to draw his gun when he believes his assailant won't have enough time to respond. One of the reasons the canard about criminals taking guns away from women never seems to actually happen.

asddubs 11y ago

what good is owning a gun going to do you in the face of police brutality. What, you're going to shoot the policeman? I'm sure that will work out great