• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
32,702
Reaction score
32,818
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership (Atlantic)​

"When we were in our 20s, my friend Jim Ferguson would say that if you find yourself living someplace where you need to own a gun, you should move. That made sense to me then; it’s not so easy now to find safe places. If you live in a remote area, it can take the sheriff an hour or more to get to you, so if there’s a deadly threat from an intruder, you are on your own. And the past few years—indeed, the past few weeks—have shown us that gun violence knows no boundaries of geography, socioeconomic status, or age. Wherever you are, violence can find you. This reality has pushed me toward a moral dilemma: I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself.

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a “castle doctrine” that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners’ first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.

I realize that the phrase responsible gun owner has become a trope of the gun-rights lobby, but behind the cliché, it can actually mean something. Every two years, I take six hours of firearms training with an off-duty police detective. Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address."

I highly recommend this read, if you can access it. It reflects a lot of my personal experience. I have twice prepared to use my gun in defense, and neither time was required to, much to my relief. The second time it was never unholstered. No one even knew I was armed. A responsible gun owner is one who knows to refrain from using it unless absolutely necessary.
 

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership (Atlantic)​

"When we were in our 20s, my friend Jim Ferguson would say that if you find yourself living someplace where you need to own a gun, you should move. That made sense to me then; it’s not so easy now to find safe places. If you live in a remote area, it can take the sheriff an hour or more to get to you, so if there’s a deadly threat from an intruder, you are on your own. And the past few years—indeed, the past few weeks—have shown us that gun violence knows no boundaries of geography, socioeconomic status, or age. Wherever you are, violence can find you. This reality has pushed me toward a moral dilemma: I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself.

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a “castle doctrine” that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners’ first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.

I realize that the phrase responsible gun owner has become a trope of the gun-rights lobby, but behind the cliché, it can actually mean something. Every two years, I take six hours of firearms training with an off-duty police detective. Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address."

I highly recommend this read, if you can access it. It reflects a lot of my personal experience. I have twice prepared to use my gun in defense, and neither time was required to, much to my relief. The second time it was never unholstered. No one even knew I was armed. A responsible gun owner is one who knows to refrain from using it unless absolutely necessary.

What's a "responsible gun owner"? A gun owner with a literally perfect track record. Make one mistake with a gun--leaving it unsupervised around kids, pointing it at innocent people, etc.--and one is an irresponsible gun owner.
 

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership (Atlantic)​

"When we were in our 20s, my friend Jim Ferguson would say that if you find yourself living someplace where you need to own a gun, you should move. That made sense to me then; it’s not so easy now to find safe places. If you live in a remote area, it can take the sheriff an hour or more to get to you, so if there’s a deadly threat from an intruder, you are on your own. And the past few years—indeed, the past few weeks—have shown us that gun violence knows no boundaries of geography, socioeconomic status, or age. Wherever you are, violence can find you. This reality has pushed me toward a moral dilemma: I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself.

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a “castle doctrine” that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners’ first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.

I realize that the phrase responsible gun owner has become a trope of the gun-rights lobby, but behind the cliché, it can actually mean something. Every two years, I take six hours of firearms training with an off-duty police detective. Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address."

I highly recommend this read, if you can access it. It reflects a lot of my personal experience. I have twice prepared to use my gun in defense, and neither time was required to, much to my relief. The second time it was never unholstered. No one even knew I was armed. A responsible gun owner is one who knows to refrain from using it unless absolutely necessary.

Treating a constitutional right as if it were a mere state issued privilege is ridiculous. The 2A isn’t a right to shoot (or shoot at) anyone.

The following statement:

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it.

is nonsense, which could be applied to any potentially lethal weapon like a knife, hammer or baseball bat.
 

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership (Atlantic)​

"When we were in our 20s, my friend Jim Ferguson would say that if you find yourself living someplace where you need to own a gun, you should move. That made sense to me then; it’s not so easy now to find safe places. If you live in a remote area, it can take the sheriff an hour or more to get to you, so if there’s a deadly threat from an intruder, you are on your own. And the past few years—indeed, the past few weeks—have shown us that gun violence knows no boundaries of geography, socioeconomic status, or age. Wherever you are, violence can find you. This reality has pushed me toward a moral dilemma: I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself.

Owning a gun and using it for recreational purposes is also a ton of fun, and that alone is a good enough reason for someone to own a gun.

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license?

No, don't be ridiculous. Owning a gun is not nearly as complicated or dangerous as driving a car or flying a plane.

Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a “castle doctrine” that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners’ first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.

You don't need a license to own a car. But it's funny that you mention California because, even though it is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, you don't need a license to own a car OR a gun there.
 

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership (Atlantic)​

"The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a “castle doctrine” that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners’ first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.

The laws regarding the use of lethal force are pretty clear. Using a firearm legally for self-defense, you would most likely be within 30 feet, more likely a lot closer and indeed be looking them in the eye. Or they would have already killed you or still be raping the woman you're trying to save. (Distances are from LE regarding target training distances for SD.) If greater than 30 feet...hell yes you can probably get the hell out of there.

It is personal and that's probably much more dangerous to the gun owner than the threat...because that humanity is the thing regular people need to deal with...not only during a confrontation but definitely addressing it mentally before.

As for responsibility and mental preparation...yup that's what people are supposed to be and do. And yet, cops leave their guns accessible and their kids kill each other. They kill their ex's in front of their kids. They kill themselves. There's no amount of training or laws that can actually force responsibility on people or keep them from making mistakes.

I realize that the phrase responsible gun owner has become a trope of the gun-rights lobby, but behind the cliché, it can actually mean something. Every two years, I take six hours of firearms training with an off-duty police detective. Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address."

Absolutely but I dont know that any of that besides the shooting has to be in some kind of training. It's in the law, it's in a million books, and it's on any serious gun site that I've visited. Like The High Road. Yeah...the good gun sites are big on de-escalation, watching your 6, observation, situational awareness, prevention over confrontation, other means of defense first where possible, retreat if possible, etc.
 
Treating a constitutional right as if it were a mere state issued privilege is ridiculous. The 2A isn’t a right to shoot (or shoot at) anyone.

The following statement:
The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it.


is nonsense, which could be applied to any potentially lethal weapon like a knife, hammer or baseball bat.
Tell that to a 16yr old boy knocking on a door. Tell that to a 20yr old girl driving into the wrong driveway. Tell that to a 6yr old girl who rolled her basketball onto her neighbors grass. Tell that ................
 
is nonsense, which could be applied to any potentially lethal weapon like a knife, hammer or baseball bat.
BULLSHIT !! There are no drive-by baseball battings. There are no knife snipers. Children don't die when your hammer goes off "accidentally".

Seriously ... Is it something in the water where you people live?
 
What's a "responsible gun owner"? A gun owner with a literally perfect track record. Make one mistake with a gun--leaving it unsupervised around kids, pointing it at innocent people, etc.--and one is an irresponsible gun owner.

And cops do it too, with unfortunate frequency. You cant legislate responsibility. They do know better. Gun owners know better.

People make mistakes.
 
Tell that to a 16yr old boy knocking on a door. Tell that to a 20yr old girl driving into the wrong driveway. Tell that to a 6yr old girl who rolled her basketball onto her neighbors grass. Tell that ................

OK, but would that “temptation” (uncontrollable urge?) change based on taking a class, passing a test and/or paying a fee?
 
Tell that to a 16yr old boy knocking on a door. Tell that to a 20yr old girl driving into the wrong driveway. Tell that to a 6yr old girl who rolled her basketball onto her neighbors grass. Tell that ................

Yeah, there's zero excuses for any of those. The guy who shot the kid/father was a felon and a prohibited person. He tried to chase someone out of his yard with a gun anyway. If anything, there should be a freaking IQ test.
 
Tell that to a 16yr old boy knocking on a door. Tell that to a 20yr old girl driving into the wrong driveway. Tell that to a 6yr old girl who rolled her basketball onto her neighbors grass. Tell that ................
All criminal action. All have been arrested!
All will be spending time in jail soon.

Unfortunately there are bad people who make criminal choices. Innocent people pay the price
 
BULLSHIT !! There are no drive-by baseball battings. There are no knife snipers. Children don't die when your hammer goes off "accidentally".

Seriously ... Is it something in the water where you people live?

You seem to lack reading comprehension. Explain how not owning a gun prevents someone from being tempted to commit a violent crime with some other potentially lethal weapon?

You pretend that I claimed a gun was “just like” any other potentially lethal weapon. I did no such thing.

I pointed out that owning a potentially lethal weapon (gun or otherwise) doesn’t cause anyone to want to commit a criminal act.
 
OK, but would that “temptation” (uncontrollable urge?) change based on taking a class, passing a test and/or paying a fee?
I think it can. I received my early gun training as a teen in a military run 'cadet corp'. Full safety training, range protocols, how to shoot accurately, how to maintain a gun etc. I also did a 'hunters safety course' when I first started hunting. Those combined lessons still control how I handle and use my firearms today. Compared to some others I have met, I believe that I am in a different league when it comes to how I respect the potential dangers of firearms. Does that stop someones "uncontrollable urge"? Maybe, or maybe not, but it sure ain't going to make things worse. I also currently own guns in a different country where I like to visit/hunt and have citizenship. They have licensing, mental health checks, training, and home gun security requirements to prevent theft and child access etc. There they have a different attitude to guns and a gun isn't the go to answer to a knock on the door etc. So yes, I think the attitude and willingness to use a gun can be affected by those things.
 

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership (Atlantic)​

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a “castle doctrine” that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners’ first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.

I'm in favor of these actions and they sound reasonable. I currently don't own a gun but giving the rise in crime and I run a small business from an office on my property, I seriously considering it. I don't mind going through some hoops as is required in the state I live. I'm a bit skeptical about the idea a gun in the home will significantly if at all lead to more murder. People kill each other with alternate weapons fairly regularly. A knife, a pipe wrench, a fire place poker or even just a bat are all perfectly capable of killing someone. Those murders in Idaho are a case in point. I don't think the availability of those items leads to murder.

The real question is why are seemingly normal people going on murderous rampages. In the case of the Las Vegas shooter there is still no definitive answer why he went on a rampage. His shooting was clearly aided by altered guns. Controlling and regulating guns is a good thing. It won't stop these rampages.
 
I think it can. I received my early gun training as a teen in a military run 'cadet corp'. Full safety training, range protocols, how to shoot accurately, how to maintain a gun etc. I also did a 'hunters safety course' when I first started hunting. Those combined lessons still control how I handle and use my firearms today. Compared to some others I have met, I believe that I am in a different league when it comes to how I respect the potential dangers of firearms. Does that stop someones "uncontrollable urge"? Maybe, or maybe not, but it sure ain't going to make things worse. I also currently own guns in a different country where I like to visit/hunt and have citizenship. They have licensing, mental health checks, training, and home gun security requirements to prevent theft and child access etc. There they have a different attitude to guns and a gun isn't the go to answer to a knock on the door etc. So yes, I think the attitude and willingness to use a gun can be affected by those things.

Yet it does convert a constitutional right into mere state issued privilege which, as you willingly admit, may not stop someone intent on committing a crime. After all, licensing possession of knives (or other potentially lethal weapons) isn’t likely to make things worse.
 
All criminal action. All have been arrested!
All will be spending time in jail soon.

Unfortunately there are bad people who make criminal choices. Innocent people pay the price
Unfortunately sending those people to jail will not deter the next person from doing the same thing. These are all people whose mental health (if not criminal record) should have precluded them from having a gun. Unless you prevent mentally unsound people from having guns the innocent will continue to die
 
The same author wrote a piece about his encounter with an intruder.

What Would You Do With an Intruder at the Door?​

Treating a constitutional right as if it were a mere state issued privilege is ridiculous. The 2A isn’t a right to shoot (or shoot at) anyone.

The following statement:



is nonsense, which could be applied to any potentially lethal weapon like a knife, hammer or baseball bat.
You are entirely entitled to express your stuff opinions, but please keep to the topic
 
The same author wrote a piece about his encounter with an intruder.

What Would You Do With an Intruder at the Door?​


You are entirely entitled to express your stuff opinions, but please keep to the topic

My reply was on topic, if you don’t agree then report that post as F/B/T.
 
You seem to lack reading comprehension.
And yet my reading comprehension is well above average, I assure you.
Explain how not owning a gun prevents someone from being tempted to commit a violent crime with some other potentially lethal weapon?
The right answer can never come from asking the wrong question. Gun deaths can ensue from merely being tempted in ways that deaths by other means simply will not ensue. They have less to do with being tempted, and more to do with being enabled by guns.
You pretend that I claimed a gun was “just like” any other potentially lethal weapon. I did no such thing.
And yet you felt the need to do exactly that, by conflating gun deaths with "a knife, hammer or baseball bat" - That was your own choice of words!
I pointed out that owning a potentially lethal weapon (gun or otherwise) doesn’t cause anyone to want to commit a criminal act.
It's a false argument, because possession of a firearm enables the criminal act. That's the whole point, and that's the salient distinction.
 
Yet it does convert a constitutional right into mere state issued privilege which, as you willingly admit, may not stop someone intent on committing a crime. After all, licensing possession of knives (or other potentially lethal weapons) isn’t likely to make things worse.
I can only talk about my personal experiences with gun ownership in different places with different rules. The US is a very obvious international outlier with the huge level of gun violence, which is matched by the huge level of gun ownership, and the extremely 'lax' (comparatively) gun laws. Those are the practical, indisputable facts. That's a different argument to the constitutional one about why the US is like it is. In no other wealthy nation will you find the sort of crazy awful incidents we have just discussed above. They are a unique product of the US gun culture and regulations. Can you change that is the constitutional argument. Could things be better shouldn't even be a question.
 
And yet my reading comprehension is well above average, I assure you.

The right answer can never come from asking the wrong question. Gun deaths can ensue from merely being tempted in ways that deaths by other means simply will not ensue. They have less to do with being tempted, and more to do with being enabled by guns.

And yet you felt the need to do exactly that, by conflating gun deaths with "a knife, hammer or baseball bat" - That was your own choice of words!

It's a false argument, because possession of a firearm enables the criminal act. That's the whole point, and that's the salient distinction.

Nope, possessing any potentially lethal weapon enables its criminal abuse as such. You simply want to treat guns differently since only guns can be used to commit “gun crime”.
 
Tell that to a 16yr old boy knocking on a door. Tell that to a 20yr old girl driving into the wrong driveway. Tell that to a 6yr old girl who rolled her basketball onto her neighbors grass. Tell that ................
...To the whole family that was wiped out by a drunk driver. How about the people knifed, strangled, beaten to death? Are they just a little less dead?
 
...To the whole family that was wiped out by a drunk driver. How about the people knifed, strangled, beaten to death? Are they just a little less dead?

Nope, but they weren’t victims of “gun crime”. After all, this is all about gun control not crime control.
 
Back
Top Bottom