[worry]

I will say that, aside from the money, it's definitely fair to argue that for "Gun Rights" advocates it's usually one of their top issues, possibly their #1 issue -- whereas for "Gun Control" supporters it seems rare to be one of their top 5 issues, and maybe it should be. So there's definitely a passion imbalance, so in that light the American citizenry isn't off the hook.

[Aptorian]

 death rattle, on 07 January 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Uh, good. You shouldn't be shooting people over a TV. Even if they get away with it, are never caught, and you lose your TV forever, that's a better outcome than you shooting someone over a TV.

 MTS, on 07 January 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

Not to mention you greatly increase the risk of getting hurt yourself.

The robbery defence is also a silly hypothetical to use - a burglar is much more likely to flee than to retaliate upon discovery, and your reaction as an untrained civilian should not be to subdue a criminal (unarmed or otherwise) like you're John McClane. Police will take assault, battery, attempted murder etc. on a victim much more seriously than B&E and larceny, therefore in most instances, the victim is not home when burglaries occur, and I imagine other times it's unintentional. So your risk in that situation is (relatively) minor. Escalating the situation is just stupid.

Justifying this represents a pretty cavalier attitude towards life when it comes to crime and punishment. The cognitive dissonance is really weird amongst people that are both pro-gun and pro-life - criminals aren't deserving of life, but everyone else is!

I'm not sure I actually agree with any of this.

Like, I believe in the notion of more lenient punishment, rehabilitation, gun control and all that, but if we're talking about somebody invading your home? No, fuck them. Shoot them, stab them, beat them to a pulp I do not care.

As a person who's had people break into his apartment, I actually have zero sympathy for a burglar who breaks into another persons home. That's your sanctuary. That's where you can relax, be yourself and tune the world out. The second somebody breaks in and fucks your shit up, that sanctity, that safe space, is for ever ruined. You'll always have that fear in the back of your mind, that little worry, "what if they come back while I am home?", etc. I had a girlfriend who couldn't sleep in her apartment for weeks after somebody threw a brick through her window at 2 AM.

Personally I think that is an experience similar to rape. It's an invasion of your personal space, your nest. An experience that is as psychologically and emotionally damaging and draining experience, as is the fiscal loss of physical items you might own.

To put it plainly, if somebody broke into my house, while I was there, I would not give two shits about what ever socio-economic circumstances lead to them crashing into my life. That would be a me or them kind of situation.

This post has been edited by Apt: 08 January 2017 - 09:48 PM

[worry]

That's an interesting glimpse into your psychology, but it doesn't translate into social policy that rises to the level of 'civilization'.

 Apt, on 08 January 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

That would be a me or them kind of situation.

This leap in logic is even worse than 'eye for an eye'. "Me or them" situations actually exist, but to conflate them with any and all invasions of your sanctuary is a disastrous line of thinking that cheapens life, muddies the law, leads to heartbreak and disaster, and undermines actual 'self defense'. It amounts to "I want to kill somebody, please provide me a pretext". "Eye for an eye" is Draconian nonsense, but at least ostensibly seeks balance. "Kill all trespassers" doesn't even seek balance, it's just unchecked id.

[worry]

This is an incredible read on the federal office tasked with organizing and combing gun 'records'.

First thing to note: "The National Tracing Center is not allowed to have centralized computer data. That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It's kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog."

And it gets crazier from there.

http://www.gq.com/st...y-too-many-guns

[D'rek]

So how does everyone's opinions on owning a gun for home defense change when the "you can't responsibly store your gun and have access to it during a home invasion" situation goes away?

Let's say 5 years from now a company invents a pistol and safe that you can setup in your home. The pistol has biometrics that only allow you to operate it, ever (and these are tested to be 100% reliable). Furthermore, we can even say that the pistol has GPS or a distance measurement to the safe, so it will only function while in the home - you can't skip your meds on a bad day and take it to the local school, or even take it next door to shoot your neighbour after you find out your spouse is cheating on you with them.

That would stop the vast majority of irresponsible use of guns that were "intended" just for home defense. No, it doesn't stop you from going nuts and murder-suiciding your whole family, but people do that with knives in countries that don't have so much guns. What do you think, does your opinion of home-defense guns change in that scenario?

[Imperial Historian]

I've always found the idea that using a gun in home defence is justified strange.

I don't know of any jurisdictions where burglary is a capital crime as a matter of course.

So why if you aren't going to kill someone for robbery if they are caught and tried by a court of law, is it justifiable for one scared person to kill them?

[worry]

Interesting scenario. I don't think it changes my mind much, since I think violence in self defense is fine, as long as it's in response to actual risk. You shouldn't be the aggressor and you definitely shouldn't escalate the situation, even in your own home, though.

Interestingly enough, it's the NRA that is the main impediment to 'Smart Guns', even going so far as harassment campaigns against gun store owners who've tried to stock them: http://www.motherjon...-new-jersey-law (not that I think the original New Jersey law was smart policy, and unfortunately it's become a convenient disingenuous smear against seemingly all Smart Gun progress in the US).

[Silencer]

Yeh, it only really changes the fact that using a gun in self defence is impractical, and requires breach of safe gun storage laws in most countries.

It doesn't really change the fact that attempting to kill someone in defence of your property is kind of excessive, imo. Don't get me wrong, on a personal level I would much rather a home invader get shot than some innocent victim gets beaten or raped, but I'm not sure having a gun as a viable go-to option works.

Case in point - how many genuine incidents are *currently* resolved in the US by gun-toting self defence types?

And again, if you're asleep in your bed, getting to and using a gun (effectively) is not something people tend to be good at without some serious training. Safer guns is great, and I'd have *less* issue with them as self defence options if that worked, but I still don't think they're actually that viable when people are in fight or flight mode. Basically that's also the worst time, in terms of rational decision making, to be holding a loaded firearm.

Which is actually why I think safe gun storage is important no matter how safe the gun becomes - having to go through the process of getting your gun out and ready gives you time to think and cool off. It can prevent escalation, especially in domestic incidents. Take that away and I'm not so sure the end result is a net benefit.

[D'rek]

 Imperial Historian, on 10 January 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

I've always found the idea that using a gun in home defence is justified strange.

I don't know of any jurisdictions where burglary is a capital crime as a matter of course.

So why if you aren't going to kill someone for robbery if they are caught and tried by a court of law, is it justifiable for one scared person to kill them?

Well, speaking for me personally, *if* I were to buy a home defense gun like in the situation outlined above, it wouldn't be to shoot a burglar who breaks into my apartment to steal my TV. If that happened I would point the gun at them and scream at them to get out (or even if I don't want to "escalate" the situation, be down the hall and shout that I have a gun and to get out before I shoot, not actually intending to come down the hall at all), but I wouldn't shoot them. But burglars aren't the only types of criminals who break into homes. I would have that home defense gun in case a murderer or rapist breaks in (or if the 250-lb, 6.5-feet tall burglar doesn't leave but instead charges towards me). It's not defense of my property I would want it for... it's defense of myself.

The way I see it, the odds that such a person does invade my home is low - lower than the odds that a readily-accessible home defense gun accidentally kills someone it shouldn't. But if you can reduce the odds that the readily-accessible home defense gun is used for any other reason to 0 (or very, very close to 0), while the odds of a violent home invader stays the same, at some point it does become useful.

 Silencer, on 10 January 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

Case in point - how many genuine incidents are *currently* resolved in the US by gun-toting self defence types?

This is an interesting side to it, though, and I guess I'm not sure how I feel about this aspect of it yet. I'm not sure how useful the current statistics can be to this scenario since the laws and technology are so different than the situation I'm proposing.

But either way, isn't the situation I'm proposing at the very least not going to lead to any increase of 'bad' incidents? If the gun is locked to only your use, it's not like the home invader can use it against you. The worst case scenario is you're no worse off than if you had no means of defending yourself in the first place.

And there *are* many incidents where people have unquestionably successfully defended themselves from assault in their own homes by shooting a violent home invader (or - maybe even more commonly - shooting the invader while the assault has already begun, but at least their preventing it from getting worse). If the device I'm suggesting can't make my situation any worse, at least there's a chance I'll be more likely to use it correctly... doesn't that make it better than nothing?

[EmperorMagus]

@D'rek

The problem (whether it is a minor one or a major one would be hard to decide) is people buying guns and then accidentally intentionally shooting relatives or neighbors or whatever.

Consider your average paranoid with a gun hearing someone enter their house late at night and shooting them. It turns out they shot their son. It wouldn't be hard to imagine variants of this happening with someone forgetting to unchamber (sp?) bullets, shooting a neighbor by accident, or even the fact that suicides are ALOT easier using guns (I personally think suicide is a right, but western morals and philosophy disagree with this).

[Silencer]

 D, on 10 January 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

 Imperial Historian, on 10 January 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

I've always found the idea that using a gun in home defence is justified strange.

I don't know of any jurisdictions where burglary is a capital crime as a matter of course.

So why if you aren't going to kill someone for robbery if they are caught and tried by a court of law, is it justifiable for one scared person to kill them?

Well, speaking for me personally, *if* I were to buy a home defense gun like in the situation outlined above, it wouldn't be to shoot a burglar who breaks into my apartment to steal my TV. If that happened I would point the gun at them and scream at them to get out (or even if I don't want to "escalate" the situation, be down the hall and shout that I have a gun and to get out before I shoot, not actually intending to come down the hall at all), but I wouldn't shoot them. But burglars aren't the only types of criminals who break into homes. I would have that home defense gun in case a murderer or rapist breaks in (or if the 250-lb, 6.5-feet tall burglar doesn't leave but instead charges towards me). It's not defense of my property I would want it for... it's defense of myself.

The way I see it, the odds that such a person does invade my home is low - lower than the odds that a readily-accessible home defense gun accidentally kills someone it shouldn't. But if you can reduce the odds that the readily-accessible home defense gun is used for any other reason to 0 (or very, very close to 0), while the odds of a violent home invader stays the same, at some point it does become useful.

 Silencer, on 10 January 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

Case in point - how many genuine incidents are *currently* resolved in the US by gun-toting self defence types?

This is an interesting side to it, though, and I guess I'm not sure how I feel about this aspect of it yet. I'm not sure how useful the current statistics can be to this scenario since the laws and technology are so different than the situation I'm proposing.

But either way, isn't the situation I'm proposing at the very least not going to lead to any increase of 'bad' incidents? If the gun is locked to only your use, it's not like the home invader can use it against you. The worst case scenario is you're no worse off than if you had no means of defending yourself in the first place.

And there *are* many incidents where people have unquestionably successfully defended themselves from assault in their own homes by shooting a violent home invader (or - maybe even more commonly - shooting the invader while the assault has already begun, but at least their preventing it from getting worse). If the device I'm suggesting can't make my situation any worse, at least there's a chance I'll be more likely to use it correctly... doesn't that make it better than nothing?

I suppose I'm just not convinced that an argument of "it can't be worse than the present situation" is very effective when the present situation is shit. XD
My main sticking point is my final paragraph of my previous post. I don't think the potential (rare) benefits of having a gun on hand outweigh the risks that would still exist.

I also still think that having a gun won't help in the majority of cases. Guns tend to escalate situations, not calm them down, and I'm also really doubtful you'd remember to use it. Or, if you did, you'd be in a state of fear which leads to unintended pulling of triggers. Either way, not really beneficial?

Like I said, I can see on a personal level the appeal of a gun as a tool for defence of person and family. But even if the gun was hard coded to your own use to prevent your kid shooting themselves or you (something which happens on a staggering frequency in the US at the moment), I still don't feel like you should be able to leave it lying around the house. So it goes back to being in a safe. Which keeps us with the current status quo but with less risk when the gun goes get taken out. But zero decrease in the risk of that gun being used in a domestic argument gone bad, and zero decrease in the risk of accidental discharge, and zero decease in the risk of human error (e.g. Not identifying your target or misinterpretation of their actions).

So yeah. Better? Sure. Good? Not so much, imo. Prevent the gun from shooting anyone you know, then maybe we're getting somewhere. But honestly do you think that will fly in the US even if the tech existed? And then, what if someone you know goes crazy and you need to defend yourself from them with your gun? (see, pretty sure this line if thought I just typed is the slippery slope in action that leads back to "everyone should have guns all the time - for safety!".) Fundamentally guns are offensive tools, not defensive ones. And I think that is where my line gets drawn at the moment.

But if you want a taser? Sure, go nuts. Happy for people to use those for self defense. Much less offense oriented than a firearm.

[LinearPhilosopher]

 death rattle, on 10 January 2017 - 12:42 AM, said:

Interesting scenario. I don't think it changes my mind much, since I think violence in self defense is fine, as long as it's in response to actual risk. You shouldn't be the aggressor and you definitely shouldn't escalate the situation, even in your own home, though.

Interestingly enough, it's the NRA that is the main impediment to 'Smart Guns', even going so far as harassment campaigns against gun store owners who've tried to stock them: http://www.motherjon...-new-jersey-law (not that I think the original New Jersey law was smart policy, and unfortunately it's become a convenient disingenuous smear against seemingly all Smart Gun progress in the US).

http://www.theglobea...rticle22222138/

A while ago a german arms manufacturer tried to introduce smart guns to the US to disastrous consequence.

NRA doesn`t want anything like that entering the US

[Imperial Historian]

So I still wouldn't say I'm in favour of the use of guns in home defence, tasers yes, but guns would always seem to be excessive and more likely to result in an accident.

That said this conversation led me to look up the odds of home invasion resulting in rape, a number I always assumed was negligible is actually roughly 37 in 100000/year for the US, this is surprisingly to my eyes significantly higher than the rate of firearm injuries. The statistics suggest that a majority of these incidents are by people known to the victim.


https://www.bjs.gov/.../ascii/vdhb.txt

[MTS]

The tricky part of this debate is that self-defence in and of itself is pretty uncontroversial. Yet at what point does the capability for self-defence become too great? My red line is when that capability becomes lethal. Personally, I don't think civilians should have the capacity for lethal force in any home-defence situation, even if you've been specifically trained. There's too much that can go wrong, regardless of any safeguards that you could think to come up with.

Non-lethal firearms solve most of the problems D'rek and Silencer are talking about, with much less potential for awful accidents.

For example: http://newatlas.com/...-defense/40104/

This post has been edited by MTS: 14 January 2017 - 11:36 AM

[amphibian]

I would just get a short spear instead of a gun. It's really intuitive, the other person gets kept on the other side of it, and you have options that aren't immediately lethal.

[HoosierDaddy]

To quote the opposition: "Criminals don't care about guns. They'll have one. That spear just means you die quicker."

There's no winning with them.

[worry]

NYTimes just published an interesting set of polls they conducted w/ public health/legal/social science experts of various stripes as well as the public at large, to see where -- along 29 individual "gun control" ideas -- they agreed and disagreed most. There's a very hand chart w/ all 29 ideas, and the article includes some separate discussion on police opinions on these matters, though those aren't included as part of the main chart.
http://www.nytimes.c...the-Public.html

The top two ideas of intersection are: Universal background checks & Barring sales to violent offenders across the board (including domestic abusers).

The one that is lowest for the public (the only one to dip below 50%) and yet still fairly high for the experts is: Demonstrate a need for a gun. This seems to be one of the things that other countries do well though, right? Nevertheless this might be the most implausible one given public sentiment and the Pandora's Box effect.

The two weakest for experts (but still scarily high for the public) are: Stand Your Ground laws & Honoring out-of-state concealed carry permits. I wonder if non-Americans are still shocked by how much of this differs state to state, and how limited the Federal level's influence on gun policy is.

[D'rek]

 MTS, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

Non-lethal firearms solve most of the problems D'rek and Silencer are talking about, with much less potential for awful accidents.

If there's ever a perfect non-lethal self-defense device that can subdue any intruder, then yeah there'd be no justifiable need for a self-defense gun. But so far there is no perfect protection device. A spear/mace/etc has tiny range compared to a criminal's gun. A taser gun can only shoot once so you better not miss, and there's been many cases where the taser has been ineffective against someone who's on a bunch of drugs.

So you've got to weigh the probabilities of a home invader that your home/self-defense implement doesn't stop versus the probability of an accident occurring with a home/self-defense gun. Obviously those probabilities won't be the same for everyone.

[Silencer]

 D, on 15 January 2017 - 04:32 AM, said:

 MTS, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

Non-lethal firearms solve most of the problems D'rek and Silencer are talking about, with much less potential for awful accidents.

If there's ever a perfect non-lethal self-defense device that can subdue any intruder, then yeah there'd be no justifiable need for a self-defense gun. But so far there is no perfect protection device. A spear/mace/etc has tiny range compared to a criminal's gun. A taser gun can only shoot once so you better not miss, and there's been many cases where the taser has been ineffective against someone who's on a bunch of drugs.

So you've got to weigh the probabilities of a home invader that your home/self-defense implement doesn't stop versus the probability of an accident occurring with a home/self-defense gun. Obviously those probabilities won't be the same for everyone.

As opposed to the many, many cases where guns have been ineffective at stopping intruders, Tasers actually don't have that bad a success rate - someone on enough drugs to resist a taser would have to take a fatal shot or immediately crippling shot to stop them too. And in a dark house with an untrained user of firearms in a panic situation, you're literally banking on luck, or going to be pulling your trigger A LOT. At which point any claim of self defence goes out the window as you fired multiple times without checking to see if your shots worked.

Taser at least will work in the majority of cases without potential for overkill or sending a missed bullet through your house and into your kids bed. (Because honestly if you're worried about missing with a taser, you've got exactly the same chance if not more of missing with a gun - and unlike a taser, bullets go through walls. Depending on the gun and the wall, several times. NZ armed offenders squad (swat, essentially) had to phase out their previous firearms because of an incident where the bullet they fired went through the target, though his couch, the wall behind him, his exterior wall, the fence, his neighbours' exterior wall and nearly ended up in his neighbour who was sitting on the couch where it finally stopped. Not actually that unusual for a larger caliber round.)

Basically, D'rek, there is no situation where less lethal options shouldn't be tried first, right? Since those work 90% of the time, why have a gun? If you're really worried about the 10% of cases where an effectively employed less lethal option doesn't work, why not have two less lethal options? If you don't have time to try a taser and a baton, say, then you didn't have time to try a taser and a gun, either. Or are you suggesting if you have a gun you just go straight to that? In what circumstances do you have time to evaluate the situation rationally and decide that the person in front of you is both a threat and worth shooting without trying other options first?

[MTS]

 D, on 15 January 2017 - 04:32 AM, said:

If there's ever a perfect non-lethal self-defense device that can subdue any intruder, then yeah there'd be no justifiable need for a self-defense gun. But so far there is no perfect protection device. A spear/mace/etc has tiny range compared to a criminal's gun. A taser gun can only shoot once so you better not miss, and there's been many cases where the taser has been ineffective against someone who's on a bunch of drugs.

That nothing is perfect does not in itself invalidate those options. Even less does it justify having the most amount of force possible, 'just in case they're on drugs and won't feel pain' or whatever. Crafting legislation based on the most extreme scenarios simply makes it likelier that the less extreme scenarios will turn ugly. From the psychological perspective, is that extra 'peace of mind' from owning a gun (which you will never entirely achieve) worth the potential for tragedy?

This post has been edited by MTS: 15 January 2017 - 09:05 AM