If you had a gun, would you use it?

Giblet

My point is, it is not suitable for younger audiences.

And she didn't die? Must have a head made of Iron!

bean

By the way....metal storm 1 million rounds per minute


The mind boggles.....i mean the sheer overkill.....WHY?

skittishkitten

I've not read the 6 pages of post but I'll answer the question as originally put ( yes I should probably read the 6 pages first as I'm sure some heated debates have occurred, but I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment ) . I live in the U.S. so owning guns is not a big deal for me. I have guns in my house , hand guns , shotguns , rifles . Semi Automatics and single action . Several are used for hunting and others are part of a private collection. I do not feel a need to take them out to commit criminal acts. However if I felt my life or family was threatened I would not hesitate to use one. If you break into my home with intent to harm, you first have to get past the bitch with the teeth ( my dog - she's pittbull and very protective ) , then you have to get past the bitch with the gun ( that would be me - also very protective ). I'm almost certain that between the two of us we can stop you ......and if you get past us you deserve whatever the kids dish out to you

bean

FACT: SOMETIMES GUNS KILL NOT PEOPLE
if you are pissed off enough and there is a gun in reach all you have to do is get that gun point and shoot. Now we all know what the effect is but the gun really removes us from the act in so many ways as to make the act easier. If you are in a rage you will most likely do something you will regret if you are not thinking straight.

They really do not solve very much... they bring pain and suffering, its their very function.

ferdi

Originally posted by bean
FACT: SOMETIMES GUNS KILL NOT PEOPLE

what are not people?

bean

Sorry, should have referred to the quote NRA Folk use: "Guns dont kill, people do!"
I was makin the point that that ideal is SH*TE

skittishkitten

Originally posted by bean

if you are pissed off enough and there is a gun in reach all you have to do is get that gun point and shoot.

It's called self control , I have been in a blinding red rage and have never once thought to get a gun . People with lack of self control kill . It's just as easy, if not easier to grab a knife ( kitchen knives are extremely handy ) and stick it into someone .

example :

I was mad at you so I grabbed a bat and bashed your head in.

I was mad at you so I grabbed a knife and gutted you.

I was mad at you so I grabbed a gun and shot you.

They all have the same thing in common ...... "I was mad at you " the weapon "at hand" varied , death can still occur. If your pissed off enough to use one , most likely your pissed off enough to use another. In the end it's the same result .

bean

i am aware that people can use other implements to kill and maim. Again im trying to say that the gun alows you to remove yourself from the experience of the act.

You can kill someone who is as far away as a few hundred yards with a gun. You dont even have to see their face when you pull that trigger. It is so easy to let people execute each other without having to think it through.

Having to try and take a knife in your hands and actually perform the grusome act involves you completely, you see the face, the blood, you are the one forcing the blade in.....its gruesome can force people to think twice.

I also think that even with self control guns kill. Some have killed family members who believed them to be intruders, or the safety is left off, a child finds it....the list goes on....the body counts keep rising.

Musashi

Last updated: 3/03/2002 |GunCite Home|

Gun Accidents (and Kids & Gun Accidents)


Introduction
A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).


Discussion
Examining the fatal accident table below, one sees that fatal gun accidents among children are rare. Gun control groups and pro-control medical researchers often include "children" up to the age of nineteen and in some cases twenty-four, to inflate the number of "child" gun accidents. (This is the only way it can be claimed a child is killed everyday in a gun accident. Compare fatal gun accidents to the number of kids killed while crossing the street.) The solutions one may propose to prevent child accidents should differ from those of young adults. For example pressure sensitive pistol grips won't help much when older "kids" are playing Russian Roulette, especially in places where it's legal for eighteen or twenty-one year-olds to own firearms.

As rare as fatal gun accidents are among young children, their actual frequency is probably overstated. Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck suggests that some fatal gun accidents may actually be the culmination of a history of child abuse, in other words intentional homicides. Dr. Kleck cites a national survey conducted in 1976 (Strauss, M., et. al., Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1981), which found "3% of children had, in the previous year, had guns or knives (the two are combined in the source) actually used on them by their parents, according to the parents' own admissions. Since this translates into about 46,000 such incidents per year, it would not be surprising if a few dozen resulted in a gun death falsely reported as accidental."(Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 209. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Dr. Kleck further mentions, "The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents, despite the fact that there are only about five million households with swimming pools, compared to at least 43 million with guns. Thus, based on owning households, the risk of a fatal accident among small children is over one hundred times higher for swimming pools than for guns." (p 296)

In Targeting Guns, Dr. Kleck concludes in part, "Most gun accidents occur in the home, many (perhaps most) of them involving guns kept for defense. However, very few accidents occur in connection with actual defensive uses of guns. Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. Gun accidents, then, involve a rare and atypical subset of the population, as both shooters and victims. They rarely involve children, and most commonly involve adolescents and young adults."

"The risk of a gun accident is extremely low, even among defensive gun owners, except among a very small, identifiably high-risk subset of the population. Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection: the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners." (p 321)

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)

Accident Type Age
0-4 5-14 15-24
All Automobile 1,500 10 ,500 Falls 70 70 210
Poisoning by solids, liquids 60 40 800 Pedestrian 1 250 300 750
Drowning 450 350 700
Fires, burns 400 260 240
Suffocation by ingested object 100 20 250 Firearms 20 60 150
Poisoning by gases, vapors 10 10 70
All other causes 700 400 1,100

Fatal gun accidents often receive national attention. Subsequently politicians demand mandatory firearms safety classes for all gun owners, yet many more lives could be saved by randomly selecting and educating a group of drivers rather than gun owners, not to mention the populace at large regarding, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits. (It is not being suggested that such training be offered or mandated.)

---

Notes:

Pedestrian fatalities are also included in motor vehicle fatalities. They are broken-out on a separate line to illustrate how often pedestrian fatalities occur.
Also not broken-out from motor vehicle fatalites are bicycle fatalities which claimed about 800 deaths in 2000 (Injury Facts p. 85).

---

|GunCite Home|

Musashi

We should ban cars is what!
They kill little kiddies!
Won't someone think of the children?

Tommy Vercetti

ya I'd use it to control me bitches who don't pay for their crack, I'd also shoot the goddamn TV when there's nothing good on

Slutmonkey57b

I think lots of people probably deserve to be shot. Put it like this, I'm glad I *dont* have a gun.

As the quote goes, I'm going to be rich and famous when I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

Enough of the guns thread, who admits that if they had a button on their desk marked "Stab that muppet in the face" they'd use it at least once a day.

Me.

skittishkitten

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
who admits that if they had a button on their desk marked "Stab that muppet in the face" they'd use it at least once a day.

Me.

Would that be an industrial strength button ? I'd see no use of investing if it wasn't industrial strength .....I'd have it broke within the week.

Oh....I mean .....ME!!!

briano

You see my dads a CIA guy and the police officers were so nice to make certain allowances as he investigated my neighbours.

Am I the only person who laughed out loud when they read this?

You sure thats not meant to be CIE guy? I presume by "Investigated" you meant "drove the bus for".

Muppet.

And you know what, even if he is (which he isn't) the post still makes you sound like a muppet.

Giblet

Em, yeah I suggest you read the whole thing better in future k? good thanks. I was being sarcastic you dumbfuck.


Oh btw people who don't get such OBVIOUS sarcasm, really look like muppets, but you knew that the second you read this post.

briano

As Fr. Jack Says: "Ohhhh, I'm Sooooo Sooorrryyyyy. Booo Hooo"

Thats OBVIOUS Sarcasm.

You're still a muppet.

And while I'm here, did anyone see that program with Jeremy Clarkson about guns? The show was OK, but it had a bit in it where he tried to shoot a big van from about 50 yards or so with an AK something or other.

Emptied the gun.

Didn't hit the van once.

Can't see one being much good for any practical use, such as self defense, or robbing a bank.

Giblet

Originally posted by briano
You're still a muppet.

Well that sure told me.

Sparks

Originally posted by bean
if you are pissed off enough and there is a gun in reach all you have to do is get that gun point and shoot.

I own an air rifle and a smallbore rifle. I'm a pretty good shot (I have a national championship gold medal at home). And I get pissed off with people as much as the next lad. However, the worst thing on my criminal record is a library ticket.

In other words bean, please don't assume I'm more likely to snap and start killing people because I own a rifle. I own my rifle because one day I'd like to be standing on a podium at the olympic games accepting a medal for Ireland. Not because I want to own a weapon.

[sarcasm]
Besides, the five years of aikido training I did in college would mean that I'd be more likely to beat someone rather than shoot them, no?
[/sarcasm]

Also, remember that there are 230,000 licenced firearms in the Republic and about half that up North, and yet the firearms crime in this country and up north is pretty much all done with illegal firearms like AK-47s and sidearms and the like. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Abbeylara, and that's becoming more and more obviously a failing on the part of the local garda superintendent (which in turn is down not to the gardai, but to our lack of investment in their training) and McCarthy's psychologist.

Number6

Originally posted by Sparks
The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Abbeylara, and that's becoming more and more obviously a failing on the part of the local garda superintendent (which in turn is down not to the gardai, but to our lack of investment in their training) and McCarthy's psychologist.

There was an "incident" a few years back, when a lad in my village took a girl hostage with a non-working airgun, the army was down from Renmore and everything and they took it VERY seriously, they had snipers on the roofs and everything... They eventually got the lad to calm down and surrender himself (then the cops beat him a bit which he deserved because he's a muppet) and unfortunatly he still walks around my town because he was "mentally unbalanced".

I own a shotgun, and yes I have killed a living thing... [edit] a cow who broke both of her back legs after she fell in a boghole and which was left rotting in the boghole because her owner was away for the weekend in Dublin [/edit] and unless my life, or my familys life was in grave, unstopable danger from an attacker I wouldn't use it. Why? Because you are giving the criminal another weapon with witch he can use on YOU.

I personally believe that the Irish police should use non-lethal devices, such as CS gas, Mace / pepperspray, and that it should (as all firearms, yes they ARE firearms) be treated with respect.


Nick

cleareyed

The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Abbeylara, and that's becoming more and more obviously a failing on the part of the local garda superintendent (which in turn is down not to the gardai, but to our lack of investment in their training) and McCarthy's psychologist.

Why has so much public money been wasted on investigating the shooting of an armed man who spent considerable amounts of time shooting at police? The answer may be found in the above quote. It is everyone's fault but the person involved.

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Why has so much public money been wasted on investigating the shooting of an armed man who spent considerable amounts of time shooting at police? The answer may be found in the above quote. It is everyone's fault but the person involved.

That's not actually correct. We've discussed the Barr Tribunal in the politics forum, but to restate the salient points:

• McCarthy had his shotgun confiscated over a year before the shooting and it was given back to him on the recommendation of his psychologist who stated he was mentally unstable to the superintendent - that should never have happened and only came out in the Barr Tribunal.
• McCarthy was shot in the back, whcih was unusual and not noted in the first four investigations, which would have rendered the Barr Tribunal unnecessary had they been conducted properly.
• While the ERU firearms were checked by the first investigations, the local gardai who were armed never had their firearms checked, again only noted by Barr.
• McCarthy's psychologist was not brought to the scene or consulted with, again only noted by Barr.
• The point of the Barr Tribunal is not to determine who is to blame, but to determine why the situation was allowed to get to the point where McCarthy had to be shot - and how to prevent that in the future.

Remember, McCarthy was a ward of the state. When a ward of the state is shot by the state, investigating why it happened and how to prevent a recurrence is pretty much mandatory. Otherwise you get Dunblane all over again (in Hungerford, Michael Ryan shot and killed 14 people in '87. The response was to ban the rifle he used, rather than to improve the licencing laws - the end result was that Dunblane happened because the root problem was not addressed).

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by skittishkitten
It's called self control , I have been in a blinding red rage and have never once thought to get a gun . People with lack of self control kill . It's just as easy, if not easier to grab a knife ( kitchen knives are extremely handy ) and stick it into someone .

example :

I was mad at you so I grabbed a bat and bashed your head in.

I was mad at you so I grabbed a knife and gutted you.

I was mad at you so I grabbed a gun and shot you.

They all have the same thing in common ...... "I was mad at you " the weapon "at hand" varied , death can still occur. If your pissed off enough to use one , most likely your pissed off enough to use another. In the end it's the same result .

No - a gun is force at a distance - to kill someone with a knife / bat you have to get close to them and if they are bigger than you or they take your weapon out of you hand then you are in danger. With a gun there is no such feedback mechanism to reduce the temptation to use it.

Guns don't kill people - bullets do.
even during the troubles up north the murder rate on this Island was lower than most US cities of a similar population.

Male impulse suicides are fairly common with guns , I've heard that three times as many US cops kill them selves with guns than get killed by criminals guns.

As for banning cars - for some years the leading accidental cause of death for 14-15 year olds over here were car accidents.

Sparks

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
No - a gun is force at a distance - to kill someone with a knife / bat you have to get close to them

As was shown in a Ch.4 programme a while ago, killing someone with a gun is actually not that easy - most people are just not programmed to point a gun at someone and fire when they know what damage a bullet can do.
Look at it this way - switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and one of the lowest gun crime levels in the world, because the people with the guns tend to have them from army service or civilian target shooting. In other words, they have been trained in their use. Whereas in the states, any yahoo can buy one over the counter, so of course you'll have problems. It'd be like letting any yahoo behind a wheel here instead of insisting on driving licences and driving tests.

Male impulse suicides are fairly common with guns

Canada banned handguns on the suicide prevention argument a while back. The number of suicides by handgun went to zero. Tragicly, the number of suicides by jumping off bridges and other means went up by the same amount as had been using handguns.
Basicly, taking away the gun is not going to solve the suicide problem because you're not addressing the cause, only the effect.

Number6

I remember when I was over in Canada a few years back, I visited my uncle... who is a deer hunter and fisherman. He told me that only 16 people in 2000 (i think) died from firearms related incidents, and that 8 million canadian homes had firearms (out of 10 million i think). Now thats a very low amount of mainly accedental deaths (Lads rummaging in bushs in a forest during deer hunting season and accedently being mistaken for a deer, that kind of thing). While in the US 1,600 people died from firearms related incidents in the USA, and although I can't remember the figures I know that the US's percentage of households with firearms was conciderably less then the Canadians.

And what makes only 16 people in Canada die when there are 8million guns going around? Common sence and a respect for firearms, thats what.

[edit] looing at what Sparks just posted above, the main method that people in America commit suicide with is with a handgun. People just go out, buy a hand gun (no waiting time), take it home and blow their brains all over the floor and walls [/edit]

cleareyed

Why has so much public money been wasted on investigating the shooting of an armed man who spent considerable amounts of time shooting at police? The answer may be found in the above quote. It is everyone's fault but the person involved.

I restate. The assumption is that we must find someone to blame other than the individual concerned. I blame the armed man who fired repeatedly at police and then advanced on them while carrying a weapon.

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
I restate. The assumption is that we must find someone to blame other than the individual concerned. I blame the armed man who fired repeatedly at police and then advanced on them while carrying a weapon.

Hold up here. I'd agree with you if McCarthy had been in full control of his faculties. But it's not that simple.

According the the 1971 firearms act, only the garda superintendent can issue a firearms licence. He is the sole legal authority on that issue. He and he alone must consider the criteria laid out in section four of the Act and decide if a licence should be granted. Section four reads:

Before granting a firearm certificate to any person under this Act the
superintendent of the Gárda Síochána or the Minister (as the case may require)
shall be satisfied that such person—

( a ) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the
certificate is applied for, and

( b ) can be permitted to have in his possession, use, and carry a firearm or
ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace, and

( c ) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a
firearm certificate.

Now McCarthy had his licence confiscated for firing his shotgun at people. His psychologist told the superintendent that McCarthy was unstable but giving him back the licence might prevent McCarthy becoming depressed. The superintendent decided to do so, for McCarthy's sake.

Are you saying then that the superintendent bears no responsibility for the subsequent events, even though this means that he possibly contravened section four (a) and section four (b) ?

And remember, McCarthy was known to not be in full mental health - he was a ward of the state, don't forget. So when the state gives a mentally unstable man a firearm and then shoots him for being unstable with a firearm, there's responsibility for the event on more than one set of shoulders.

Now, had McCarthy been sane, that would be a different matter.

Zakalwe

If I was handed 2 AK-47s I would have them deactivated and keep them as a curiosity or sell them. An active AK is extremely innacurate and of no real use to a target shooter

I'd love to be able to afford my own Feinwerbau or Anschutz air rifle and .22 target rifle though.

As far as using them to deter an intruder is concerned, I have srong locks on my doors. If you've ever used rifles such as the ones I would like, you'd know that it would be better suited as a club, unless you could get your target to wait while you loaded a single shot and stood still so you could see him through the peep sights.

If and when I do buy my own rifle, it will be stored unloaded in a safe location and used only to put holes in paper.

The Real B-man

to protect myself only but i wouldnt like ireland to turn into a nation of gun nuts

gurramok

Originally posted by Samson
Seriously now?
I own several firearms (legally), and I have never, not for a moment, considered using them to rob a bank. Nor have I comtemplated killing someone on a whim.

You wouldn't rob a bank with traceable legally held guns ?
Question on guns should be would you rob a bank with illegal guns which cannot be traced to you ?

As well as a moral/law issue, guess its down to the character of the person if they could get away with it in the first place with the chances weighed up if they get caught.

Lord Nikon

"Bowling for Columbine" gave me an insight to Americas policy towards gun control. America might as well not have any policy.

I do not own a gun, or plan to own one in the future. Saying that, if I was to move to the States I would probably get one. Not a AK47 or a machine gun, just a handgun.

I certainly wouldn't shoot someone for "the laugh", and I'd probably be too scared to shoot someone attacking me. I'd like to just "let of a few rounds" down the local Gun Club.

Eh, I wouldn't mind trying to be a sniper, shooting peoples legs and arms and stuff.

impr0v

Originally posted by pork99

Secondly armed robberies & bank raids are primarily for losers. I saw the statistics once, and as far as I remember, on average you get about E5,000 from an armed robbery and you have an 80% chance of being detected and arrested (if you you are lucky, shot by the lads above you are not).

That's why the ATM jobs are all the rage this season, average take being over 100k, as high as 250k, and a lot less risk. No weapons needed except a JCB, a flat bed trailer and a jeep to pull it. Though they are meant to be a pain in the ass to open even with a few weeks and some heavy duty power tools.

Victor

Originally posted by Number6
While in the US 1,600 people died from firearms related incidents in the USA

More like 10,000 murders and 20,000 suicides per year (not sure where accidents and justifiable homocides get counted).

CyberGhost

Well I'd keep it as a protection, and would use it in case of a war or other serious conflict, obviously I wouldn't shoot my neighbor because his cat peed on my lawn,........... Or would I? does he feel lucky?

prolly I'd end up using it on squerrels