Firearms

[Glass Fractal]

I think the negative consequences of having lots of guns floating around do outweigh the admittedly wonderful benefits of putting holes in bits of paper and pretending to be an action hero.

Or protecting yourself from various sorts of danger (animals as well as people). Not everyone is an upper-middle class suburbanite that will only use them for target shooting.

Although there is data out there that I've based that opinion on, it seems to be almost pointless citing it, because there's so much FUD and partisan politics and analysis around that for every source like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23cons.html , there's one with incontrovertible proof that liberals and foreigners will murder babies the moment upstanding American patriots no longer stand guard over them with M16s (it's true; we require their stem cells for our moon base).

So, feel free to keep your guns. The rest of the world doesn't really care, most of us just think you're a bit nuts.

I don't own any guns. I don't feel a need/desire to own any guns. That has no influence on my beliefs about what their legal status should be. After all, I don't own a car but I can see why people should be allowed to.

[Sero]

Writing it down a long time ago still doesn't make it right. It might have been a need two hundred years ago, but that has little bearing on the current world.

Besides, equipping your civilians for 'armed resistance' against your government seems to be having pretty unpopular consequences for you at the moment, yes?

...Are we having a problem with armed resistance against the government? Nothing wide-spread, I thought. The occasional lone nut, a handful of 'militia' organizations that I can't really say are involved in armed resistance so much as preparing for the possibility of it. Usually, anyways.

Don't dismiss the validity of civilian armaments to security of the populace, either. No occupation, domestic or foreign, is going to succeed in the face of popular resistance from a populace as armed as we are. That has value to a society, don't dismiss it as irrelevant. Is it highly likely to come up at present? Not especially, though dismissing it as eternally irrelevant is ridiculous, in fifty years, who's to say what foreign threats might arise? Or shifts of government toward tyranny? Is it less valuable than the benefits of a lightly or unarmed populace to society? Possibly. But don't dismiss it as of NO value.

All too often those opposed to firearms overemphasize things like reductions in firearm-related murders without the context of the increase or decrease of murders as a whole, and tend to dismiss their opponents arguments as paranoia or bloodthirstiness or similar, rather than seriously confronting their merits and putting forth arguments for how bans or restrictions will win out in a benefit/cost analysis. Really, both sides resort to emotion too much rather than rationality. Anyways, my point is, the anti-gun arguments are not without merit, but I find it tiresome to see them falling into the same old ways.

[Thesh]

I think the negative consequences of having lots of guns floating around do outweigh the admittedly wonderful benefits of putting holes in bits of paper and pretending to be an action hero.

Although there is data out there that I've based that opinion on, it seems to be almost pointless citing it, because there's so much FUD and partisan politics and analysis around that for every source like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23cons.html , there's one with incontrovertible proof that liberals and foreigners will murder babies the moment upstanding American patriots no longer stand guard over them with M16s (it's true; we require their stem cells for our moon base).

So, feel free to keep your guns. The rest of the world doesn't really care, most of us just think you're a bit nuts.

I'd like to see their data, because I did a quick search and didn't find a correlation. I've attached a spreadsheet of my findings. Data is from here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/he ... rship.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- ... -and-state

The survey was from 2001, as was the homicide rates that I used. South Dakota has the lowest homicide rate, and is number 4 in percentage of gun owners.

Also, even if their data is the case, it does not indicate causation. It could simply mean people who live in areas with high homicide rates are more likely to buy a gun for self defense.

[marky66]

...there's so much FUD and partisan politics and analysis around that for every source like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23cons.html

I found this particularly amusing:

The researchers said they could not prove that the guns caused the increase in homicides, only that there was a link. It may be, they said, that people are more likely to buy guns in states where violence is already high. But they said that explanation did not appear to be supported by their findings.

Let me see if I got this straight. They acknowledge that "It may be that people are more likely to buy guns in states where violence is already high" which suggests they did not explicitly account for this possibility in their survey, then offhandedly dismiss the possibility as "not appear[ing] to be supported by their findings."
So to you their reasoning is perfectly OK, but anything that counters it is FUD. Got it.

[Gopher of Pern]

From Australia here, so it does colour my perspective.

Now, I can understand guns being used for hunting, sport, and as a hobby. It's just another activity people engage in, whilst maybe more dangerous than most, definately not that dangerous (just consider car racing, extreme activites such as parachuting, hell, even regular saturday/sunday sports maybe gets more injuries/fatalities than guns as a hobby.) (I anectdotally know more people who have died playing sport than have died through gunshot.)

What I don't understand is guns as self-defence. Why would one buy a gun, only for the purpose of self-defence? As has been pointed out in this thread, there seems to be very few circumstances where a gun might actually be useful, as demonstrated by the 21-foot rule, and the fact that if you are using it for self-defence, you are already on the defensive, which puts you at a disadvantage. So, is it really effective as a self-defence tool?

I see there is also a lot of differences between the states in regards to carry. As Thesh said above, California says you can carry, as long as it is in plain sight, holstered, and not loaded. What is the point of using that for self defence?

I guess I might be a bit naive and lucky, but I have never felt at risk, and that I would need any form of self-defence, let alone a gun. And It's not as if I never go out at night, either, I have spent more than a few nights out, and never ran into trouble. (The most trouble I did run into were a couple of cops who thought I was loitering! I was just trying to find my way to my friends place!)

[mmmcannibalism]

What I don't understand is guns as self-defence. Why would one buy a gun, only for the purpose of self-defence? As has been pointed out in this thread, there seems to be very few circumstances where a gun might actually be useful, as demonstrated by the 21-foot rule, and the fact that if you are using it for self-defence, you are already on the defensive, which puts you at a disadvantage. So, is it really effective as a self-defence tool?

Hear burglar breaking into house; arm self with gun. Also the fact that a knife has an advantage at 21 feet doesn't mean drawing the gun won't be sufficient defense. Do you think a mugger with a knife will think "I have a tactical advantage at this range" or "oh fuck he has a gun".

I see there is also a lot of differences between the states in regards to carry. As Thesh said above, California says you can carry, as long as it is in plain sight, holstered, and not loaded. What is the point of using that for self defence?

Criminals are going to avoid people who can be ready to fight back rapidly; such as people who are carrying guns.

[Glass Fractal]

What I don't understand is guns as self-defence. Why would one buy a gun, only for the purpose of self-defence? As has been pointed out in this thread, there seems to be very few circumstances where a gun might actually be useful, as demonstrated by the 21-foot rule, and the fact that if you are using it for self-defence, you are already on the defensive, which puts you at a disadvantage. So, is it really effective as a self-defence tool?

As I understand it the 21-foot rule applies to a trained fighters. While I haven't seen any particular statistics on it I doubt that attacks by special forces operatives make up a large number of muggings.

I guess I might be a bit naive and lucky, but I have never felt at risk, and that I would need any form of self-defence, let alone a gun. And It's not as if I never go out at night, either, I have spent more than a few nights out, and never ran into trouble. (The most trouble I did run into were a couple of cops who thought I was loitering! I was just trying to find my way to my friends place!)

In a city? Suburbs? Wealthy area? Poor area?

[Sero]

It's also important to understand that the 21 foot rule only applies if the weapon is not already readied. It's assuming it's secured in a holster, as opposed to already in your hand and at the ready. It is also important to emphasize that no one is advocating a gun as the sole or ultimate form of self-defense, but it is a very useful too and removing it significantly limits possible range of responses when defending one's self.

[Gopher of Pern]

What I don't understand is guns as self-defence. Why would one buy a gun, only for the purpose of self-defence? As has been pointed out in this thread, there seems to be very few circumstances where a gun might actually be useful, as demonstrated by the 21-foot rule, and the fact that if you are using it for self-defence, you are already on the defensive, which puts you at a disadvantage. So, is it really effective as a self-defence tool?

Hear burglar breaking into house; arm self with gun. Also the fact that a knife has an advantage at 21 feet doesn't mean drawing the gun won't be sufficient defense. Do you think a mugger with a knife will think "I have a tactical advantage at this range" or "oh fuck he has a gun".

I was under the impression that guns around the house had to be locked up, separately from the ammo. Or is this just an Australian law? Also, aren't most burglaries crimes of opportunity, so even if you faced a burglar with a baseball bat, wouldn't they run?

As for muggings, aren't most performed within a few feet of the victim? I don't see how a gun will help if his knife is at your throut. Of course, all this is theoretical, is there any data on muggings and how they occur?

I see there is also a lot of differences between the states in regards to carry. As Thesh said above, California says you can carry, as long as it is in plain sight, holstered, and not loaded. What is the point of using that for self defence?

Criminals are going to avoid people who can be ready to fight back rapidly; such as people who are carrying guns.

How long does it take to draw, load, and fire a gun? It doesn't seem practical in a mugging scenario. I suppose I can see it as a preventative measure.

Where I was trying to get at with that last one, was what do you think the gun carry laws should be. Concealed carry? Armed and Loaded, as long as visible? Unloaded, but visible? Must you have your weapon loaded when carrying it around?

What I don't understand is guns as self-defence. Why would one buy a gun, only for the purpose of self-defence? As has been pointed out in this thread, there seems to be very few circumstances where a gun might actually be useful, as demonstrated by the 21-foot rule, and the fact that if you are using it for self-defence, you are already on the defensive, which puts you at a disadvantage. So, is it really effective as a self-defence tool?

As I understand it the 21-foot rule applies to a trained fighters. While I haven't seen any particular statistics on it I doubt that attacks by special forces operatives make up a large number of muggings.

I understood it to be the person with a gun trained in it's use, as opposed to the attacker just being aggresive with the knife.

I guess I might be a bit naive and lucky, but I have never felt at risk, and that I would need any form of self-defence, let alone a gun. And It's not as if I never go out at night, either, I have spent more than a few nights out, and never ran into trouble. (The most trouble I did run into were a couple of cops who thought I was loitering! I was just trying to find my way to my friends place!)

In a city? Suburbs? Wealthy area? Poor area?

In the Sydney CBD, Redfern, as well as well-off to poor suburbs.

It's also important to understand that the 21 foot rule only applies if the weapon is not already readied. It's assuming it's secured in a holster, as opposed to already in your hand and at the ready. It is also important to emphasize that no one is advocating a gun as the sole or ultimate form of self-defense, but it is a very useful too and removing it significantly limits possible range of responses when defending one's self.

When are you going to have your gun out on the street when your attacker is greater than 21 feet from you?

[Thesh]

The point of the 21 foot rule is not that you are screwed if a person within 21 feet of you has a knife, the point is that under 21 feet your priority needs to be defensive action as opposed to offensive. Guns are still useful for self defense at all ranges in which your life may be threatened.

Also, there are no regulations here on how you store your guns.

[mmmcannibalism]

I was under the impression that guns around the house had to be locked up, separately from the ammo. Or is this just an Australian law? Also, aren't most burglaries crimes of opportunity, so even if you faced a burglar with a baseball bat, wouldn't they run?

Not sure of specifics, but its definitely not a universal law.

As for muggings, aren't most performed within a few feet of the victim? I don't see how a gun will help if his knife is at your throut. Of course, all this is theoretical, is there any data on muggings and how they occur?

Not sure, but there is a decent difference between drawing and drawing then getting two shots center mass.

How long does it take to draw, load, and fire a gun? It doesn't seem practical in a mugging scenario. I suppose I can see it as a preventative measure.

Where I was trying to get at with that last one, was what do you think the gun carry laws should be. Concealed carry? Armed and Loaded, as long as visible? Unloaded, but visible? Must you have your weapon loaded when carrying it around?

The point with external carry(and the public understanding of concealed) is that it discourages crime. Someone willing to carry a gun openly is someone indicating they will not be willingly robbed. I imagine the instances of someone carrying openly being robbed are extremely low.

Beyond checks for criminal and psychological history*, and some restrictions on things such as full automatics I don't see the need for any carry restrictions.

*including a wait period for hand guns that is long enough to dissuade criminal buying(such as buying a gun to go commit a crime) while short enough to not burden regular citizens.

[Gopher of Pern]

Also, there are no regulations here on how you store your guns.

So, theoretically, anyone in the house has access to your guns?

I suppose my concerns are more with the "middle class suburban" family. Ones who have never, or maybe only once, been to the shooting range, and have no real understanding of guns. Then Daddy decides to get one for self-defence. What regulations are there to ensure the kids don't get a hold of it? Would you all be against needing a license to show competency with a gun, and safety regarding it, simliar to a car, or do you already have to be licensed? Checking on Wikipedia, it states that on average, one child died every 3 days due to accidents with guns in the US between 2000 and 05. That does seem high to me.

Why shouldn't guns be regulated similar to cars?

[Thesh]

Also, there are no regulations here on how you store your guns.

So, theoretically, anyone in the house has access to your guns?

I suppose my concerns are more with the "middle class suburban" family. Ones who have never, or maybe only once, been to the shooting range, and have no real understanding of guns. Then Daddy decides to get one for self-defence. What regulations are there to ensure the kids don't get a hold of it? Would you all be against needing a license to show competency with a gun, and safety regarding it, simliar to a car, or do you already have to be licensed? Checking on Wikipedia, it states that on average, one child died every 3 days due to accidents with guns in the US between 2000 and 05. That does seem high to me.

Why shouldn't guns be regulated similar to cars?

70 million households in the US have guns, and we see about 600 accidental deaths a year. I don't think that's serious enough to require safety tests or licensing. The child deaths can be reduced if the parents simply teach their kids how to safely handle a gun when they are old enough, as well as to not handle firearms without adult supervision. If you aren't concerned with quick access to guns, you can always get a safe if you have kids in the house, but it is no substitute for proper education.

[EdgarJPublius]

Why shouldn't guns be regulated similar to cars?

That seems like a very apt analogy to me, and a pretty good way to handle the whole thing.
Honestly, I'd like to see handguns licensed in a similar manner to the way cars are now, and cars licensed more strictly.

Seems like that would solve a lot of problems right there.

Unfortunately, that idea is unlikely to gain traction in the current climate.

[Grog]

Thanks all for the posting, it was a useful read. In two months there will be here in Switzerland a vote about this problematic (we vote a looot).
I want to share my experience: in Switzerland there is mandatory army service for every man, 21 weeks when 20 years old and then 3 weeks pro year until 30. After the recruit school the soldier/citizen bring the weapon (a semi automatic assaut rifle) at home and must keep it. A sealed ammo pack (20 bullets) was distributed until 2006, after that only the rifle, without the ammo pack. Each year the soldier/citizen must go to a stand and shoot a sequence of 20 shots, called "mandatory shooting".

The basic concept behind this is the idea that people are the king, and the ultimate decider, and they have the right to possess the army weapons and the trust from the other citizen that there will be no misuse. I find this a very powerful concept: basically every swiss family has a freaking army rifle in their closet, but the relationship, based on mutual trust, is a very strong bond.

Now it comes the vote, and I am very divided: there were over the years some accident and deaths caused by the army rifle. So if this vote can save maybe one single life, it is worth more than the trust and the idea behind the concept of the armed, responsible citizen? If we just keep going with the deresponsabilization of citizen, because the state decide everything through limitations and prohibition, it will be worse? I have a decision to make, and is not going to be easy.

Thank you for your posts, some of your statistics were very helpful.

[Thesh]

Why shouldn't guns be regulated similar to cars?

That seems like a very apt analogy to me, and a pretty good way to handle the whole thing.
Honestly, I'd like to see handguns licensed in a similar manner to the way cars are now, and cars licensed more strictly.

Seems like that would solve a lot of problems right there.

Unfortunately, that idea is unlikely to gain traction in the current climate.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the licensing will solve? Most car accidents happen because people willfully break the rules (e.g. drunk driving, speeding). Being more strict on teaching the rules is not going to stop that. In the same sense, I don't see how licensing will magically make people any safer with guns, and the number of accidental gun deaths are just so low as it is.

[Greyarcher]

Thanks all for the posting, it was a useful read. In two months there will be here in Switzerland a vote about this problematic (we vote a looot).
I want to share my experience: in Switzerland there is mandatory army service for every man, 21 weeks when 20 years old and then 3 weeks pro year until 30. After the recruit school the soldier/citizen bring the weapon (a semi automatic assaut rifle) at home and must keep it. A sealed ammo pack (20 bullets) was distributed until 2006, after that only the rifle, without the ammo pack. Each year the soldier/citizen must go to a stand and shoot a sequence of 20 shots, called "mandatory shooting".

The basic concept behind this is the idea that people are the king, and the ultimate decider, and they have the right to possess the army weapons and the trust from the other citizen that there will be no misuse. I find this a very powerful concept: basically every swiss family has a freaking army rifle in their closet, but the relationship, based on mutual trust, is a very strong bond.

Very nice. I wish my country were a bit more like that. I think it's a very respectable way of thinking.

[Glass Fractal]

Thanks all for the posting, it was a useful read. In two months there will be here in Switzerland a vote about this problematic (we vote a looot).
I want to share my experience: in Switzerland there is mandatory army service for every man, 21 weeks when 20 years old and then 3 weeks pro year until 30. After the recruit school the soldier/citizen bring the weapon (a semi automatic assaut rifle) at home and must keep it. A sealed ammo pack (20 bullets) was distributed until 2006, after that only the rifle, without the ammo pack. Each year the soldier/citizen must go to a stand and shoot a sequence of 20 shots, called "mandatory shooting".

I thought gun ownership in Switzerland was only required if you were actually in the army full time.

[EdgarJPublius]

Why shouldn't guns be regulated similar to cars?

That seems like a very apt analogy to me, and a pretty good way to handle the whole thing.
Honestly, I'd like to see handguns licensed in a similar manner to the way cars are now, and cars licensed more strictly.

Seems like that would solve a lot of problems right there.

Unfortunately, that idea is unlikely to gain traction in the current climate.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the licensing will solve? Most car accidents happen because people willfully break the rules (e.g. drunk driving, speeding). Being more strict on teaching the rules is not going to stop that. In the same sense, I don't see how licensing will magically make people any safer with guns, and the number of accidental gun deaths are just so low as it is.

My understanding is that most firearm related accidents are caused by ignorance or careless misuse rather than deliberate disregard of rules and safety.

In my view, it is not necessary, or particularly desirable to ban firearms, but improved and more widespread safety and responsibility education can't be a bad thing.
It's not as if using a similar licensing requirement to automobiles would be much of a barrier to ownership, especially when you consider that a firearm is simpler, and in most respects much safer than an automobile, even a relatively in-depth safety and responsibility class wouldn't need to last more than a few hours including range time.

[Sero]

Thanks all for the posting, it was a useful read. In two months there will be here in Switzerland a vote about this problematic (we vote a looot).
I want to share my experience: in Switzerland there is mandatory army service for every man, 21 weeks when 20 years old and then 3 weeks pro year until 30. After the recruit school the soldier/citizen bring the weapon (a semi automatic assaut rifle) at home and must keep it. A sealed ammo pack (20 bullets) was distributed until 2006, after that only the rifle, without the ammo pack. Each year the soldier/citizen must go to a stand and shoot a sequence of 20 shots, called "mandatory shooting".

I thought gun ownership in Switzerland was only required if you were actually in the army full time.

Switzerland doesn't really have a 'full time' military, as Grog said. Virtually the entire military is a sort of a 'National Guard' style set up (If you're in the US resident and familiar with that), that is to say, they serve very short stints in the military more intended as training than active service, unless actively mobilized due to war, etc.

The Swiss military has a very small cadre of professional ('full time') military, about 5% of the total military, I believe.

The idea behind requiring their reservist members to possess and maintain their personal equipment is a sensible one for their system. Universal conscription permits them to have large, trained force at hand without actually having to maintain a large standing army, and keeping personal equipment issued means if they have to mobilize quickly, they don't have to spend days or weeks drawing equipment. Just muster the troops, issue ammunition, and go. That's a simplification but the gist is there.

Disclaimer, I am not Swiss nor an expert on the Swiss or their military. Grog or others, correct me if I have erred.

[morriswalters]

What I object to is comparing guns to knives and baseball bats, or to restate it, to the myth that a gun is other than what it is. A machine designed to kill. This is not a bad thing. Hunters do the public a favor by culling populations that grow past the ability of the land to support. I have enjoyed the few time I have shot at a range. But as a personal preference I don't own a gun, I find that I can manage my life in such a fashion that I don't need it. I am however forced to live with the consequences of others decisions to own them, and with the evangelistic fervor that won't will never accept any limitations without regard to whether they will do any good or not.

I posted this a while back and then ran across this article. Which illustrates my point. Do that with a baseball bat or a steak knife. And I still don't favor a ban.

[Thesh]

It's not as if using a similar licensing requirement to automobiles would be much of a barrier to ownership, especially when you consider that a firearm is simpler, and in most respects much safer than an automobile

That's exactly why you don't need a license. Anyone can drive a car, but the main purpose of the drivers license is to make sure you are aware of the rules of the road, since they are so complex. I just don't think requiring licenses will change anything.

On a side note, good news for Californians: AB 962, which banned online sales of "handgun ammunition" as well as requiring all sorts of forms, thumbprints, etc. was struck down in court as unconstitutional today.

[Gopher of Pern]

It's not as if using a similar licensing requirement to automobiles would be much of a barrier to ownership, especially when you consider that a firearm is simpler, and in most respects much safer than an automobile

That's exactly why you don't need a license. Anyone can drive a car, but the main purpose of the drivers license is to make sure you are aware of the rules of the road, since they are so complex. I just don't think requiring licenses will change anything.

On a side note, good news for Californians: AB 962, which banned online sales of "handgun ammunition" as well as requiring all sorts of forms, thumbprints, etc. was struck down in court as unconstitutional today.

You don't think requiring everyone owning a gun to go through, say, maybe 1 weekend course, explaining gun safety, would reduce the number of accidents with guns? Sure they aren't high, but isn't reducing the number of accidents a good thing? You don't think that reducing the number of accidental deaths to about 10 per year is worth the cost of a gun license?

[mmmcannibalism]

It's not as if using a similar licensing requirement to automobiles would be much of a barrier to ownership, especially when you consider that a firearm is simpler, and in most respects much safer than an automobile

That's exactly why you don't need a license. Anyone can drive a car, but the main purpose of the drivers license is to make sure you are aware of the rules of the road, since they are so complex. I just don't think requiring licenses will change anything.

On a side note, good news for Californians: AB 962, which banned online sales of "handgun ammunition" as well as requiring all sorts of forms, thumbprints, etc. was struck down in court as unconstitutional today.

You don't think requiring everyone owning a gun to go through, say, maybe 1 weekend course, explaining gun safety, would reduce the number of accidents with guns? Sure they aren't high, but isn't reducing the number of accidents a good thing? You don't think that reducing the number of accidental deaths to about 10 per year is worth the cost of a gun license?

Honest opinion, I think your overestimating how much a few hours of basic advice is going to change dumb behavior. Its not like guns are insanely complicated things that cause accidents because of lack of experience, I imagine many of those accidents are darwin award material.

[Sero]

Right. 99% of gun safety boils down to 'don't point it at something you don't want to get shot'.

(These are by no means the definitive version of the rules of gun safety, but no one is likely to disagree with me too strongly in this version, I think. I'm going for an expanded version, which I admit loses some of the punchiness of shorter versions)

Rule 1: Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Even if you just saw someone check, it's still loaded until you check if it's loaded. And even after you've made sure it's not loaded, it's still loaded.

Pretty much boils down to 'Don't point it at something you don't want to shoot just because you think it's not loaded'

Rule 2: Don't point it at something you aren't fully willing to destroy, kill, or in other words, shoot.

Self explanatory. Actually, there is some nuance, I take that as meaning 'Don't draw a weapon unless you're actually willing to use it (because escalating to lethal force when you're bluffing is suicidally stupid)' too, but still, obvious.

Rule 3: Your trigger finger is your primary safety. Your weapon's safety is a backup, if you ever need it, something has gone wrong. If you are DEPENDING on it, YOU are what has gone wrong. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until your gun is aimed at a target and you are ready to fire.

Boils down to 'pulling the trigger is the LAST step in hitting a target, don't move it up the list, or you'll hit something you don't want'

Rule 4: Be absolutely sure of your target, and what is behind it, and what you might hit if you miss.

Boils down to 'Make sure what you're pointing your weapon at is something you actually want to shoot.'. It's rule #2 flipped around.

So yeah, gun safety isn't that complex. The remainder of it is mostly some stuff about the various sorts of misfires (Which aren't that complex but this is already longer than I intended, so here's the short 'play it safe' version. Point it in a safe direction, then leave it alone and get someone who knows what they're doing to look at it. Your weapon now has an unexploded munition inside it.), and knowing the proper operation of your weapon, which even if you don't know, if you're obeying the four rules, no accident is going to occur.

Guns are not like cars. You don't need to know how to drive on ice or recover from a skid, or the three hundred other things necessary to know to operate a car safely even if you aren't deliberately engaging in unsafe behavior. Gun safety is not pointing a gun in an unsafe direction.

[Gopher of Pern]

Right. 99% of gun safety boils down to 'don't point it at something you don't want to get shot'.

(These are by no means the definitive version of the rules of gun safety, but no one is likely to disagree with me too strongly in this version, I think. I'm going for an expanded version, which I admit loses some of the punchiness of shorter versions)

Rule 1: Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Even if you just saw someone check, it's still loaded until you check if it's loaded. And even after you've made sure it's not loaded, it's still loaded.

Pretty much boils down to 'Don't point it at something you don't want to shoot just because you think it's not loaded'

Rule 2: Don't point it at something you aren't fully willing to destroy, kill, or in other words, shoot.

Self explanatory. Actually, there is some nuance, I take that as meaning 'Don't draw a weapon unless you're actually willing to use it (because escalating to lethal force when you're bluffing is suicidally stupid)' too, but still, obvious.

Rule 3: Your trigger finger is your primary safety. Your weapon's safety is a backup, if you ever need it, something has gone wrong. If you are DEPENDING on it, YOU are what has gone wrong. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until your gun is aimed at a target and you are ready to fire.

Boils down to 'pulling the trigger is the LAST step in hitting a target, don't move it up the list, or you'll hit something you don't want'

Rule 4: Be absolutely sure of your target, and what is behind it, and what you might hit if you miss.

Boils down to 'Make sure what you're pointing your weapon at is something you actually want to shoot.'. It's rule #2 flipped around.

So yeah, gun safety isn't that complex. The remainder of it is mostly some stuff about the various sorts of misfires (Which aren't that complex but this is already longer than I intended, so here's the short 'play it safe' version. Point it in a safe direction, then leave it alone and get someone who knows what they're doing to look at it. Your weapon now has an unexploded munition inside it.), and knowing the proper operation of your weapon, which even if you don't know, if you're obeying the four rules, no accident is going to occur.

Guns are not like cars. You don't need to know how to drive on ice or recover from a skid, or the three hundred other things necessary to know to operate a car safely even if you aren't deliberately engaging in unsafe behavior. Gun safety is not pointing a gun in an unsafe direction.

Ok, so now you know about gun safety. So you go to bed quietly, safe in the knowledge that you know gun rules, and now have the means to protect yourself and your family. But then, your 10 year old son slips into your room, and takes the gun out of your drawer. He wants to play cops and robbers, and the gun will make it real. So he goes off running in the halls, waving the gun around, saying "stop, or I'll shoot!" His little sister giggles, and runs away. He pulls the trigger.

Sorry for the hyperbole, but there is more to gun safety than what you described above. And what you described above isn't even neccesary to own a gun.

[osiris32]

Right. 99% of gun safety boils down to 'don't point it at something you don't want to get shot'.

(These are by no means the definitive version of the rules of gun safety, but no one is likely to disagree with me too strongly in this version, I think. I'm going for an expanded version, which I admit loses some of the punchiness of shorter versions)

Rule 1: Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Even if you just saw someone check, it's still loaded until you check if it's loaded. And even after you've made sure it's not loaded, it's still loaded.

Pretty much boils down to 'Don't point it at something you don't want to shoot just because you think it's not loaded'

Rule 2: Don't point it at something you aren't fully willing to destroy, kill, or in other words, shoot.

Self explanatory. Actually, there is some nuance, I take that as meaning 'Don't draw a weapon unless you're actually willing to use it (because escalating to lethal force when you're bluffing is suicidally stupid)' too, but still, obvious.

Rule 3: Your trigger finger is your primary safety. Your weapon's safety is a backup, if you ever need it, something has gone wrong. If you are DEPENDING on it, YOU are what has gone wrong. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until your gun is aimed at a target and you are ready to fire.

Boils down to 'pulling the trigger is the LAST step in hitting a target, don't move it up the list, or you'll hit something you don't want'

Rule 4: Be absolutely sure of your target, and what is behind it, and what you might hit if you miss.

Boils down to 'Make sure what you're pointing your weapon at is something you actually want to shoot.'. It's rule #2 flipped around.

So yeah, gun safety isn't that complex. The remainder of it is mostly some stuff about the various sorts of misfires (Which aren't that complex but this is already longer than I intended, so here's the short 'play it safe' version. Point it in a safe direction, then leave it alone and get someone who knows what they're doing to look at it. Your weapon now has an unexploded munition inside it.), and knowing the proper operation of your weapon, which even if you don't know, if you're obeying the four rules, no accident is going to occur.

Guns are not like cars. You don't need to know how to drive on ice or recover from a skid, or the three hundred other things necessary to know to operate a car safely even if you aren't deliberately engaging in unsafe behavior. Gun safety is not pointing a gun in an unsafe direction.

Ok, so now you know about gun safety. So you go to bed quietly, safe in the knowledge that you know gun rules, and now have the means to protect yourself and your family. But then, your 10 year old son slips into your room, and takes the gun out of your drawer. He wants to play cops and robbers, and the gun will make it real. So he goes off running in the halls, waving the gun around, saying "stop, or I'll shoot!" His little sister giggles, and runs away. He pulls the trigger.

Sorry for the hyperbole, but there is more to gun safety than what you described above. And what you described above isn't even neccesary to own a gun.

Rule #5 Instill all of the above rules for everyone in your household, everyone you shoot with, anyone that comes into your house who knows you have guns. My frat advisor, whom I've mentioned before, has a 5 year old daughter. She is just as safe with the guns as any adult I know. She helps her dad load his own ammo, and when he wants her to get a gun, she checks it before she pulls it out, carries it in a safe manner, and makes sure her dad checks it before he does anything with it. I have seen her yell at people on a firing range for transgressions of the rules above. All it takes is a little education, and making sure that your children/family/friends aren't drawn by the "forbidden fruit" aspect.

[Glass Fractal]

Sorry for the hyperbole, but there is more to gun safety than what you described above. And what you described above isn't even neccesary to own a gun.

Some places do have a gun safety course as part of getting a license.

[Sero]

I probably should have specified 'gun safety for the operation of a firearm', or something. I didn't cover storage when not in use, and possibly should've, though 'Not taking reasonable precautions when you have small children in the house' sounds more like darwin award material (on the part of the parent, not the child, obviously) than anything else. Nevertheless, does any driver safety course emphasize the precautions you should take to prevent your children from getting their hands on your keys? Is it required knowledge on any licensing test? I'm not saying it's a perfectly apples to apples comparison, the requirements and the risks involved with safe/unsafe storage of both are different. It deserves more emphasis than with a car, certainly. But none of that detracts from my fundamental point: So long as you are an adult capable of reasoned thought, with a basic understanding that guns are dangerous and what makes them dangerous, accidents are almost certainly going to be the result of overt recklessness or carelessness. Whereas a motor vehicle has a huge range of skills necessary to successfully operate one safely, guns mostly require you not to point it at what you don't want to get shot, and keeping it out of the hands of those who don't know how to be safe with them. So the problem isn't so much that people lack the necessary skills to be safe with guns, as that some, tragically, lack the necessary attitudes of cautiousness. Which means some sort of mandatory licensing system is problematic. Not completely undoable, but it needs to be balanced against the burden it imposes and the actual amount it reduces risk.

[osiris32]

I probably should have specified 'gun safety for the operation of a firearm', or something. I didn't cover storage when not in use, and possibly should've, though 'Not taking reasonable precautions when you have small children in the house' sounds more like darwin award material (on the part of the parent, not the child, obviously) than anything else. Nevertheless, does any driver safety course emphasize the precautions you should take to prevent your children from getting their hands on your keys? Is it required knowledge on any licensing test? I'm not saying it's a perfectly apples to apples comparison, the requirements and the risks involved with safe/unsafe storage of both are different. It deserves more emphasis than with a car, certainly. But none of that detracts from my fundamental point: So long as you are an adult capable of reasoned thought, with a basic understanding that guns are dangerous and what makes them dangerous, accidents are almost certainly going to be the result of overt recklessness or carelessness. Whereas a motor vehicle has a huge range of skills necessary to successfully operate one safely, guns mostly require you not to point it at what you don't want to get shot, and keeping it out of the hands of those who don't know how to be safe with them. So the problem isn't so much that people lack the necessary skills to be safe with guns, as that some, tragically, lack the necessary attitudes of cautiousness. Which means some sort of mandatory licensing system is problematic. Not completely undoable, but it needs to be balanced against the burden it imposes and the actual amount it reduces risk.

For a more apt analogy, let's look at someone with a large woodshop like my father had. There were all sorts of tools out there that I could readily kill someone with. Pneumatic nail guns, power saws, drills, none of which took that much in the way of skill to operate, but could make devastating wounds if mishandled. Not once did I do anything stupid with those tools, because my father took the time to show me how they worked, and how they were dangerous, and instill in me a sense of responsibility and caution around them. The one time that my father got hurt, where his finger slipped and he nearly cut his thumb off on a table saw, my first thought was not, "Oh my god, Dad's been hurt!!" but instead "Geeze Dad, what did you do wrong?"

Gun ownership is just like owning any other potentially destructive tool. You have to learn about it, respect it, and BE RESPONSIBLE.

[DSenette]

I probably should have specified 'gun safety for the operation of a firearm', or something. I didn't cover storage when not in use, and possibly should've, though 'Not taking reasonable precautions when you have small children in the house' sounds more like darwin award material (on the part of the parent, not the child, obviously) than anything else. Nevertheless, does any driver safety course emphasize the precautions you should take to prevent your children from getting their hands on your keys? Is it required knowledge on any licensing test? I'm not saying it's a perfectly apples to apples comparison, the requirements and the risks involved with safe/unsafe storage of both are different. It deserves more emphasis than with a car, certainly. But none of that detracts from my fundamental point: So long as you are an adult capable of reasoned thought, with a basic understanding that guns are dangerous and what makes them dangerous, accidents are almost certainly going to be the result of overt recklessness or carelessness. Whereas a motor vehicle has a huge range of skills necessary to successfully operate one safely, guns mostly require you not to point it at what you don't want to get shot, and keeping it out of the hands of those who don't know how to be safe with them. So the problem isn't so much that people lack the necessary skills to be safe with guns, as that some, tragically, lack the necessary attitudes of cautiousness. Which means some sort of mandatory licensing system is problematic. Not completely undoable, but it needs to be balanced against the burden it imposes and the actual amount it reduces risk.

For a more apt analogy, let's look at someone with a large woodshop like my father had. There were all sorts of tools out there that I could readily kill someone with. Pneumatic nail guns, power saws, drills, none of which took that much in the way of skill to operate, but could make devastating wounds if mishandled. Not once did I do anything stupid with those tools, because my father took the time to show me how they worked, and how they were dangerous, and instill in me a sense of responsibility and caution around them. The one time that my father got hurt, where his finger slipped and he nearly cut his thumb off on a table saw, my first thought was not, "Oh my god, Dad's been hurt!!" but instead "Geeze Dad, what did you do wrong?"

Gun ownership is just like owning any other potentially destructive tool. You have to learn about it, respect it, and BE RESPONSIBLE.

i concur with this analogy.

the one time i almost saw my grandpa remove all the fingers on one hand with a table saw i had the same reaction. he even took the time to look me in the eyes and ask if i had noticed what he was doing wrong and how what he did was not the right way to use said tool before he started screaming bloody murder.

a gun is a tool, no matter what the approved use is (hunting, protection, target shooting, or killing people), the only way to prevent misuse is to instruct people in the correct use.

[Gopher of Pern]

Ok, that makes a lot of sense. About the only way I can dispute that is by saying that a gun is probably more likely to kill, as opposed to injure, but in that sense it is still not enough to warrant a license.

I still have the disconnect with people wanting a firearm, purely for defence purposes. As a tool for hunting, or for hobby/sport shooting I have no objections. The problem with having one purely for self defence, is that the person is likely not going to have much experience in it's use, and in the case where they will need to use it, they will be in a high stress situation, and may not follow all the right procedures for using the tool. I know when I'm using a dangerous tool that I use infrequently, I am very careful and take things slowly. I can't see the same thing happening with a gun.

[mmmcannibalism]

The problem with having one purely for self defence, is that the person is likely not going to have much experience in it's use, and in the case where they will need to use it, they will be in a high stress situation, and may not follow all the right procedures for using the tool. I know when I'm using a dangerous tool that I use infrequently, I am very careful and take things slowly. I can't see the same thing happening with a gun.

That seems dangerously close to I don't see why people want firearms, because I'm sure no one knows how to use them properly.

That being said, I agree there are people who buy guns when they would be far better off with a heavy rock for defense.

[Gopher of Pern]

The problem with having one purely for self defence, is that the person is likely not going to have much experience in it's use, and in the case where they will need to use it, they will be in a high stress situation, and may not follow all the right procedures for using the tool. I know when I'm using a dangerous tool that I use infrequently, I am very careful and take things slowly. I can't see the same thing happening with a gun.

That seems dangerously close to I don't see why people want firearms, because I'm sure no one knows how to use them properly.

That being said, I agree there are people who buy guns when they would be far better off with a heavy rock for defense.

Then you are reading too much into my words.

Even if I was more fearful of my life that would warrant me to get more self-defence, I would not get a gun, because I have never so much as seen one close up. It would not be an appropriate tool for self-defence for me. Whereas I'm sure that many other responsible gun users could use it as a tool for self-defence, with minimal risk to themselves and others. It is the people who don't have that training/responsibility/experience that I worry about. Now, whether that is a statistically significant population, I have no idea. But it does happen.

[Sero]

Actually, I don't see that. That is, that an inexperienced gun user is likely to somehow make a mistake with a gun and injure some innocent bystander if it's used for self-defense. Using a firearm for hunting or sport shooting when you don't know what you're doing? THEN you're likely to injure a bystander. But in self-defense, the person who's most likely to be harmed is the person using the gun, by not using it effectively. By missing or failing to take the safety off or some other mistake that renders their weapon far less effective and provokes a response with lethal force from whoever they just tried to defend themselves from. But I mean, the chances are against them hurting someone random if using it for self-defense. Oh, there are situations I could imagine it happening, but it doesn't seem likely to occur. Realistically, a bullet is pretty unlikely to hit anything that matters if you're not aiming at it. There are situations where that isn't true, but if someone breaks into your home, if you shoot at the home invader and miss, the odds are against you hitting someone else, in most situations.

[Thesh]

By missing or failing to take the safety off

You know, I have two handguns designated for self defense; neither have manual safeties. That brings us back to one of the most important rule of firearms safety: Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

[osiris32]

Actually, I don't see that. That is, that an inexperienced gun user is likely to somehow make a mistake with a gun and injure some innocent bystander if it's used for self-defense. Using a firearm for hunting or sport shooting when you don't know what you're doing? THEN you're likely to injure a bystander. But in self-defense, the person who's most likely to be harmed is the person using the gun, by not using it effectively. By missing or failing to take the safety off or some other mistake that renders their weapon far less effective and provokes a response with lethal force from whoever they just tried to defend themselves from. But I mean, the chances are against them hurting someone random if using it for self-defense. Oh, there are situations I could imagine it happening, but it doesn't seem likely to occur. Realistically, a bullet is pretty unlikely to hit anything that matters if you're not aiming at it. There are situations where that isn't true, but if someone breaks into your home, if you shoot at the home invader and miss, the odds are against you hitting someone else, in most situations.

Several things wrong with this statement:

First off, being a gun owner and knowing lots of gun owners (I could name 30-40 off the top of my head) I can tell you that we ALL take our firearms out to the range and practice with them. Target shooting is a fun and rewarding hobby, as it helps with stress relief, improves hand strength and hand/eye coordination, and usually allows for a social atmosphere that is conducive to positive thinking (if you are at a public range with other shooters) I have seen complete strangers offer advice and training for rookie shooters, simply because they saw someone struggling with something. Just like with any other hobby, if you enter into the social aspect of it, you will find mentors who are more than willing to teach and train you. If you choose not to get any training, and never fire your weapon, then you are not only disrespecting the firearm, but yourself.

Secondly, I was in Law Enforcement. I drilled twice a week at the range, and had bi-monthly live-fire training in tactical situations. The one and only time that I had to draw on a subject, I tunnel-visioned like crazy, and my hearing went away. But after the fact, I looked at the situation and realized that I had still maintained my line of fire, good sight profile, and good gun safety. This was after being on the job for less than a year, with a shorter academy than standard law enforcement. If you train yourself, or better yet, get trained by a professional, then you will still be safe, even in the supremely tense and frightening situation of self-defense.

Thirdly, a bullet is just a likely to hit something important as not. Maybe if you live way out in the country, a loose round won't hit another person. But in an urban or suburban setting? A 9mm handgun round has a maximum range of about 2km, but on a flat trajectory (shooting parallel to the ground, say, at an intruder) you're talking more about 300-400 yards. Look around your house, how many houses and/or families live in that range? What about pets? Other people's cars or possesions? Also, if the gun is pointed upwards, say, firing from a prone position, that range starts extending greatly. A 9mm will penetrate most house walls without much deceleration, and will still kill. So if you have to fire in self defense, you DO have to realize what is downrange of your weapon, know what your weapon's capabilities and range are, and do everything in your power to make sure that your rounds hit only what you intend them to.

[DSenette]

Ok, that makes a lot of sense. About the only way I can dispute that is by saying that a gun is probably more likely to kill, as opposed to injure, but in that sense it is still not enough to warrant a license.

I still have the disconnect with people wanting a firearm, purely for defence purposes. As a tool for hunting, or for hobby/sport shooting I have no objections. The problem with having one purely for self defence, is that the person is likely not going to have much experience in it's use, and in the case where they will need to use it, they will be in a high stress situation, and may not follow all the right procedures for using the tool. I know when I'm using a dangerous tool that I use infrequently, I am very careful and take things slowly. I can't see the same thing happening with a gun.

you accepting that a gun is not the self defense tool for yourself doesn't mean it can't be the right tool for someone else.

depending on the tool (like shop tools) the possibility for death as opposed to disfigurement can be equal to a gun.

ever used an arc welder? ever accidentally grounded it wrong and electrocute yourself?

[Rackum]

The problem with having one purely for self defence, is that the person is likely not going to have much experience in it's use, and in the case where they will need to use it, they will be in a high stress situation, and may not follow all the right procedures for using the tool. I know when I'm using a dangerous tool that I use infrequently, I am very careful and take things slowly. I can't see the same thing happening with a gun.

Why would owning a firearm specifically for self defense lead to less experience in its use? You can still go to the range and practice with a designated self defense weapon. You can still take classes on the use of a firearm in self defense situations. I just don't see why the firearm being bought for self defense purposes automatically means that "the person is likely not going to have much experience in it's use."

[Sero]

Osiris, I didn't mean to make any statements suggesting anything regarding the competency of the average gun owner or the availability of resources to train one's self with, etc, just speaking of a hypothetical situation that seemed to be what was being suggested by the poster I was responding to. Someone who, I don't know, buys a saturday night special for self defense and never touches it until it's needed to try to defend themselves.

I also define 'hitting something that matters' as hitting an innocent human being. Saving a life trumps any possible property damage you can inflict with a handgun. And yes, I was aware even a pistol will penetrate most walls, though admittedly I'd been dismissing that somewhat as, it'll penetrate one wall, but how about two? Three? How much farther will it go after penetrating a wall? Perhaps I'm in error in my risk assessment, and will accept correction gladly.