In a gun control debate, when they start asking you about hammers

How is a gun not an essential tool though? I would consider self defense one of the most essential things in life. You may be able to get by without one in the city since the police are only minutes away, but out in the country, they aren’t going to get to you in time.

It has no other use but for killing. Everything else I listed can be weaponized (heck, candlesticks can be weaponized) but that is not its primary purpose.

A point I made several times is that the strength of the “self-defense” justification of owning firearms is directly related to the likelihood that you are going to encounter someone else hostile who *also* has a gun.

Japan is a society with virtually no privately-owned guns and virtually gun crime. Funny how that works.

Officer-involved shootings are much lower in countries with rigorous gun control because in any given encounter, it is that much less likely that the suspect is armed. A lot of cops overseas do not even carry guns, believe it or not.

A chart for point of reference. There is no reason we shouldn’t aim for a gun-related homicide rate at least as low as Canada (large, culturally similar neighboring country). Heck, we should aim all the way for Japan’s virtually non-existent gun deaths. What happened to wanting to lead the world?

“It has no other use but for killing. Everything else I listed can be weaponized (heck, candlesticks can be weaponized) but that is not its primary purpose”

Yes, that is the point of a gun, to defend and kill if you absolutely have to. You may not like it, but the gun in the hands of a responsible gun owner is the best weapon the average citizen could ever hope to attain, hence why it’s known as the great equalizer.

“A point I made several times is that the strength of the “self-defense” justification of owning firearms is directly related to the likelihood that you are going to encounter someone else hostile who *also* has a gun.”

Yes, you may have to go up against a bad guy with a gun. Given the choice between a Glock and your chosen weapon of candlestick, I’d much rather have the Glock. Great equalizer after all.

“Japan is a society with virtually no privately-owned guns and virtually gun crime. Funny how that works”

Japan also doesn’t have the same culture norms as us. While we’re raised to treasure our First and Second amendment rights and our culture teaches us to fight for what we believe in, Japan’s culture is much more restrictive. If Democrats were to try and implement a Japan style gun ban, riots if not full civil war would break out.

“Officer-involved shootings are much lower in countries with rigorous gun control because in any given encounter, it is that much less likely that the suspect is armed. A lot of cops overseas do not even carry guns, believe it or not”

Again, no other country has a second amendment equivalent. No one should have to lose their rights just because maybe shootings will go down.

“A chart for point of reference. There is no reason we shouldn’t aim for a gun-related homicide rate at least as low as Canada (large, culturally similar neighboring country). Heck, we should aim all the way for Japan’s virtually non-existent gun deaths. What happened to wanting to lead the world?”

Trying to get the gun related homicide rate down by banning guns isn’t going to bring the total homicide rate down. Britain banned guns, now knife homicide has spiked. A gun ban is just a bandage on a festering wound, it does nothing to solve the actual problems like mental health or gang culture.

Anecdote time: I've been robbed before, and lost something like $100. Much more seriously, my little brother was almost kidnapped outside a McDonald's in Atlanta. My dad, whom I was with at the time, spun around and faced down the kidnapper. Then we high-tailed it out of there.

I do not know whether the assailant was armed in either case. However, we were able to escape safely from both encounters without using a firearm. If either of us had had a gun and withdrawn it, which would have escalated the encounter, then who knows how it would have ended.

Point being that there are crime survival strategies that do not require the use of a firearm and which are rarely talked about. And that introducing a gun into a situation can actually make you less safe.

It's no secret America has a gun-obsessed culture and the hardest-core gun activists are prepared to use force or the threat of force to resist the slightest intrusion upon what they consider to be their "rights." The ridiculous maneuvering by self-appointed "militia" groups in Virginia demonstrates that. Guns won't be banned anytime soon, but in the meantime, we need to change attitudes.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of D.C. v. Heller (2008) found that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to own a handgun for self-defense. However, many other classes of weaponry may be permissibly banned in compliance with the Second Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled otherwise. Assault rifles should be the first to go. The concept that such firepower is really needed for self-defense purposes to repel an entire team of armed burglars is extremely tenuous.

In the long-run, I am hopeful that American citizens will recognize that the "well-regulated Militia" language in the Second Amendment simply does not contemplate our present situation where guns may be for the most part freely purchased, where mass shootings occur with disturbing frequency, and where ~40,000 Americans die needlessly of firearms every year.

Just so there's no confusion, here's the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

"I do not know whether the assailant was armed in either case. However, we were able to escape safely from both encounters without using a firearm. If either of us had had a gun and withdrawn it, which would have escalated the encounter, then who knows how it would have ended. Point being that there are crime survival strategies that do not require the use of a firearm and which are rarely talked about. And that introducing a gun into a situation can actually make you less safe."

That's debatable. It sounds like from your kidnapping story that the kidnapper didn't have a gun, otherwise your dad probably would have been shot for facing him. Also since it happened in a big city, the police aren't too far away. If you're in the country and someone tries to rob you at gunpoint, or you face a bear, wolf, or any sort of rabid animal, you're going to want that gun. Responsible gun owners know the power of their weapon and so they only use it when it is absolutely necessary.

"It's no secret America has a gun-obsessed culture and the hardest-core gun activists are prepared to use force or the threat of force to resist the slightest intrusion upon what they consider to be their "rights.""

As they should. As the second amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Under any circumstances.

"Guns won't be banned anytime soon, but in the meantime, we need to change attitudes"

Change attitudes? To fit who's agenda, yours? I don't think so. I don't own a gun and I've never really considered getting one, but if there's a strong enough push to try and ban guns, you bet your ass I'm going to get as many guns and bullets as I need to help fight back against the growing tyranny of the state

"The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of D.C. v. Heller (2008) found that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to own a handgun for self-defense. However, many other classes of weaponry may be permissibly banned in compliance with the Second Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled otherwise. Assault rifles should be the first to go. The concept that such firepower is really needed for self-defense purposes to repel an entire team of armed burglars is extremely tenuous"

This is where the well regulated militia part of the second amendment comes into play. Those weapons are needed when the government gets tyrannical and the citizens need to fight back. The second amendment was designed to protect semiautomatics like the AR-15, full automatics like machine guns, and artillery like cannons and mortars as well as the day to day life of the everyday citizen. Sounds crazy I bet, but that was the intent. Here's a letter from President James Madison to a ship captain saying a private ship was free to carry its own cannons (the most powerful weapon of the time) and raid enemy ships: https://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm

"In the long-run, I am hopeful that American citizens will recognize that the "well-regulated Militia" language in the Second Amendment simply does not contemplate our present situation where guns may be for the most part freely purchased, where mass shootings occur with disturbing frequency, and where ~40,000 Americans die needlessly of firearms every year"

Even if they didn't foresee it, the second amendment still stands anyway. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

"Yes, that is the point of a gun, to defend and kill if you absolutely have to. You may not like it, but the gun in the hands of a responsible gun owner is the best weapon the average citizen could ever hope to attain, hence why it’s known as the great equalizer."

A responsible gun owner... there you got THE Achilles heel of the entire point why people want to keep guns, and also the reason why many countries no longer allow them. Who is a responsible gun owner? At too many times it was evident that when people irresponsibly use a gun killing or otherwise life threatening people in the process, deliberately or by accident, it turned out to be people nobody could ever imagine to do such a thing. And this is also the reason why people who want a permit for a firearm are thoroughly subjected to heavy screenings too, and even a professional psychiatrist is often required for that and even then a gun can sometimes legally find its way to unqualified hands (nothing is waterproof after all), but it at least reduced the chances this would happen. You can't get a permit without giving up a good reason for it, either.

Many people my think they can handle a gun responsibly, but only a few have such an ability, not to mention that if you are a responsible gun owner today, doesn't mean you'll still be tomorrow. When a lot of bad luck strikes you due to things outside your control you can easily destabilize and then a gun can easily become a threat to yourself and to others... Boom... Perhaps this shines a light on the many shootings in the U.S. Shootings are often performed by people life was never kind to. Do you know why they want to kill like crazy? Because they were so powerless in life that this way they can once more shine before leaving this in their view cursed world, and when you kill like crazy, you have the power and everybody fears you. Also the reason why they don't fear "good guys with a gun". They were ready to die anyway. If you won't shoot them, they will do it themselves. The number of kills is not important, the power they had is.... With the "right" to have a gun, the easiness to obtain it, and nobody who can see what goes on inside your brain.

So the question is... who is a responsible gun owner? Can you tell? Since even professional psychiatrists have been proven wrong in trusting people with a gun, don't think you can easily tell this...

I think I'd prefer a bulletproof vest... Thank you :P

"A point I made several times is that the strength of the “self-defense” justification of owning firearms is directly related to the likelihood that you are going to encounter someone else hostile who *also* has a gun."
No, it's related to the chance you'll have to defend yourself period. Many things other than guns can be fatal and are far more likely to be used when guns are not available and factors like person strength and numbers become a bigger factor without firearms.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-winkler-gun-fight-author-on-gun-controls-racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Life saver? I think I'll go for a bulletproof vest... Seems more effective to me...