Guns urban vs urban?

[Griff]

Like we needed another gun thread.

I'm not sure if I see a trend here or not. Is most of the pro/anti gun rhetoric coming out of the densely populated areas? As an acknowleged bumkin, I just don't feel the passion that lots of folks seem to on the 2nd amendment fight. Looking at myself and my fellow hillbillies, I'd say that its because there is zero chance of disarming rural America. Pass the law, it won't happen. I don't see guns mainly as the conceal carry self-protection issue as urban pro-gunners do. Guns are to put down deer injured on the road, shoot the rabid fox, keep the possum out of the hen house, put meat in the freezer, and for the extremely unlikely home defense scenario. I just see gun confiscation as a silly unworkable thing city folk talk about doing. Is it really just urban vs urban?

[glatt]

I think that's a huge part of it.

My only real gun concern is with hand guns. I've got no real problem with shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and even fully automatic rifles. What concerns me is concealable weapons that are designed to be used against human beings. Hand guns.

I think hand guns are more popular in cities, and longer guns are more popular in the country. It's easier to shoot a woodchuck with a rifle than get close enough to shoot it with a hand gun.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think that's a huge part of it.

My only real gun concern is with hand guns. I've got no real problem with shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and even fully automatic rifles. What concerns me is concealable weapons that are designed to be used against human beings. Hand guns.

I think hand guns are more popular in cities, and longer guns are more popular in the country. It's easier to shoot a woodchuck with a rifle than get close enough to shoot it with a hand gun.

I agree with what you said here. I don't advocate legislation against handguns, I would like to see handguns owners voluntarily get rid of them. I am a suburbanite.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think hand guns are more popular in cities, and longer guns are more popular in the country. It's easier to shoot a woodchuck with a rifle than get close enough to shoot it with a hand gun.

Quite true. Also home defense is more reasonably conducted with long guns when the nearest public thoroughfare is half a mile down a rural driveway.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Quite true. Also home defense is more reasonably conducted with long guns when the nearest public thoroughfare is half a mile down a rural driveway.

Although I know you're making a joke, I'd like to point out, in the interest of accuracy:

Home defense is about equally balanced between pistols and shotguns. Most instances of home defence invole a distance of less than 10 feet.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Glatt is unfortunately (and ignorantly, alas, also) subscribing to the discredited theory of "the evil gun," that certain types of firearm are inherently more wicked than others.

False. I don't think guns are wicked, and I'm not scared of them.

I'm subscribing to the idea that certain types of guns are more effective at killing humans than others. A gun is a tool. Yes. I agree. I don't mind tools that exist to kill animals and can also be used in a pinch to kill humans. A shotgun is great at home defense. I don't mind them, because they are hard for a criminal to carry down the street to use in crimes. (Yes, I know they can be sawn off to make them marginally more concealable.) I do mind tools that are designed primarily to kill humans, the way handguns are.

I wish there were no handguns. I realize that there are, in fact, handguns. I'd like to think that there is some way to regulate the amount of handguns out there. I don't know how to do that. What I do know is that when the guns rights supporters try to shut the conversation down by saying that violent crime would stay the same if guns were regulated or outlawed, they are shoveling a load of BS.

And finally, I don't think that the biggest cause of violent crime is the availability of guns. I think there are many avenues that can be pursued before trying to grab guns that will be more effective at reducing violent crime. A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

[glatt]

Crap. Was I that obvious? OK, forget the drugs comment.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by glatt

A shotgun is great at home defense. I don't mind them, because they are hard for a criminal to carry down the street to use in crimes. (Yes, I know they can be sawn off to make them marginally more concealable.) I do mind tools that are designed primarily to kill humans, the way handguns are.

I wish there were no handguns. I realize that there are, in fact, handguns. I'd like to think that there is some way to regulate the amount of handguns out there. I don't know how to do that. What I do know is that when the guns rights supporters try to shut the conversation down by saying that violent crime would stay the same if guns were regulated or outlawed, they are shoveling a load of BS.

The reason why I disagree with this is because much of the argument is centered around the cosmetic. People think guns are somehow "worse" or more powerful if they are black and have a military look to them. The round in the chamber is what defines the gun's lethality -- to a lesser extent, rounds per minute. IMO, given 5 seconds to do as much damage as possible, a 12-guage shotgun will outperform any handgun ever created, and most so-called "assault" weapons available to the public. Concealability =\= lethality. Concealability =\= more ability to commit crime. All they have to do is get it from the car to the front door, and from there, concealability means nothing -- they have the damn thing out and are waving it around. It's an argument based on emotion, not practicality. If you have a handgun and I don't know it, I'm not in danger. If you have a gun pointed at my head, I am, concealability be damned.

A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

This is interesting. I hear so many people say drugs should be made more available, guns less available -- when half the time, the reason someone commits a crime is because they're high. [offtopic]Coincidentally, these same people often think life is more sacred for a person on death row than in the womb, or that habitat for the red-eared screeching jungle mouse is more important than someone being able to feed their family.[/offtopic]

BTW, I am not applying that to you. I agree with you. I just find some people's logic amazing.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The reason why I disagree with this is because...

...you didn't read it, and you wanted a jumping off point to rant about what you wanted to rant about?

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Flint

...you didn't read it, and you wanted a jumping off point to rant about what you wanted to rant about?

bzzt. reread.

no rant here, jsut trying to help the misinformed understand that handguns aren't nearly as powerful as shotguns, and any concealability they offer has little to do with the crimes they're used for.

i.e., just because it looks like something you saw on TV shooting 300 rounds a minute without missing doesn't mean it can.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

This is interesting. I hear so many people say drugs should be made more available, guns less available -- when half the time, the reason someone commits a crime is because they're high.

If we could bring drug-related crime down to just the crimes committed by users, that would be a vast improvement.

Just like drunk driving, barfights and weekends on college campuses are a vast improvement over the prohibition era.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

snip~-- when half the time, the reason someone commits a crime is because they're high. ~snip

I don't believe half the crimes commited by junkies are when they are high. On smack or crack, that would be near impossible. I think the crimes are committed by junkies who are not high, but want to be, and are trying to gather the price of admission.

Hense, a change in our drug policy would lead to a drastic price reduction and keep these people stoned in the corner, rather than waving their Saturday Night Special around the liquor store.

This is my feeling, but statistics could prove me wrong....anybody got some?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't believe half the crimes commited by junkies are when they are high. On smack or crack, that would be near impossible. I think the crimes are committed by junkies who are not high, but want to be, and are trying to gather the price of admission.

Absolutely correct, but I don't have stats.

If misuse of healthcare services is a crime, then I've seen an awful lot of it ... and never when someone is actually high ... usually I get folks when they are at the cranky, irritable, starting to hurt phase of either coming down or withdrawal.

Originally Posted by glatt

False. I don't think guns are wicked, and I'm not scared of them.

I'm subscribing to the idea that certain types of guns are more effective at killing humans than others. A gun is a tool. Yes. I agree. I don't mind tools that exist to kill animals and can also be used in a pinch to kill humans. A shotgun is great at home defense. I don't mind them, because they are hard for a criminal to carry down the street to use in crimes. (Yes, I know they can be sawn off to make them marginally more concealable.) I do mind tools that are designed primarily to kill humans, the way handguns are.

I wish there were no handguns. I realize that there are, in fact, handguns. I'd like to think that there is some way to regulate the amount of handguns out there. I don't know how to do that. What I do know is that when the guns rights supporters try to shut the conversation down by saying that violent crime would stay the same if guns were regulated or outlawed, they are shoveling a load of BS.

And finally, I don't think that the biggest cause of violent crime is the availability of guns. I think there are many avenues that can be pursued before trying to grab guns that will be more effective at reducing violent crime. A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

It is ironic that you say that, they two most popular weapons for violent crime are shotguns and revolvers.