NationStates Jolt Archive

Certain opponents of gun control paint its supporters as not considering the full ramifications of banning guns - and that this endangers the lives of people who lose the ability to defend themselves against attack ("gun control is the theory that a 110-pound woman should have to fist-fight with a 220-pound rapist"). There's some validity in this, and I think self-defence is a far more valid reason to support gun rights than their being a bulwark against tyranny. Nonetheless, one of the examples that gets trotted out is "if Matthew Shepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard) had a gun, he wouldn't have been killed". And this annoys me, because I 1) don't think it's true and 2) don't think it's a good argument anyway.

Now, I know this thread will dissolve into customary haggling over USDoJ reports. And so I insert the disclaimer that I'm not arguing for a ban on all guns - I'm disputing one specific argument. Here goes:

1. Matthew Shepard's attackers had a gun (they "only" pistol-whipped him with it, though). I don't understand why liberalisation of gun laws will necessarily tend to favour the attacked. We might assume that because the attacker is not law-abiding, and the attacked will more likely be, that the legality of personal firearms balances out in favour of the attacked person. But it is still going to make attackers more able than they were before to gain access to weapons, that can then be used to attack others.

2. He was drunk by the time he left the bar. This in all probability left him less able to operate a gun successfully, if he did realize he was being attacked, without injuring himself, or more probably, simply fumbling it. Even if he had a gun to use in self-defence, there is no guarantee he would have been able to do so (even were he sober, this would still be true - the moment he turned his back, they might have hit him).

3. Had he been able to use a weapon in self-defence, wouldn't something like pepper spray, or some other non-lethal weapon, have been adequate? This isn't about a right to self-defence...it's about whether a gun is an absolute necessity to exercise self-defence.

4. Using a gun to defend oneselves from attack has nothing to do with things like registration, or even concealed carry laws (maybe if you wore it openly, you'd be less likely to be attacked). Let's say he'd been forced to register his gun with the Wyoming authorities. How, then, would that have inhibited his ability to protect himself against his assailants?

5. It also doesn't justify opposition to bans on larger weapons, like assault rifles. If he was carrying a pistol, surely that would prove sufficient to take down two people - he's not going to need to reach for the grenade launcher.

6. Most of all...my understanding of Wyoming gun laws at the time is that he could have carried a weapon for the purposes of self-defence. He chose not to. Even were this not the case, there will always be occasions on which people choose not to bear weapons. As long as I'm alive, there'll be at least one person on this planet who doesn't. So there is no guarantee that liberalising gun laws would prevent such crimes inasmuch as there is no way of guaranteeing people would choose to so defend themselves. There would come in compulsory gun ownership, and the whole argument ceases to be about freedom.

Most of the time one does not need to actually operate the gun to have the desired effect. Instead, a person usually only needs to wave the gun around to make the point. Let's face it, knowing your opponent is armed is one hell of a deterrent.

Most of the time one does not need to actually operate the gun to have the desired effect. Instead, a person usually only needs to wave the gun around to make the point. Let's face it, knowing your opponent is armed is one hell of a deterrent.

Not always. I think the next line of "reasoning" becomes "But does he know how to use it? Can he even shoot?"

Not always. I think the next line of "reasoning" becomes "But does he know how to use it? Can he even shoot?"

Only the most hardened and aggressive of criminals are willing to pull the trigger, it's one hell of a step. Now, in this case, I doubt that they'd have qualms about pulling the trigger, but, if forced, the situation could have fundamentally changed.

It's just something we really can't know.

Certain opponents of gun control paint its supporters as not considering the full ramifications of banning guns - and that this endangers the lives of people who lose the ability to defend themselves against attack ("gun control is the theory that a 110-pound woman should have to fist-fight with a 220-pound rapist"). There's some validity in this, and I think self-defence is a far more valid reason to support gun rights than their being a bulwark against tyranny. Nonetheless, one of the examples that gets trotted out is "if Matthew Shepard had a gun, he wouldn't have been killed". And this annoys me, because I 1) don't think it's true and 2) don't think it's a good argument anyway.

I always thought it was an anti-gun argument. Sort of a veiled way of telling rednecks "but then the queers will have guns."

That all sounds very reasonable and well thought out. Couldn't agree more.

Only the most hardened and aggressive of criminals are willing to pull the trigger, it's one hell of a step. Now, in this case, I doubt that they'd have qualms about pulling the trigger, but, if forced, the situation could have fundamentally changed.

It's just something we really can't know.I disagree. A classmate of mine got shot two weeks ago for no apparent reason after he handed the guy his wallet and cellphone.

I disagree. A classmate of mine got shot two weeks ago for no apparent reason after he handed the guy his wallet and cellphone.

Obviously the killer fell into that catagory of an agressive or hardened criminal.

A gun is really only a useful defensive tool in two situations

1: A home invasion, in which getting the drop on a burglar or whatever is incredibly likely to make him either surrender or flee.

2: A maniac on a killing spree. If someone comes into your church with an uzi, one guy with a handgun in that church could take him out.

Otherwise, guns arn't incredibly useful. If being mugged, they're about as useful as a good knife.

However, the biggest problem with some gun control people is that they think they can eliminate guns.

they cant. It's wishful thinking.

guns are at this time so ingrained in the national consciousness, marketplace, and so on, and are so common, that eliminating them would be impossible.

Therefore, we have to look at a world in which criminals CAN obtain guns. Almost all gun control laws have failed to considerably curtail the ability to optain guns among criminals.

A gun is really only a useful defensive tool in two situations

1: A home invasion, in which getting the drop on a burglar or whatever is incredibly likely to make him either surrender or flee.

2: A maniac on a killing spree. If someone comes into your church with an uzi, one guy with a handgun in that church could take him out.

Otherwise, guns arn't incredibly useful. If being mugged, they're about as useful as a good knife.



This is factually inaccurate, a gun is very useful in most robbery situations. If you would prefer to try and knife-fight your attacker instead of shoot him, you don't know much about knife fighting or shooting.

Its best use, far beyond home invasion or "maniac killing spree," is as a few surprises in the chest for an assailant who thinks you are fishing out your wallet. Remember, a gun without a round in the chamber is a club.

With the Home Invasion scenario I wouldn't have thought that getting the drop on your opponent was very likely. After all, you're probably asleep when they break in, so they'll have the advantage of knowing what's going on already. You, on the other hand, have to wake up and work out that the noise from downstairs wasn't usual. (And I for one am very slow when I've just woken up. It takes me a minute or so to wind up to speed)

And then, if you've come downstair with a gun, you're just as likely to get shot. I can't imagine the criminals backing out quietly. I can imagine them taking a pot shot at you. And if there's more than one of them, odds are you'll get hit.

Obviously the killer fell into that catagory of an agressive or hardened criminal.I doubt that that category is that uncommon then. Plus, why would they be robbing guys with cellphones and not store clerks? More money to be had.

With the Home Invasion scenario I wouldn't have thought that getting the drop on your opponent was very likely. After all, you're probably asleep when they break in, so they'll have the advantage of knowing what's going on already. You, on the other hand, have to wake up and work out that the noise from downstairs wasn't usual. (And I for one am very slow when I've just woken up. It takes me a minute or so to wind up to speed)

And then, if you've come downstair with a gun, you're just as likely to get shot. I can't imagine the criminals backing out quietly. I can imagine them taking a pot shot at you. And if there's more than one of them, odds are you'll get hit.

That's why you shoot first! If you don't mind holes through your walls... and the neighbors..

I doubt that that category is that uncommon then. Plus, why would they be robbing guys with cellphones and not store clerks? More money to be had.

No, it's not all that uncommon...

Dunno, people are stupid, or crazy. The problem with a lot of gun control laws is that the criminals will still have guns, and the people who aren't criminals are deprived...

No, it's not all that uncommon...

Dunno, people are stupid, or crazy. The problem with a lot of gun control laws is that the criminals will still have guns, and the people who aren't criminals are deprived...Problem with having liberal gun laws is that it will be a lot easier for criminals to obtain them.

One problem with robbing store clerks can be things like CCTV, bulletproof glass, and silent alarms. The average guy in the street doesn't have a means to defend himself. I could have a small arsonal inside my jacket, but if two guys mug me I'm gonna give them my wallet and phone, and pray they don't shoot me anyway. I'm not fast enough to dodge bullets.

"Problem with having liberal gun laws is that it will be a lot easier for criminals to obtain them."---Laerod

problem with having restrictive gun laws is that it is harder for law abiding citizens to obtain them. criminals always have an advantage in that the when, where, how, etc. of the attack are completely up to them. firearms are just the best means available to even things up a bit.

Problem with having liberal gun laws is that it will be a lot easier for criminals to obtain them.

I dont believe that.

It is already extremely easy for criminals to obtain guns in every state, making it easier for law abiding people won't make it any easier than it already is for criminals.

Straw purchasing guns from NFA licensees is a crime already, and it still happens all the time.

The problem with the "If Matthew Shepard had a gun" argument is that it blames Shepard for not having a gun. It's as if to say, "Well, he could have carried a gun, and he didn't, so he deserved to die." We outsource crime prevention in this country constantly. Obviously, rape and theft are the two most common examples, but murder's another good one. So is home invasion. Deterrent or not, the idea is that every household should have a gun in case of a break-in. You got broken into? And they got away? Your fault because you didn't use a gun. Car stereo stolen? Your fault, because you parked it in a bad area. Raped? Your fault, because you were traveling alone and didn't have a gun. Mugged? Murdered? Beaten up? Your fault. No gun. And if you were at school, it's your fault for having a gay parent.

The culture of guns is as prevalent as the culture of outsourcing blame. It's this idea that you have to care care of yourself and your own and that no one is here to do it for you or even with you. The law isn't on your side; it's on the criminal's. If someone busts into your car and takes your car stereo, and you saw the guy who did it, why should the police officer help you? The department will lose money investigating your car stereo, but it makes a quick buck by walking out to your car, noticing you have a busted taillight, and writing you a ticket. Granted, that's a cynical way of looking at it, and it's an extreme view, but when my brother slid off the road in the snow, we knew full well the cops wouldn't be coming by to pull him out. Nope. If the cops came buy, they were writing him a ticket for failure to maintain control. Never mind that it's Mother Nature's fault he slid off the road, not his own. It makes us feel better and it saves our police departments money if we just blame the victim. It's a culture that involves gun deaths, scolding rape and theft victims, passing the blame off for the death of Matthew Shepard, and turning a blind eye to school bullying. And dare I say it, our lazy, can't-someone-else-do-it collective attitude is responsible for tragedies on the scale of Columbine (for sure) and 9/11 (to a lesser extent.) Thirteen deaths because we don't give a shit is thirteen too many. Three thousand deaths is that many worse.