The Gun Thread

Pepper spray. It’s debliliating enough to be a useful self defense tool, but not so debilitating that you couldn’t still get away if someone took it and used it on you.

It’s not even a matter of arguments. Speaking as someone who’s carried a firearm as part of their professional responsibilities for the better part of their adult life, I can tell you confidently that a handgun is not useful for self defense. You are thousands of times more likely to be injured or killed by your own weapon than you are to use it successfully on someone else.

Self defense with firearms is an ugly, harmful myth that’s been perpetrated by the worst parts of the American gun culture. It’s disappointing to see the left falling for it.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 5th 2019 at 4:58:20 AM

What about a shotgun at home? What to do when getting away isn't an option and the police can't/won't make it in time, or might make things worse? "Oh my god. Open and shut case, Johnson. I saw this once when I was a rookie. Apparently this n—r broke in and put up pictures of his family everywhere."

I know that last one's a joke. I hope. Point being, some people are wary of calling the police for any reason in certain jurisdictions. What to do, then, when dealing with politically motivated home invaders?

The left is frequently threatened with violence, rape, and death. They seek proactive alternatives. If you have better suggestions than 'arm thyself', personally, I'm all ears. Arming oneself is a scary commitment.

Edited by Oruka on Jan 5th 2019 at 5:23:26 AM

You call the police. Why is that not obvious?

The problem is that while its always possible to construct a scenario where a firearm would have been useful, the fact is these types of scenarios are much less likely to happen than getting shot with your own gun. Its exactly like driving across country because you are afraid of flying: despite the fact that sometimes planes do crash, driving a car is an order of magnitude more dangerous. You are much better off relying on good locks and a cell phone.

Someone who keeps a shotgun in their home is many, many times more likely to kill or injure themselves with it than they are to kill a home invader. There were 3 million burglaries last year, of which only a tiny percentage were “home invasions”. Americans own 393 million firearms, of which a significant portion are kept for home defense. 2 out of 3 gun deaths in the US are suicides. I’d hope you’re starting to see the issue.

Statistically you will basically never defend yourself with a firearm. The problem you’re worrying about does not exist. What arming yourself will do, though, is expose you to a massive degree of danger you weren’t exposed to before.

Fair enough, in the "all things being equal" case. What about people being specifically threatened? Say they find a burning cross on their lawn. Say they find a neonazi smashing their window open.

Because the police may kill you or find ways to make you wish they had. I know places where people don't carry self defense weapons and just plan on giving robbers everything, because, if they succeed in self-defense, the police then has nothing to gain from a criminal, but will harass an honest citizen for everything they're worth. Likewise, in case of burglary, let it be. No TV is worth killing or dying over.

However, a politically motivated attack is different from a robbery; they won't be bargained with or scared away, and submission means death, so first you think of how to survive the encounter, then worry about the ensuing trial.

Edited by Oruka on Jan 5th 2019 at 6:03:52 AM

Based on how common politically motivated violence of that sort is, which is to say it is highly fucking uncommon, a gun is still more dangerous.

Seriously, that advice is so irresponsible it’s almost unbelievable.

I guess those mass shootings are actually uncommon and just suffer from media and political overexposure. Not unlike a plane crash.

That does indeed rule out arming oneself as a general rule.

But, then again, once you've been threatened, what should you do?

Call the cops, good lord. Arming yourself is never the solution. It only makes things worse.

Probably the only situation where you’d actually need to carry on a regular is for defense against wild animals in rural areas. That, or if you work in law enforcement or a similar profession.

If the police really wont protect you, your boned, because if you use a firearm to protect yourself the police will arrest you for unnecessary force. Organizing a neighborhood watch committee might work, or putting up security cams (with a cloud feed the police cant confiscate). That would create evidence even a well connected criminal couldnt get around. If you have the money you could hire a security service. Otherwise you would have little other choice than stand your ground and die, or move.

There are few civilian situations or jobs that require a gun. One of those is cash services. The company I work for has both an armed armored car service under their belt but also armed escort services with body armor no less for cash drop escort. However, there are few armed security posts these days and even most security companies prefer de-escalation tactics to armed confrontation.

Basically, when they say firearms are a last resort, they mean last resort.

Only after you've gone through the 1000+ better options for self-defense do you turn to a firearm. And 99% of the time, you never need to do so.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Jan 6th 2019 at 12:46:50 PM

The only security guys who have guns here by default are those who guard nuclear installations. Some transport duties require them as well, but they're decided upon on a case by case basis.

A firearm is not a necessity, it's a preference. As long as gun owners do not place their neighbors at risk, I have no problem with it, but no one should think that owning a firearm is the only means they have of defending themselves.

I don't think that's ever been among the arguments discussed; guns are presented as an important deterrent to have, insofar as 'the other side', meaning Conservative White Men and, especially, the extremist among them, own them in abundance, claim them as their identity, and take steps to deny ownership to the minorities they constantly strive to control, suppress, and disempower. The suggestion appears to be that it should be a "let's all disarm together" situation, not a "let's keep you armed and dangerous while I unilaterally commit to never arming myself, just as you wish" kind of thing. Guns are seemingly meant to be an option for the sake of being an option, one among as many as possible, without ever having to be resorted to. The assertion is that no one demographic should have all that power to itself.

Edited by Oruka on Jan 6th 2019 at 4:26:51 AM

Firearms are just tools in the end. They are either useful given ones circumstances, or they arnt. Most people of color will not find them to be very useful, esp. as a form of protection against racial discrimination. While it may appear problematic that pretty much only one particular political faction is arming itself, the fact is that the vast majority of oppression that minorities face does not take the form of small groups of private white citizens. The cops themselves are far more dangerous, and a firearm wont protect you from them. The real focus is institutional prejudice. Absent that, a few armed fringe groups arnt much of a threat. Organized political action remains the most effective path forward.

You keep taking my arguments seriously and giving considerate and credible counterarguments that take my concerns at face value and address them directly, without coming across as talking down to me. I appreciate that, and feel mostly reassured. Thank you, DM.

Basically, arming yourself opens you up to a lot of danger with no real benefit. This is true even for the right-wing idiots who you usually find carrying these days.

Gosh, you're welcome. I'm not against gun ownership, per se. It can be a legitamate choice, based on one's interests. But there is a lot of misinformation out there, and interested parties playing off on people's fears, so it's important to think about the decision carefully, and to understand the risks.

I mean, all of us here are firearms nerds who enjoy the engineering and history of whichever guns were choose to study - I'm a Garand nerd, for example. Multiple people in the thread go target shooting regularly and enjoy it. But at the end of the day, they know they're still built to be lethal weapons first and foremost, and they treat them with the same caution as you would with a hunting knife or a flamethrower.

I don't actually own a firearm, especially at my age and my situation right now, but I'd be happy to go target shooting with one someday.

There's nothing wrong with liking, being interested in or handling firearms safely. It's just a matter of how you choose to go about it, and knowing how to counter misinformation.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Jan 6th 2019 at 9:45:41 AM

Strictly speaking, there's a big difference between someone who enjoys firearms for the sheer work of engineering they are and enjoys shooting paper targets with them, and the whackos who will not be named using them for unnameable nonsense.

So keep up the good work busting disinformation.

Quick Question - Which revolver would be a good one for someone who has absolutely no prior experience with firearms? I hear Ruger offers a nice lineup of them.

One of the problems with gun ownership, at least in the USA, is that too many of the people who are vocal about it don't see guns as killing tools but instead see them as symbols. Symbols of freedom, power, whatever.

I’ll preface this by saying that personally I think the best starter pistol you could buy is the Ruger MK IV. Ammo is the most expensive part of a shooting hobby, and if you’re just learning you’re gonna go through a lot of it. It’s also much easier to learn to shoot with a round that’s easy to handle. Plus, it looks nice, and you can buy the “tactical” variant if you want to customize. The second best starter pistol I’d recommend would be a Glock 17. If you can shoot one of those well you can shoot anything, they’re dead simple to operate and reliable as hell.

That said, for revolvers it depends on what you’re looking for. For a revolver I’d recommend a Ruger GP-100, Rock Island Armory M200, or Ruger LCR.

The Ruger is nice, but it doesn’t have a manual safety which may be a little off-putting for a new shooter. Don’t worry about the price of .357 Magnum, start off shooting .38 special and just clean the chambers carefully. This thing is a heavy chunk of metal, with .38 special the recoil is light.

RIA is a budget gun company and it shows, the trigger on the M200 isn’t all that great and occasionally you’ll get cases stuck with certain brands of ammo. That said, it goes bang when you pull the trigger and you can get them for as low as $150, so not a bad choice for a beginner.

The LCR is a solid all-round revolver. You can get it with a snub barrel or a 3 inch barrel, and you can get it with an exposed hammer for SA/DA operation or hammerless for DAO operation. It has a very stiff trigger, though, and can be a little hard to control for a new shooter even on the 9mm model, since it’s small and light.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 7th 2019 at 1:58:09 AM

So, handguns being useless for self defense, which ones are best for having a good time at the range? Also is it okay to bring a dog-shaped target?

Get a Glock. If you’re going to own one handgun, that should be it. If you narrow down what exactly you’re looking for there are many different models to choose from.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 7th 2019 at 2:54:44 AM

I wanna enjoy getting really good at putting holes through a designated spot on a sheet of paper that's far away, without hurting my wrists or busting my eardrums.