Automatic Death

Look at this image. I think nothing illustrates the point of automatic weapons better than this. They aren't for sport, they aren't for home protection. They are for killing with no doubts about whether your target is dead or not. That target is dead because he tried to leave when the place he was in got attacked. Who wouldn't do the same thing? If you had an automatic weapon on your lap, you still wouldn't have gotten off more than a round before that next guy blew you away. I'm a gun owner. I don't want anything like what these guys shot, and I hope to fuck I'm never shot with one because that's church, kids. Fuck, that's gruesome!

Every single day something like this happens. This type of thing happened at a crowded sold out theater. I believe in the right to own a gun to protect our families. I don't believe in this...

The Philosophy of the Technology of the Gun

By Evan Selinger - The Atlantic

Jul 23 2012
 
Does the old rallying cry "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" hold up to philosophical scrutiny?

flickr/United States Air Force

The tragic Colorado Batman shooting has prompted a wave of soul-searching. How do things like this happen? Over at Wired,David Dobbs gave a provocative answer in "Batman Movies Don't Kill. But They're Friendly to the Concept." I suspect Dobbs's nuanced analysis about causality and responsibility won't sit well with everyone.

Dobbs questions the role of gun culture in steering "certain unhinged or deeply a-moral people toward the sort of violence that has now become so routine that the entire thing seems scripted." But what about "normal" people? Yes, plenty of people carry guns without incident. Yes, proper gun training can go a long way. And, yes, there are significant cultural differences about how guns are used. But, perhaps overly simplistic assumptions about what technology is and who we are when we use it get in the way of us seeing how, to use Dobbs's theatrical metaphor, guns can give "stage directions."


Instrumentalist Conception of Technology
The commonsense view of technology is one that some philosophers call the instrumentalist conception. According to the instrumentalist conception, while the ends that technology can be applied to can be cognitively and morally significant, technology itself is value-neutral. Technology, in other words, is subservient to our beliefs and desires; it does not significantly constrain much less determine them. This view is famously touted in the National Rifle Association's maxim: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

"The NRA maxim 'Guns don't kill people. People kill people,' captures the widely believed idea that the appropriate source to blame for a murder is the person who pulled the gun's trigger."

To be sure, this statement is more of a slogan than well-formulated argument. But even as a shorthand expression, it captures the widely believed idea that murder is wrong and the appropriate source to blame for committing murder is the person who pulled a gun's trigger. Indeed, the NRA's proposition is not unusual; it aptly expresses the folk psychology that underlies moral and legal norms.

The main idea, here, is that guns are neither animate nor supernatural beings; they cannot use coercion or possession to make a person shoot. By contrast, murderers should be held responsible for their actions because they can resolve conflict without resorting to violence, even during moments of intense passion. Furthermore, it would be absurd to incarcerate a firearm as punishment. Unlike people, guns cannot reflect on wrongdoing or be rehabilitated.


Beyond Instrumentalism: Gun Use
Taking on the instrumentalist conception of technology, Don Ihde, a leading philosopher of technology, claims that "the human-gun relation transforms the situation from any similar situation of a human without a gun." By focusing on what it is like for a flesh-and-blood human to actually be in possession of a gun, Ihde describes "lived experience" in a manner that reveals the NRA position to be but a partial grasp of a more complex situation. By equating firearm responsibility exclusively with human choice, the NRA claim abstracts away relevant considerations about how gun possession can affect one's sense of self and agency. In order to appreciate this point, it helps to consider the fundamental materiality of guns.

In principle, guns, like every technology, can be used in different ways to accomplish different goals. Guns can be tossed around like Frisbees. They can be used to dig through dirt like shovels, or mounted on top of a fireplace mantel, as aesthetic objects. They can even be integrated into cooking practices; gangster pancakes might make a tasty Sunday morning treat.

But while all of these options remain physical possibilities, they are not likely to occur, at least not in a widespread manner with regularity. Such options are not practically viable because gun design itself embodies behavior-shaping values; its material composition indicates the preferred ends to which it "should" be used. Put in Ihde's parlance, while a gun's structure is "multistable" with respect to its possible uses across a myriad of contexts, a partially determined trajectory nevertheless constrains which possibilities are easy to pursue and which of the intermediate and difficult options are worth investing time and labor into.

"A gun's excellence simply lies in its capacity to quickly fire bullets that can reliably pierce targets."

With respect to the trajectory at issue, guns were designed for the sole purpose of accomplishing radical and life-altering action at a distance with minimal physical exertion on the part of the shooter. Since a gun's mechanisms were built for the purpose of releasing deadly projectiles outwards, it is difficult to imagine how one could realistically find utility in using a gun to pursue ends that do not require shooting bullets. For the most part, a gun's excellence simply lies in its capacity to quickly fire bullets that can reliably pierce targets. Using the butt of a gun to hammer the nail into a "Wanted" post--a common act in the old cowboy movies--is an exceptional use.

What the NRA position fails to convey, therefore, are the perceptual affordances offered by gun possession and the transformative consequences of yielding to these affordances. To someone with a gun, the world readily takes on a distinct shape. It not only offers people, animals, and things to interact with, but also potential targets. Furthermore, gun possession makes it easy to be bold, even hotheaded. Physically weak, emotionally passive, and psychologically introverted people will all be inclined to experience shifts in demeanor. Like many other technologies, Ihde argues, guns mediate the human relation to the world through a dialectic in which aspects of experience are both "amplified" and "reduced". In this case, there is a reduction in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as dangerous, and a concomitant amplification in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as calling for the subject to respond with violence.

French philosopher Bruno Latour goes far as to depict the experience of possessing a gun as one that produces a different subject: "You are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship with you." While the idea that a gun-human combination can produce a new subject may seem extreme, it is actually an experience that people (with appropriate background assumptions) typically attest to, when responding to strong architectural configurations. When walking around such prestigious colleges as Harvard and the University of Chicago, it is easy to feel that one has suddenly become smarter. Likewise, museums and sites of religious worship can induce more than a momentary inclination towards reflection; they can allow one to view artistic and spiritual matters as a contemplative being.

flickr/robertnelson

The Brave One
The points about guns made by Ihde and Latour are poignantly explored in the 2007 film The Brave One. Unfortunately, many critics examined the film through a humanist lens, and bounded by its conceptual limitations, offered damning reviews. Many depicted the movie as a hyperbolic revenge film. All they saw was a gun blazing Jodie Foster playing a character named Erica Bain who copes with a violent assault (that kills her fiancé and leaves her in a three week coma) by moving through one scene after another of gratuitous vigilante violence, using an illicitly acquired 9mm handgun to settle scores and punish criminals that the law cannot touch. A stir was even caused by the following so-called "liberal" remarks that Foster made during an interview:

I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I'm crazy because I'm only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely.

The critics failed to grasp a point that Foster herself underscored in numerous interviews.

Despite its market-driven name, the film is not primarily about human virtues or vices. It does not try to discern whether there is an essential experience of bravery or cowardice, and the extent to which characters in the film personify such ideals. Rather, it is an existential meditation that centers on what Foster calls a "deeper and scarier" theme. Looking beyond the explicit plot and its correlative bursts of visually disturbing depictions of violence, makes it becomes possible to recognize that the film explores the anti-essentialist thesis that people are not unified subjects, but instead are beings with fluid and re-negotiable identities. Especially in the face of trauma, people can abandon old lives and start new ones. In the case at issue, Erica goes from being a woman who lives a relatively disembodied existence -- a radio host who collects the sounds of NY city by blending into its background; a minor celebrity who refuses an offer to appear on television by suggesting that she is more of a voice than a seductive face; and a lover who, at the beginning of the film, is visually contrasted with an athletic looking, long-haired, male-nurse fiancé -- to a someone who can kill in cold blood without experiencing the quintessential physical sign of remorse, shaky hands.

By depicting Erica's metamorphosis as a shift away from disembodiment that is brought by means other than consciousness-raising or personal affirmation, The Brave One challenges the instrumental conception of technology. Erica's transformation is so explicitly and thoroughly dependent upon technological mediation that the audience is led to infer that without the gun, she would be radically debilitated by her beating; her fate would lie in becoming an apartment-bound recluse.

Reflecting on the centrality of technological mediation to the plot, Foster uses phenomenological language and tells the media that the gun "opens up a world" in which Erica is viscerally "materialized" and therein drawn to dangerous situations (e.g., late night trips to a convenience store and subway) where there is an increased likelihood of encountering violence. Since Erica enters these places because of a technologically induced desire, and not because she is deliberately seeking retribution, it may be fitting to consider the gun -as Latour might suggest, through his notion of "symmetry" -- one of the "actors" in the film.

To be sure, The Brave One is just a movie. It isn't a scientific study and it does feature a character who has come undone. But if philosophers like Ihde and Latour are right, we've got more in common with her than most are willing to admit. And this possibility ups Dobbs's already high metaphorical ante.

(thanks to my friend Bob for making me a ware of this article.--jef)

'Fast and Furious' Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF (3 articles)

ATF Director Reassigned; U.S. Attorney Out Amid 'Fast and Furious' Uproar

By William Lajeunesse

Published August 30, 2011| FoxNews.com

 

Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson has been reassigned to a lesser post in the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for Arizona was also pushed out Tuesday as fallout from Operation Fast and Furious reached new heights.

Melson's step down from his role as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the position of senior adviser on forensic science in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Programs is effective by close of business Tuesday, administration officials announced. U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones will replace Melson.

'Fast and Furious' Fallout at Justice

New resignations over failed gun-trafficking scheme

U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke, one of the officials closely tied to Fast and Furious, is also a casualty in a shakeup tied to the botched gun-running program. Burke was on the hot seat last week with congressional investigators and, according to several sources, got physically sick during questioning and could not finish his session.

The purge of those responsible for the firearms trafficking scandal continued as new documents reveal a deeper involvement of federal agencies beyond ATF. 

In Phoenix, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who oversaw Fast and Furious on a day-to-day basis, was reassigned from the criminal to civil division. Also in Phoenix, three out of the four whistleblowers involved in the case have been reassigned to new positions outside Arizona. Two are headed to Florida, one to South Carolina.

Hurley's reassignment came after three ATF supervisors responsible for the operation were promoted. William G. McMahon, a former deputy director of operations, took over the Office of Professional Responsibility. Field supervisors William D. Newell and David Voth also moved up despite heavy criticism. 

The moves follow a series of reports by Fox News detailing the face-off between Attorney General Eric Holder, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, whose investigators have recently broadened their probe. It now reportedly shows a deeper involvement of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

"While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn't off-loaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department," Issa, chairman of the House panel. 

"There are still many questions to be answered about what happened in Operation Fast and Furious and who else bears responsibility, but these changes are warranted. ... I also remain very concerned by Acting Director Melson's statement that the Department of Justice is managing its response in a manner intended to protect its political appointees," Issa continued. 

Operation Fast and Furious, a program designed to track illegal gun sales, turned into an embarrassing scandal after weapons linked to it were found at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent's murder last year (see article below). Thousands of guns ended up in the hands of Mexican cartel members. 

Melson has led the agency since April 2009, supplanting a Bush administration acting director who was also unable to get Senate confirmation over the objections of gun rights groups. It was during his tenure that the ATF Phoenix office began Operation Fast and Furious in the fall of 2009.

According to the Justice Department, Jones will take over ATF in place of Melson beginning Wednesday, and will continue to serve as a U.S. attorney. A permanent replacement at ATF would need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

"As a seasoned prosecutor and former military judge advocate, U.S. Attorney Jones is a demonstrated leader who brings a wealth of experience to this position," Holder said. "I have great confidence that he will be a strong and steady influence guiding ATF in fulfilling its mission of combating violent crime by enforcing federal criminal laws and regulations in the firearms and explosives industries."

Without mentioning either Melson or Burke's role in the Fast and Furious fiasco, Holder also praised the two for their "dedication" and "commitment" to the Department of Justice.

+++++

Sunday, September 4, 2011 by The Hill

Weapons Manufacturers 'Lost' More Than 16,000 Guns over Two Years

by Jordy Yager 

 

More than 16,000 guns were “lost” from gun manufacturers’ inventories over the last two years, according to a report by a gun control advocacy group.

The report, released by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, pulled data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and found that 16,485 guns left the inventories of nearly 4,500 licensed gun manufacturers throughout the country without a record of them ever being sold.

In 2004 Congress passed the Tiahrt amendment – named for its sponsor then-Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas) – which prohibited the ATF from requiring gun manufacturers to track their inventory. The Brady Campaign has long advocated for a repeal of the Tiahrt amendment.

“It is shocking that gun makers are so oblivious to public safety that they lose track of thousands of guns every year,” said Dennis Henigan, the acting president of the Brady Center. “ Given the lethality of its product, the gun industry has a special duty to act responsibly. Instead, it has a scandalous record of carelessness.”

The report states that the unaccounted for guns are often used in crimes because a trace of the weapon is not as likely to lead law enforcement officials back to the criminal.

“This lack of any security or inventory requirement for gun manufacturers and dealers makes it easy for gun sellers to claim falsely that firearms they have sold illegally and “off-the-books,” were lost or stolen,” the report states.

“Firearms that disappear from gun manufacturers’ plants without records of sale are frequently trafficked by gun traffickers and prized by criminals. Guns taken from gun manufacturing plants may also be removed before they have been stamped with serial numbers, making them virtually untraceable.”

The report was not able to identify which specific gun manufacturers had the greatest number of missing guns.

The Brady Center released the report in the wake of an internal shakeup within the ATF and the Justice Department.

Three top officials, including the acting head of the ATF Kenneth Melson, left their positions as a result of their role in the botched Fast and Furious gun tracking operation, which attempted to sell thousands of guns to known and suspected straw buyers for Mexican drug cartels. But officials declined to provide the weapons and their buyers with adequate surveillance, allowing the guns to flow into the hands of criminals on both sides of the border.

The ATF has been without a Senate confirmed director since 2006 largely because of lobbying efforts by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which views some of the agency’s power as an infringement on Second Amendment rights.

 

 ++++++

 

Before this Failed effort was named "Operation Fast & Furious," It was Called "Project Gunrunner"--new name but same ineptitude

 

By Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) 

 

 

WASHINGTON - Keeping American weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican gangs is the goal of a program called "Project Gunrunner." But critics say it's doing exactly the opposite. CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports on what she found.


December 14, 2010. The place: a dangerous smuggling route in Arizona not far from the border. A special tactical border squad was on patrol when gunfire broke out and agent Brian Terry was killed.


Kent, Brian's brother, said "he was my only brother. That was the only brother I had. I'm lost."


The assault rifles found at the murder were traced back to a U.S. gun shop. Where they came from and how they got there is a scandal so large, some insiders say it surpasses the shoot-out at Ruby Ridge and the deadly siege at Waco.


To understand why, it helps to know something about "Project Gunrunner" an operation run by the ATF the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


Read the indictment


"Project Gunrunner" deployed new teams of agents to the southwest border. The idea: to stop the flow of weapons from the US to Mexico's drug cartels. But in practice, sources tell CBS News, ATF's actions had the opposite result: they allegedly facilitated the delivery of thousands of guns into criminal hands.


CBS News wanted to ask ATF officials about the case, but they wouldn't agree to an interview. We were able to speak to six veteran ATF agents and executives involved. They don't want to be quoted by name for fear of retaliation. These are their allegations.


In late 2009, ATF was alerted to suspicious buys at seven gun shops in the Phoenix area. Suspicious because the buyers paid cash, sometimes brought in paper bags. And they purchased classic "weapons of choice" used by Mexican drug traffickers - semi-automatic versions of military type rifles and pistols.


Sources tell CBS News several gun shops wanted to stop the questionable sales, but ATF encouraged them to continue.


Jaime Avila was one of the suspicious buyers. ATF put him in its suspect database in January of 2010. For the next year, ATF watched as Avila and other suspects bought huge quantities of weapons supposedly for "personal use." They included 575 AK-47 type semi-automatic rifles.


ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up. Insiders say it's a dangerous tactic called letting the guns, "walk."


One agent called the strategy "insane." Another said: "We were fully aware the guns would probably be moved across the border to drug cartels where they could be used to kill."


On the phone, one Project Gunrunner source (who didn't want to be identified) told us just how many guns flooded the black market under ATF's watchful eye. "The numbers are over 2,500 on that case by the way. That's how many guns were sold - including some 50-calibers they let walk."


50-caliber weapons are fearsome. For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go. One distraught agent was often overheard on ATF radios begging and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: "Negative. Stand down."




CBS News has been told at least 11 ATF agents and senior managers voiced fierce opposition to the strategy. "It got ugly..." said one. There was "screaming and yelling" says another. A third warned: "this is crazy, somebody is gonna to get killed."


Sure enough, the weapons soon began surfacing at crime scenes in Mexico - dozens of them sources say - including shootouts with government officials.


One agent argued with a superior asking, "are you prepared to go to the funeral of a federal officer killed with one of these guns?" Another said every time there was a shooting near the border, "we would all hold our breath hoping it wasn't one of 'our' guns."


Then, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. The serial numbers on the two assault rifles found at the scene matched two rifles ATF watched Jaime Avila buy in Phoenix nearly a year before. Officials won't answer whether the bullet that killed Terry came from one of those rifles. But the nightmare had come true: "walked" guns turned up at a federal agent's murder.


"You feel like shit. You feel for the parents," one ATF veteran told us.


Hours after Agent Terry was gunned down, ATF finally arrested Avila. They've since indicted 34 suspected gunrunners in the same group. But the indictment makes no mention of Terry's murder, and no one is charged in his death.


Kent Terry said of his brother, "He'd want them to tell the truth. That's one thing my brother didn't like was a liar. And that's what he'd want. He'd want the truth.


In a letter, the Justice Department which oversees ATF says the agency has never knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to suspected gunrunners.

Texas to pass bill allowing guns on college campuses

(Though not a gun toter myself--mine stay at home, other than taking them to a range to shoot--and believe in the 2nd amendment, but I don't think this is a good idea. It also helps propel this image of Texas as the wild west frontier with all our executions and gun carrying. We don't all wear hats and boots and guns or vote Republican. At least 45% of us don't. And some of us are enlightened enough to not vote for either party. But only around 7% or so, unfortunately.--jef)

++++

By Sahil Kapur | Monday, February 21st, 2011

WASHINGTON – Texas is poised to approve a measure allowing college students and professors to carry guns on campus, an initiative with strong support in the state legislature that critics concede they probably can't stop.

The legislation has been championed by Gov. Rick Perry, co-sponsored by over half the lawmakers in the state House, and approved two years ago in the Senate. Texas would follow Utah, the only state in the nation to have a similar law.

"It's strictly a matter of self-defense," state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a Republican, told The Associated Press. "I don't ever want to see repeated on a Texas college campus what happened at Virginia Tech, where some deranged, suicidal madman goes into a building and is able to pick off totally defenseless kids like sitting ducks."

The measure's supporters commonly argue that it would make campus shootings less likely, not more, wading into a key point of contention between opponents and proponents of looser gun laws.

College leaders across the nation have criticized the idea as dangerous, dismissing the view that a filling up the classrooms and dorm rooms with weapons would make inhabitants safer.

Glen Johnson, Oklahoma's chancellor of high education envisioned "no scenario where allowing concealed weapons on college campuses will do anything other than create a more dangerous environment for students, faculty, staff and visitors."

That the Texas legislature overwhelmingly disagrees is a testament to the state's gun culture as well as the towering political influence of the pro-gun lobby.

"Things do look bleak," Colin Goddard of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, who was in Austin lobbying against the bill, told AP. "People want to be the hero, I understand that. They play video games and they think they understand the reality. It's nothing like that."

Nationwide, the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups have in the last two decades outspent gun-control advocates by over 20-to-1 on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Texas ranks 32nd on the list of states with most permissive gun laws, and 23rd in per capita gun deaths, according to data compiled by The Daily Beast.

Become Dangerous

By Paul Bonneau on September 16, 2010

You know who you are. You're a "philosophical libertarian" or "philosophical anarchist." You might think of yourself as a bit bookish or intellectual. You tend to express yourself through words rather than action.

You have a philosophical agreement, perhaps including some discomfort, with the right to bear arms. You either don't own a gun, or the only one you have is an old .22 rifle you inherited from your grandfather which you shot once 15 years ago; it is now sitting forlorn, rusting in the closet.

You are not a full-blown pacifist (all such may check out at this point). You have run certain scenarios through your head and they have all come out badly, when you are honest about it.

Your problem is that you are not dangerous. This article is intended to help you remedy that. I know, this sounds ambitious; but bear with me.

OK, why be dangerous? Isn't non-violence always better?

I am not arguing for violence on your part, but for the capacity for violence, when such is called for. There is some difference there. To bring up an example, think of the stereotypical peaceful kung-fu master from TV or the movies, walking around spreading good and kindness. He avoids or deflects any dispute he can, but finally there is no way to get out of the climactic fight, usually to protect a weaker or smaller person.

After all, what are you going to do if someone breaks into your house (remember those scenarios that turned out badly)? What is a man for, if not for defending his family? I would go so far as to say that is his primary function for his family.

Strange though it may seem, one does not give up being peaceful by becoming dangerous. In fact, the reverse is usually true.

Even Gandhi, the individual most cited by peaceful people, wrote, "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." His genius of course, was taking these lemons the British handed him, and turning them into lemonade. Nonviolence worked so well there because Indians were basically rendered incapable of responding violently to British provocations (which might have short-circuited any gains made nonviolently).

Another reason to become dangerous: we may be thought by the ruling class to be their farm animals, but they will treat us better if we are dangerous, than if we are not. As Machiavelli put it, "Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible." It's definitely not good to be thought contemptible. Being thought dangerous usually forestalls the worst outrages. Imagine some significant percentage of the population heavily armed. Now imagine the same population disarmed. Quite a difference.

But let's finish with the philosophical arguments and get on with it. I'm assuming you will at least entertain the notion of becoming dangerous, but have not a clue where to start. This former high-school science nerd will give you a hand, by cutting through the massive amounts of bullshit and controversy in the world of gun-nuttery, and giving you just what you need to get started. I hope so, anyway.

Oh, and we are talking guns, after all. "Be not afraid of any man, No matter what his size. When danger threatens, call on me And I will equalize." This 1880's-vintage Colt advertising slogan suggests a freedom technology, personal firearms, every bit as significant as Gutenberg's printing press or the Internet. It's time you got up to speed on it.

What are we "shooting" for? Basic competence in handgun and rifle. This is not very difficult. We are not talking anywhere near the commitment needed to get a black belt in karate. That is why this technology is so revolutionary--the smallest woman or the weakest old fart can no longer be intimidated by the largest, meanest thug. Firearms competitions are almost the only kind of sport where women can compete directly against men. That's saying something.

The Tools
On gun forums you will see interminable arguments about what works best, but I suggest you bypass this unless you find you enjoy being drawn into gun-nuttery, as has been known to happen. Instead, buy these three tools:

1) Any semi-auto .22LR rifle
2) Any quality 9mm handgun, your choice (no Ravens, etc.)
3) AR-15 rifle

Before you go shopping however, burn into your memory, forwards and backwards, Cooper's Four Rules of safety. Go buy yourself Cooper's The Art of the Rifle.

The purpose of the .22 is to get you familiar with shooting and gun handling of a semi-auto. Even a $60 Marlin will do. The .22 is also the most insanely useful cartridge on the planet, despite its ancient lineage. Also it's way cheap.

The AR-15 has become almost a commodity by now; just pick any reputable manufacturer. Most gun shops will not sell you schlock, if they want your repeat business (and they do). Stick with a lightweight 20 inch barrel and make it a "flat-top" (no carry handle). The point of a flattop is to put modern optics on the gun; iron sights are silly these days--it's time to move out of the 19th Century! You don't have to go overboard with the optics. Some people sneer at anything less than $150 for rings and $1,000 for the scope, but that is more gun nuttery (a $200, maybe $150 scope should do). You won't be throwing your rifle on the road and driving over it, will you? The scope should be in the 1x4 range (that is, a variable with a low of around 1 power and a high around 4 power). You need the low 1 power for city work, which covers 90% of the population, and for in-house defense. Always leave the scope set at 1x, and only dial it up for the odd long-range shot. A lighted scope reticle is nice if you ever need to shoot in the dark. For the gun, I don't like barrels shorter than 20 inches, despite the small disadvantage for in-house use, because shooting inside a house (e.g., self defense) even with a 20 inch barrel will damage your hearing, and the 16 inchers are pure evil for muzzle blast. But hey, it's your hearing (do use hearing and sight protection for all practice sessions, of course).

For the pistol, ignore the .40 and .45 caliber snobs. The 9mm (9x19 AKA "Parabellum" AKA "Luger," not "Makarov" or "Largo") is the world standard, and substantially cheaper to shoot. For self defense (unlike practice), stick with quality hollowpoints, and shoot enough of them to be sure they feed properly in your gun. Many recommend Glock, great if you plan on driving a truck over it. They have light, sucky triggers. Light is for experts in my opinion, sucky is for lawsuit avoidance. I use a CZ. Just go into the shop and find one that fits your hand well and has a heavier but smooth trigger (a Kahr, maybe?). Don't get too wrapped around this choice; if you don't like it, you can swap it for something else without too huge a loss. It's a tool, that's all.

Practice a reasonable amount with the pistol, using cheap "ball" ammo (and for Heaven's sake, learn the difference between "bullet" and "cartridge," otherwise you will be immediately marked as the tyro). The gun nuts insist on your taking multiple classes from nationally recognized trainers before you can be considered competent, completely missing the point of this technology, which is that you can avoid black-belt level expertise but still get the job done. Any criminal you encounter won't care about your training because he will be running away the instant you haul out a gun.

With the AR-15, you won't be hunting deer with this cartridge (the .223 Remington AKA 5.56 NATO--it's too small a cartridge) but just imagine you are. The kill zone in a deer is roughly a 12 inch circle, so make paper targets like that. Could you reliably kill a deer at 300 yards using field positions? Keep at it until you can; by then you will be ahead of half the military (or more). It is reasonable competence.

Don't have the cash for this? Out of a job? One can find old "police turn in" .38 Special Colt or Smith & Wesson revolvers, used to be $200 but like everything the price has gone up. Try hunting estate sales, as you might get lucky. For rifles, some call the SKS the "poor man's battle carbine," but if you are going to make compromises, I'd rather point you in the direction of a used, scoped bolt action deer rifle. The Wehrmacht did pretty well in WWII using a bolt gun without a scope, so they are not to be sneered at. For caliber, the .308 Winchester is preferred (as it is also a common military caliber); avoid at all costs any kind of Magnum caliber. Anyway, do what you can with what you have.

To be honest, a scoped .308 Win bolt gun might be substituted for the AR-15 even if you are not poor, although gun nuts would be scandalized to hear it (and the government won't think of you as so dangerous--silly them). It's just not an inside-the-house defense gun; far too much penetration (not nice for the neighbors) and not enough speed in reloading. But penetration can be an advantage if you are trying to shoot through cover. The .308 striking power is much greater than the .223, and it is a better long-range gun.

I hope this helps.

"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons." ~ Jeff Cooper