How do you feel about guns?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by lixluke, Jul 31, 2006.

?

Guns

  1. Have no place in this world. Should be abolished like slavery.

    33 vote(s)
    36.7%
  2. Are every human's right.

    57 vote(s)
    63.3%
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Simple is as simple does, but is it enough?

    Such simplicity is not complimentary to your argument. Sorry, I'm not the kind of simpleton such arguments appeal to: Take the incident I mentioned from Seattle, in which a mentally ill man was shot to death after attacking someone who was armed. I wasn't there. I cannot question the propriety of the shooting. Would my life have been in danger? In such circumstances, I can't imagine that gut-shooting someone would be my chosen response even if I was packing. But I'm not that particular crime victim. I can't say what his values are, how much he values himself, how much he values others, or how he feels about the human condition. To pretend the issue is simple would be an injustice both to the dead man and the shooter.

    If those gun owners value illusory standards, that's their business until they make it mine. Of course, if they make it mine, does that mean I'm a fool for not protecting myself with lethal force against "responsible gun owners"?

    Shooting someone over a car, for example: again, not only have I heard such rhetoric from some gun advocates, but I've also known a thief to have been shot over a car stereo. Don't get me wrong, the guy was an asshole, and I'm aware that he wouldn't have hit that car had it not been for my recounting an episode of having locked my keys in my car, but I've had my own cars stolen twice, and no, I don't value "my" safety or "my" daughter's safety enough to own a gun for those occasions. In fact, I would consider it a degradation of my daughter's safety if I did own a gun for such occasions. As to more severe possibilities: how much do we theorize? Bells made some points earlier about situations in which guns would complicate issues at best: Can I draw and shoot straight in time? We can invent diverse hypothetical situations, to be sure, but given the level of abstraction assigned such things as "valuing safety", given the broad range of what constitutes a perceived threat, the notion that "gun-owners value their lives and the safety of their family" is empty rhetoric.

    Rather, most others don't see death as being so natural: it's a part of life. I find it interesting that you claim to not fear death, yet imply ("carelessly try and end my life") that a failure to defend yourself against imagined threats equals suicide. Does a failure to have a home security system mean that people in the Seattle area whose homes have been burglarized recently wanted or chose victimization? Does the failure of a good friend to have armed herself against her father's improprieties during her youth mean she wanted to be raped, or chose to have sexual contact with her father? Does my lack of a personal bomb shelter mean I want the North Koreans to detonate a device in Seattle? Such simplification, Neildo, advances your argument none, but rather reinforces the notion that you're not playing this hand with a full or properly shuffled deck. Are you trying to stack the deck, Neildo, or do you really think and believe according to such sweeping, generalized standards?

    To discuss the issue with you according to your offered terms is to forfeit any sense of question and leap to a preconceived conclusion.

    Consider a simple question with vastly diverse and often complex possible answers: When we weep at a funeral, why are we weeping?

    Most people weep for their own loss, not the loss of the dead. Our compassion for the surviving relatives, for instance, is more often a bulwark against our own guilt, an assuaging of our own greed, than anything else. If people behaved differently, their behavior wouldn't lead to such observational conclusions.

    One need no particular spiritual outlook to recognize and affirm that humans are part of nature. I take that back: one needs a lack of spiritual outlooks that assert otherwise.

    That many people do not lack such outlooks is no reason to abandon them; it is no reason to presume them dangerous. I'm willing to bet my own life at the very least that if crime visits me to the grave or grievous injury, having a gun would have made no difference at all. I'm furthermore willing to be the same stakes that, had I a gun, I would probably regret any decision to use it against a human being, hindsight having shown me alternative routes that I may have seen had I not relied on Death as my copilot.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Oh, where do I begin?

    Okay list the fallacies:
    1: Protecting yourself with deadly force is not a simple decision.
    2: That only simpletons would want to protect themselves.

    Okay Arguments.
    1: Protecting yourself with deadly force is a very simple decision. Not that it is one to take lightly. There is no question of if you value the other persons life, but rather how much you value your own and your family's. There is no consideration for if your attacker wants to live. Before you get to the point of using lethal force you have exhausted other avenues. Now, note that I am not saying blast every scary guy in the world before he so much as winks at you. I mean first try to evade or reason, if you deem it possible. if you don't and fear for your life there should be no probelm with squeezing that trigger. Now this decision does have consequences. You're going to have to answer police questions, and you're going to need some therapy. But at least you'll be alive and in the case where you were afraid of being violated, it's much easier to deal with killing someone than the horrors of being raped. However that coems after the initial decision of do I fight or do i roll over and die.

    2: I am sorry to say but your opening remark paints you as a total moron. Now I know this is not true. You are a very intelligent woman. So I think you should step back, remove emotion form your thinking and look at it. A firearm is just another level of protection, another line of defense. Two more things you can do to prevent great bodily harm and death. Simpletons are the people who believe that gunowners pull first and think later. I did not think you a simpleton.

    What illusory standards? That to them their life is more important than the person attacking them? Now where has any responsible law abiding gun owner made it someone elses business? If they attack you obviously they are not law abiding. If they improperly store their guns they are are not responsible. It seems to me that you are just upset about the criminals. In which case you are a fool if you are not prepared to kill when your or your family's life is on the line. You don't even need a gun to kill an attacker, it just makes your survival more certain.

    How the car is stolen is the difference. Was the car simply gone when you came out from the grocery store? Was it lifted from your garage? Or were you carjacked? In the later case you have already survived russian roulette twice as has your daughter. Gambling with your life is fine, and I suppose if you believe you own your daughter, then gambling with hers is okay as well. Of course if I was DSS I'd be watching you and waiting for you do something else incredibly stupid with your child.

    <sarcasm>Empty rhetoric, damn, you really got me there. So I guess I should just march my ass down to the local gang and let them do what they want. While I'm at it perhaps you'd join me and bring your daughter. </sarcasm>

    Do you get the point yet. Almost everyone values their lown life. Even you do. However some of us are willing to go a few extra steps to make sure we stay alive. Will a gun help in every situation? No. Then again neither does anything else. There is nothing that works in every situation. A gun just gives the CCW permit holder another avenue of action. She might not ever use it but she does have the option.

    Now I can understand your concerns for not owning a gun, that is fine, don't own one then. None of us are trying to make you. However do not try to infringe my right becuase your scared. If i haven't attacked or threatened you then you just have to get over it. Go see a therapist, move to a deserted isle, move to England, or something. Just try to remember not carrying a gun is your choice and and everyone else is not you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The color of what?

    (1) Then gun advocates should not, in the broader context of the debate, reduce self-protection to such simplistic terms.
    (2) I have no idea where you're getting that.

    Some people in my life would say I should thank you for the compliment. Specifically, that last. Sadly, though, it's nearly funny.

    As to your "Okay Argument" #1, you're showing a basic grasp of the conundrum. If we look to the issue of the car, we see the conundrum developing further:

    In the first place, if you're going to try to compliment, or at least acknowledge me as a "very intelligent woman", at least treat me like it. Or perhaps the problem is your own value equations. Put simply: Don't you think there's a difference between my car and my daughter?

    If I meant carjacked, I would have said it. Now look to something I wrote that you chose to respond to:

    - As to more severe possibilities: how much do we theorize? Bells made some points earlier about situations in which guns would complicate issues at best: Can I draw and shoot straight in time?

    So let's just think about this: Someone's got a gun pointed directly at me, at point blank range. (After all, you don't carjack from a hundred meters, right? Or maybe they do in your neighborhood.)

    Could you draw and shoot in time?

    Something about the color you paint yourself goes here.

    Yes, empty rhetoric. Just like the rest of that paragraph of yours. Where do you come up with this stuff, Mr. Scott? Do you have a writing team handing you ill-conceived, poorly-edited scripts? Do you pay some guy in Los Angeles seventy-five bucks for every supposed zinger? Even Leno's jokes aren't that bad.

    How much do we theorize? What exact circumstances would you like to sketch out? After all, given even minimal effort, either of us could come up with a textbook example of when a gun is absolutely necessary.

    And this is part of the problem: do you wish to consider that extraordinary circumstance to be the norm? Would that not be somewhat unrealistic?

    Because yes, there is a consideration of whether one's "attacker" wants to live. What if your attacker is actually someone who is just trying to ask you for directions? Shoot him dead through a closed door? What if your "attacker" is just a hungry thirteen year-old living on the street and rummaging through your trash for something to eat? Both those have happened, and while I wouldn't paint them as the normal situation, they're at the very least as fair as the contrived example either one of us could invent.

    The problem with broad rhetoric is that many meanings are reduced to one: that one is whatever an individual chooses it to mean. The next person does not necessarily believe the same thing.

    It would serve you well, Mr. Scott, to try to follow along: the text you choose to elevate as a generalism may well--and in this case, does--have a specific context. Ignoring that context in favor of the self-righteous is rather ridiculous. Such as:

    Actually, what's interesting is that you are not the first to criticize me for my self-defense policy. Of course, TimeTraveler just claims to not understand my outlook. That's fair. As to "infringing" rights? As to making someone do anything?

    Perhaps you would like to explain just what the hell you mean by that? Are you proposing that I ought to get a gun in response to a crime--e.g. a carjacking? Would that be the "responsible" thing to do? I will repeat a point I've raised before: Knowing my daughter, and considering the circumstances under which possessing a firearm would assist me in an immediate crime, there is absolutely no way I could be compelled to bring a loaded firearm into the house in any form that is remotely accessible before the bad guys make it from the front door to wherever I've stored the weapon. I know what she's capable of. And I know that my gun would be more likely to accidentally injure or kill someone in my household than take on a criminal. Keeping a gun in that environment? Horsefeathers, Mr. Scott. Absolutely, ridiculously irresponsible.

    If I want to do something incredibly stupid with my child, I'll put within the range of her capabilities a firearm that would be effective against a hostile entry to my home.

    That, Mr. Scott, would be incredibly stupid.

    As to infringing on your rights? Given that I've stated my perspective, and presuming you to have actually considered that perspective in order to pass such judgment as to accuse me of infringing on your rights, I can only conclude that the rights you wish to protect fall under the category that would be dismissed as a ridiculous exaggeration if presented to other gun advocates.

    Perhaps you'd like to clarify? What rights? Infringed how?

    Have I infringed upon your right to be deemed courageous despite your broad and irrational fear? Have I infringed upon your right to take out the whole damn neighborhood, or even the kid across the street, while protecting your home from a burglar? Have I infringed upon your right to shoot someone for asking directions? Do you disagree with Neildo and me that there is, in fact, a proper idea of "common sense" gun control? Was it Time Traveler who raised the issue of people who want to kill others or themselves? What? Hello? Are you thinking violent thoughts, and upset that some people think you should, therefore, be prohibited access to machines designed to kill?

    What? What right am I attempting to infringe? And how?

    You're an intelligent woman ... I mean ... er ... you're smart, Mr. Scott. Please, take a breath and give it some thought. Really. Do not infringe on your right? Fine. What right are you claiming?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    If I may summarize the thread so far regarding gun control:

    I haven't seen a single valid argument against gun control in the entire thread.

    1. Switserland has a militia with tight gun control laws. And a well-regulated militia.

    2. Finland has most firearms in Europe with tight gun control laws (third highest density of firearms in the world). However, all guns licences are aimed at letting owners enjoy their favourite gun 'sport'. And they do. Yet much less police and less firearm violence than in the USA.

    Ergo, gun control does not prevent gun 'enjoyment' or ownership. Nor does it prevent the formation of an effective well regulated militia.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    My point is this Neildo. You are going along the premise that all gun owners who have a concealed to carry licence are responsible. My point is that not all are. Sure quite a few of them might be, but not all. Not all gun owners are responsible.

    I wonder how many never bother with the concealment licence, instead just get a gun permit and carry it around with them? I'd actually hate to think of the numbers. You might say they are breaking the law or they somehow do not apply, but the fact of the matter is, it is the law that allowed them to buy the gun to carry on their person (which is a breach of the law). You've admitted yourself and the figures show that very few get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Surely you don't assume that others who don't have the permit simply do not carry theres for "protection"?

    Your comment about weapons in the home not requiring a lot of training is another point that demands comment. I'd have assumed that any weapon one decided to get should require the maximum training for all possible scenarios as being mandatory. Having a gun in a house should not require less training than if you wish to carry a concealed weapon.

    Well if he was anything like TT who thinks people should have AK47's and Uzzi's for self defence, who knows what the hell he was using. The point is that having a gun in the home or on your person can make a situation deadlier than it might have been otherwise. A lot of the quotes posted above by Tiassa, pulled from your links only prove that not having or drawing a gun probably saved their lives.

    Ask your VP for how easily it is to shoot someone by accident lol.

    I find people who are that paranoid are the ones who will over react the quickest. As for the bible thumping anti blacks, homosexual gun owners.. they are sadly your biggest supporter in this argument. But I think waiting for a terrorist invasion or a fall of government can be just as bad or dangerous. You can see those taking aim at any muslim person who comes into their crosshairs.

    The whole mentality of "if you dont have a gun you're putting your life at risk and are irresponsible" is for me quite ridiculous. I've never owned a gun and have never once needed to use one. I haven't been lucky as I was once attacked by a close acquaintance of mine in a car park, and he was someone I'd known for years. Even if I had a gun, I'd have never been able to even access it as when someone is attacked and an attempted rape follows, the woman is basically pinned down and a gun in such a situation would probably have seen me killed. Even after that, the thought of owning a gun never even entered my head. As for my attacker? He suffered more than I did as the last thing you do is attack a woman who's not only a lawyer, but one who has many friends in the police force and who has a set of keys in her hand. I have also been stalked by criminals, threatened, etc by said criminals and I still would never own a gun as it would not make me safer, nor would I feel safer having it on me or in my home. The statistics show that we are most likely to be harmed or killed by people we know than by strangers. Tell me Neildo, do you own a gun to protect you from people you know, love and trust? Because that's what owning a gun for protection will come down to, since you are much less likely to be harmed by a stranger than someone you know.

    Yet any law abiding citizen can go out and legally attain a gun, and then use that gun to wilfully harm or kill others.

    Yes there are. But what does owning a gun have to do with it? You've said yourself very few are ever permitted to get a permit to carry a gun concealed on your person. So how will those people who do work in the bad side of town at night etc, manage if they cannot get a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Well it would make getting a gun for self defence a bit pointless since if they did use it for self defence when walking those 'mean dark streets', they'd be breaking the law as they have no permit.

    I wonder how many people who commit a crime with a gun first bought that gun when they were a law abiding citizen? I have a feeling the figures would be scary. You seem to act as though everyone who buys a gun legally is a 'good guy'.. one who would never do anything wrong with said gun.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Is this meant to be a jibe? Because not only do I not live in a gated community but in an inner city suburb sans security guards, I have probably faced more criminals than you will ever see in your lifetime. I've had them stalk my home, my car, etc. I live in the reality that you bought a gun to protect yourself from. It's only been since I had a child that I stopped working because I chose to and could afford to. And never once have I ever even felt the need or the desire to own a gun. Having a gun would have made the situations I've faced in the past deadly, not just to me but to the assailants as well. Having a child will never see me wanting a gun in my home. Even if it is locked away and unloaded, I'd never have such a weapon in the same home as my child, as with Tiassa, I know what my child is capable of and I would be a bad parent having a gun in my home. And such a weapon would be useless if someone ever did break into my home, as Tiassa pointed out, by the time I got to the safe and got the gun out and then got to the bullets and loaded the damn thing, I'd have better spent my time getting my children and myself out of the house by either a window or back or side door, puting myself and my children out of harms way, instead of attempting to engage the intruder with a gun, which would put my children and myself IN harms way.

    When it supposedly happens, your gun will probably be useless. When it happens, your primary concern will be to find shelter and food and transport to get the hell out of there. If you are willing to shoot other people in the same boat as you, then so be it. But if such a disaster occurs, and you manage to survive, then running around with a gun along with everyone else will only result in more death.

    Being prepared is one thing. Arming one's self to the eyeballs "just in case" is another thing altogether. Tell me Neildo, if an earthquake hit tomorrow and your house was coming down around your ears, what would you do first? Get out of said house as quickly as possible or go to your safe for your guns and bullets and then get out, risking death from said house crashing down on you? Because if you are a responsible gun owner, when at home, your gun will be in a safe and the bullets kept elsewhere.. hmm think how much time and running around in a house that's collapsing that would take... So which would you do? I know what I'd do.

    So if a person breaks into your house with a baseball bat, you'd be justified in killing them with a gun? Ermm do you not have such a thing as reasonable use of force? For example, if you are attacked with a fork, using a gun to defend yourself is an unreasonable use of force. Do you have any proof at all that when the police say not to take the law into your own hands they are lying for public image? Because not once have I heard any of the police I know say the same thing to me. On the contrary it's always been do not ever put yourself in danger by taking the law into my own hands and to run or get out (eg in a break in).

    Its perfectly legal to defend yourself yes. But using force within reason (reasonable force in response to the threat to your person or property) and that is justified.

    I have been lucky? Hardly. And if someone ever did break into my house Neildo, the last thing I'd want in my house is a gun that the intruder could use on my child and I. If someone does break into my house while I am in it, then my first priority would be to get myself and my child out of the house. I have installed screens and such to allow for such an occurence, not for intruders mind you, but for ease of escape in the event of a fire. Again Neildo, if someone broke into my house, my time would be much better spent getting my child and myself out of the house instead of running to the safe to get the unloaded gun, then running to get the bullets and then loading it, all this after getting my kid and hiding them and hoping to all hell that in defending myself, my kid and my property that I don't somehow hit my child through a wall or get myself killed in the process.

    Funny you should speak about the safes and how they should be used..

    I'd suggest you actually read this article. It's quite scary when you realise how irresponsible people are and how numerous they are:

    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/CtMcClurg.htm

    So running around (possibly through the house if the intruders enter while I am in another part of the house) the house to the safe, if the intruders have not entered the area where the gun is stored, then to the bullets, loading the gun, getting to my child and hiding him or getting him out of the house (while I stupidly stay to defend my property

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), will save me? All because I have a boom boom stick? Are you kidding me? I'd probably be safer if I just get myself and my son out of the house than running around getting the damn gun, getting the bullets and then stand there loading it, all after hiding my child and then getting ready to face the intruders who are probably running through the house looking for any occupants. Ya. I can see how THAT is reasonable. I'll tell you now, someone breaks into my house when I am in it, I don't look back.. I get the hell out and take my son with me. A house is a house. It's property that can all be replaced. My life and my son's life cannot. I would never once even consider running around getting a gun and loading it instead of just getting out. That to me would make me an irresponsible person and more importantly, parent.

    Yes.. I would want everyone to be armed and ready next time a terrorist attack occurs or another deadly natural disaster occurs.. after all, who wouldn't want a bunch of scared and desperate people running around with guns. Tell me Neildo, when 9/11 occured. What was the first thing you did? Reach for your gun? I wonder if anyone in the towers were armed when they were hit. Because I can tell you now, their main priority was to get out. Any weapon in such a situation would have been useless. And what about the race riots in LA. If that truck driver had had a gun, he'd be dead by now. But hang on a sec.. didn't you say you wouldn't want a gun because people who get them who are scared of blacks, homosexuals etc are just idiotic and more dangerous and therefore should not be trusted?.. well that argument kind of goes out the window after all doesn't it... So to protect yourself from such another event would mean what exactly? Hmm?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    I'm tempted to bring up your views and personal accounts in Sao Paulo and the muggings there where you bring an extra $5 just for those incidents..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    For that crazed-man to attack someone, being shot is an approriate response. Why on earth do you dare attempt to defend criminals? Don't want to get shot? Simple, don't friggin' attack people! And don't say this is a special case because the criminal was a mental patient because cases like that happen all the time where the assaulter isn't a mental patient. And how does the victim know the guy's a mental patient anyways?

    As you've seen in the threads I posted, attackers have been warded off without the use of a gun so obviously you can see that not every account involves the assaulter being shot. It's not for you to judge whether or not a gun was justifiable, only the victim is. Again, in your case you mention, the attacker was shot. In many cases, an attacker was shot. In some cases you've read, the attackers weren't shot. Either way it doesn't matter what the victim chose to do as no matter what, the assaulter was committing a violent crime. Please quit trying to defend criminals making them out to be the victims and the regular citizens being assaulted as the bad guys.

    A thief isn't just being shot over a car stereo. Why not? Because thieves don't just take one car stereo. A thief is a thief -- they steal multiple things from mutiple people. Do you want to know why your car was stolen TWICE? Because of people like you who would basically let the thief go free. You think that you're the only victim and you just let a thief go who was just stealing one car stereo, but no, that thief went off to steal from other people. By you not taking action, you allowed other people to fall victim to that person. This is why it's disheartening when not just a thief, but an attacker or failed rapist runs away because it means that unfortunately, someone else is going to fall prey to them, and they most likely won't be saved from the attacker running away, but rather the next victim wind up getting hurt big time.

    I wasn't referring to suicide but rather being careless with my safety. You know, like walking into a bad part of town at night without any protection. Or extreme sports people that do crazy things for the rush where their lives are easily put in jeopardy?

    Religious people sure love heaven, yes? Isn't it supposed to be the greatest thing that is pure paradise? Well, there are billions of people on this earth that are religious yet I don't see any of them wanting to die anytime soon. Go ask those people how they feel about death and I betcha almost all of em will say while they don't fear death, they don't wanna die or put themselves in situations where they risk doing so, even though paradise supposedly awaits them when that time comes.

    Why don't you ask the people who were victim when those times came? No, it doesn't mean those victims WANT those acts to happen, but rather they could have prevented them from happening once the bad guys decided to do the deed. I'm sure you're aware of all the stories of people kicking themselves wishing they would have done this or that to help prevent those acts from happening and/or being able to put a stop to it affecting them when it came.

    I weep not from the person being dead, but from seeing the saddness of everyone else weeping. The saddness of many has a bigger effect than the saddness of one person, the person who died.

    I don't understand what this has to do in regards to the gun argument though.

    Yes, which is why over 1.5 million crimes are prevented each year thanks to guns when only 600,000 or so crimes are commited with a gun. Guns benefit us more each year than they do criminals.

    Because nobody is against gun control, not even gun-owners. What we're against is ridiculous gun control which renders us owning them basically useless or even worse, banning them outright.

    And in case you don't already know, gun control already exists in the U.S.

    As for Finland having laws against not being able to use a gun in self-defense, that's fine with them, but not for us. We have a higher amount of crime in our country than they do. It's a part of daily life for many people. Guns stop over 1.5 million violent crimes each year so there's a good defensive use for them while only 600,000 or so crimes are commited each with them. And guns are outright BANNED in the cities where the majority of crimes in our country happens -- and in case you don't realize BANNED is worse than "strict-gun control" of Finland -- yet gun crimes still happen. There isn't anything you can do to stop a criminal from commiting a crime nor stop them from getting a gun as you can see with them being banned, the ultimate of extreme control.

    Well yeah, that's obvious. With everything in life there are bad seeds, but you don't see them being considered the majority, do you? There are corrupt cops, irresonsible doctors, sex-craved teachers, and all sorts of examples. By trying to point out rare cases, you're preaching to the choir doing whatever you can to make the group you don't like seem bad. Save those obvious comments because all it does is point out how little real material you have against gun-owners and only goes to show how desperate you are in trying to make them look bad.

    Another example of a desperate comment. Yes, obviously there are people who carry around guns not for protection. Those are criminals. Those are the people we try to protect ourselves from. And heck, most criminals don't even bother to get a permit in the first place as that means their name is in the database known to be an owner of a handgun.

    Yes, and? Does that mean the law is faulty? Nope. As with Spuriousmonkey mentioning how you can't own a gun in Finland for "defensive purposes" yet you can for numerous others, all you have to do is say you want the gun for the other reasons, even if it may be for defensive reasons, and you can own one. And then he'll say that "oh, but law requires your gun to be disassembled in a safe" which, uh, doesn't mean anything if the police don't go door-to-door to check up on everyone making sure that's what they do.

    Anyhow, yes, as I've said before, there are people who pack a gun without a CCW permit. Everyone abuses laws. And for those people without a CCW permit that carry them for self-defense purposes, they get prosecuted when they end up using a firearm out in public for defensive purposes. However, I'm sure that's a risk they're willing to take. Many people value their life over death and see jail time as a slight inconvenience.

    And hell, people still get thrown in jail for defending their home with a shotgun or rifle which is perfectly legal and a perfectly legal thing to do when robbed or assaulted in your home. Things aren't so easy for gun-owners. Every gun-owner expects his ass to get in trouble when involved in an incident where they're victim, even when doing everything by the book. Even when everything goes perfectly and you don't get charged for defending yourself, your gun still gets confiscated at the very least.

    Oh, I agree. I have no problem with extra mandatory classes. Most people I know have taken 2-3 classes, some even advanced ones that involve S.W.A.T.-like tactics. Personally, it's fun as hell and I don't know why people wouldn't wanna do it, but that all costs extra money. Maybe if we weren't taxed SO friggin' much just to own a gun, people would be able to take those classes. To just even ATTEMPT to get a CCW permit, it costs around $200 for the paperwork, and that doesn't mean you'll be accepted. That right there is enough for an awesome class. It sucks for those who have a sherriff who turns down people left and right because he's anti-gun where people have to try mutiple times or wait until the sherriff is out of office before attemping to try again for a CCW permit. And again, that's just the cost for the paperwork for a CCW permit, you have to pay for all sorts of papers and it quickly adds up!

    Yes, and people can already own AKs and Uzis. However, what you people fail to realize is that citizens are restricted to semi-automatic weapons (ie: single shot, NOT fully automatic) so there's nothing to fear about an AK over a regular ol' hunting rifle as they're basically the same otherwise except for looks.

    Again, duh, yeah, a situation CAN be made deadlier, but more often than not, it isn't so. Everyone realizes bad things happen and again, that applies to everything. Quit trying to paint the rare bad occurances as common things otherwise I may never go to the doctor again or send my kids to school in fear of all the experimental doctors and pedophile teachers out there.

    I know, and that's the reason why I posted those links for those that think we all just shoot first and ask questions later.

    And thank you for pointing out how rare they are. Name another VP, President, or any other government official who's had that incident happen to them.

    Hunting accidents are quite common though, and I put emphasis on common. Good thing I stay away from it, but that's a risk hunters have no problem dealing with.

    And while I'd hate to break the news to you, but those places also have lower crime. The "blue states" are the states with the highest crime rates in the U.S. -- and it's an ungodly high number at that with just New York city taking up 25% of it. And of course I'm going to have to mention that the majority of those blue states and cities have total gun bans. Remove NYC, NJ, and D.C. from those lists who are blue states/cities which ungodly high crime rates and the U.S. will look real good with an overall low crime rate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again, that law-abiding citizen isn't one if he chooses to commit that act. Sure, it'll allow him to legally acquire a gun, but he'd still be better off doing it the criminal way of getting one on any ol' bad street corner, otherwise if he does it legally, he's now in the gun database, has to wait 10 days to get a gun, etc etc, when he can do it at the drop of a hat the way most criminals do.

    Yes, very few people own a CCW permit, and usually those types of people I mentioned are the ones with those permits. You have to have a reason to own a CCW permit and that's one of those good reasons. The cops wind up doing a complete background check on you and they'll find out which hours they work in what locations to see if the person is telling the truth and whatnot.

    Again, you're using the rare cases trying to make them out to be the majority. I am curious as to what the figures are though and how high legally acquired guns are used in crimes. At the very least, I know the majority of guns used in crimes are bought off the black market, are stolen, or are taken from someone they've trusted (friend takin it, kid takin it, etc) from breaking their safe, gettin it from their "secret" hiding spot, or being a moron and having it in a display case or something like that.

    I can almost guarantee you've not had as many criminal encounters as I, unless you're a cop in a big city, but at any rate, for you to say that and even still be vehemently opposed to the right of self-defense leaves me in utter disbelief. It's one thing to not ever been victim to a crime and preach peacy-peacy being against guns, but to actually have been victim so many times and still do so? Wow. Either you're a complete fool, may be a lil kinkster masochist, or you have higher morals than Gandhi himself.

    10 seconds is all you'd need. Grab a mini-safe and keep it near your bed that is either fingerprint activated or another similar activation that uses a touch-combination where you place your fingers in a certain order onto the lock. Those are made for those instances where you're in the dark unable to see. So lean over, do a quick instant fingerprint scan, safe pops open, grab pistol and magazine, slide magazine in, pull back the slide, grab mini flashlight from in safe, and you're good to go.

    A gun won't be useless. That's when it'll be needed the most. A gun in an instance of a natural disaster is used to defend your home from looters either trying to steal your goods, or the numerous people out looking for food. And sorry, in the example I gave, "getting the hell out of there" is impossible as there's only two highways that go up and down California so I'd be stuck able to go from one disaster spot to another, heh.

    Well I have a one-story house with nothing in the attic so I wouldn't have to worry about it crashing down upon me as badly as one in a multi-story one or apartment complex. And uh, you thinking I'd run for my guns first is pretty funny.

    Here's what would happen:

    Big earthquake hits. Sleep through it until I realize it's "the big one", jump outta bed naked with a sheet around me or hopefully I had some boxers on, wake up everyone, grab the dogs, head under a doorway frame (most reinforced parts of a home), or head out to the front yard (poles and wires are in backyard) depending on how much time we have. Assuming all homes crumbled and fell apart, I'd go out to the shed where my secondary emergency supplies are since the ones in my home would have a hard trouble being accessed, turn on the portable hand-cranked/solar radio and found out what's going on and which roads are closed and/or cut off or jammed to the high heavens. Assuming the ways out of here are gone and we're stuck in our lil' plains surrounded by the hills, I'd have to hunker down and stay in our home. Guns won't be needed until a couple days later once some people run out of food and water or if some hoodlums start doing some early looting for expensive supplies that do no good when all hell's broken loose (I've always said WTF are people doing stealing TVs and stereos when Hurricane Katrina hit).

    Anyhow, where I live, luckily we have numerous military bases over here. About a 5 minute walk down the street, I have the west coast Seabee base here which is a construction battalion unit. So I'd go volunteer, start helping with the rebuilding process and all that while the people at home defend it. Our neighborhood watch is a tightly knit group so we'd be fine securing our neighborhood from looters although my goods would still be hidden very well because sorry, I gotta make sure I have enough supplies for us before we can help others which is why ya never show off what stuff you have because you become a target for those in need.

    Ahh yes, more whacky scenarios, lol. Anyhow, yes, I WOULD be justified shooting the burglar. Would I do it? No. First off, it's only legal here to shoot a burglar if you were "scared for your dear life" which yea, anyone can go ahead and say, but don't think the cops take your word for it as a huge investigation happens.

    If a burglar comes at me with a friggin' fork, I wouldn't stoot him on the spot because he's non-threatening. However, if he continued to charge me then yes, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot him as him charging is showing he wants confrontation. I guess you want me to drop my handgun and go grab another fork so we can have an even fork-duel or something? Afterall, that's the least I can do to show this guy respect and make things equal even though he's a friggin' criminal breakin the law trying to surprise burglarize my family and I at night.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Usually the burglar would run at the sound of me racking the slide (assuming they didn't see me) or if they saw me with a gun, they'd still try and run even if it was still being pointed at them. If the burglar decided to run, I'd shoot em in the leg or foot. Nothing fatal as I don't think petty theft decides to wind up with death, but I WILL stop that guy from fleeing so he gets arrested so he won't be able to burglarize another home which may not have a gun-owner there to protect his family. Because he didn't attack me doesn't mean he may not attack the next unlucky family.

    As for the police question, yes. Most cops, you know, the level-headed common sense ones, will tell you that you should always have protection. I've even asked that question to spokesmen that say that on T.V. and say they only say it because they have to. But the biggest reason is that the reason why what they say is not true on T.V. is that defending yourself in your own home isn't taking the law into your own hands because it's perfectly legal to. Writing a ticket to someone would be taking the law into your own hands as you're doing someone else's job. Vigilante justice is taking the law into your own hands, not defending your own home. Is putting on your seatbelt for safety "taking the law into your own hands"? Is looking both ways while crossing the street "taking the law into your own hands"? Uh, heh, no. Those acts are perfectly legal and you're not doing anyone else's job. The police's job isn't to protect you but to enforce laws and capture those that break them.

    Nice of you to know that, so why are you trying to create some whacky stories for me to respond to when I obviously know the law as well?

    Oh, so you mean to tell me that the times you've been a victim to crime, you didn't luck out by them not taking any violent action against you and that they HAVE done so but you still feel you don't want people to defend themselves with guns? Uh..

    I hope Spuriousmonkey reads that. I'm curious as to how many people in Finland actually have their rifles fully disassembled when kept in their safe, even though it's the law.

    Nope, just sat there and watched the news. You're confusing me with TT. I don't own a gun to protect myself from a terrorist considering there's a 0.00001% chance or even worse odds of me never being involved in one of their attacks. However, in TT's case of having to deal with the aftermath of destruction happening would be a lot higher, especially depending on where you live if in one of the high-valued targets. If he lives in New York, his having to deal with a nuke is like me waiting for "the big one" of earthquakes, except that regular damaging ones happen all the time over here, or numerous other accounts where damage isn't done, but we're stuck here for awhile in the case of mudslides. 9 hours to travel what would normally be 35 minutes all from one little mudslide.. ugh. If both highways had a mudslide, I would have been stuck there. Thankfully, it was a little mudslide so I only had to travel a long ways that one day and miss work for another. Even with those lil mudslides that happened all over last year, them being little ones, Schwarzenegger called for a state of emergency.

    Nope, their main priority was to sit around in the towers thinking nothing was happening since the higher ups said "remain calm, nothing is happening" while the poor people listened to what their dumbass supervisors told em. Why do you think so many people died during 9/11? They were all sitting ducks. That's what happens when you put your trust in others instead of looking out for yourself. The smart ones left that said "hey, a plane crashed into this tower, it's better safe than sorry to leave now just in case". I would have been one of the few who left on their own when the first plane hit because I put my trust in myself. You can go ahead and listen to your supervisor and stay in your little cubicle just like you'll hope for the police to come when you call 911, or hope that the next time you get mugged, you don't wind up raped or violently hurt. Let 9/11 be a wake up call to what will happen to you in the future by not looking out for yourself.

    Huh? When'd I ever say I wouldn't want a gun? I'd always want a gun, heck, even during a useless time such as 9/11 if I were up in those towers. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

    Wow, you must own a large home, I congradulate you on your success. Let's hope one day you don't find yourself wishing you'd have spent a mere $300 on a gun with all the money you may have. Mine's only around 1600 SQ feet and I can run from one end of the place to the other in 5 seconds. Hallway with rooms that lead to the living room with front door on left side and right leads to the kitchen. The kitchen has a door that leads to a small den which also leads back to the hallway. And, um, I can open my safe and load up a pistol in 5-10 seconds too. I suggest you invest in a dog or home alarm to give you that much-needed warning you seem to need to run around and grab your kid and flee to safety.

    - N
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Am I every economist? And it was Rio.
     
  11. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Thats a good summary of guns, Spurious. I came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that it was a cultural issue. The USA has high gun incident rates because of several reasons, such as large areas of poverty, macho culture, a general miasma of fear, requiring the scared person to have a gun to feel safe, and the idea that you need your gun to hold off the gvt.
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So if he'd shot the first thief he'd have never had his car stolen a second time? Ermm ok. And you'd shoot and possibly kill someone over your car? So if you're fast asleep at night and someone steals your car while you are in bed, you've somehow allowed that thief to escape? Where's the reasoning in that? So if you catch the thief or would be rapist and they attempt to run away, you'd shoot them in the back? Ermm ok. You do realise that would be a criminal offence as since they aer running away, they no longer pose a threat to you or your car? Hmmmm.. So if the thief or rapist was getting away and therefore no longer posing the threat to you, why would you need to defend yourself against the retreating threat? It's no longer a threat. And again, shooting someone over a car or car stereo.... *sigh*.. it's just a car and a car stereo.

    Why do you equate not wanting to die with owning a gun? Why do you assume that if people don't like guns, they are somehow not only unable to defend themselves, but somehow want to die? I'd say the opposite is true. If you don't own a gun, you cannot place yourself in an even more dangerous position, such as shooting a shotgun down a hallway to defend your home, while your kids slept in their beds on the other side of the wall. No home is worth shooting a gun over with your kids still in the house. Any person who has an intruder in their home, their primary goal should be to get out and get their family out of harms way, instead of placing them in harms way by engaging said intruders with a gun.

    And in many instances, a gun wouldn't have done squat. Even the quotes pulled from your sources say the same thing. A gun will not prevent you from being attacked Neildo. After all, if it is concealed, the assailant will not know you're carrying one and most criminals will attack you by surprise, and even you have admitted, in many such instances, you will not be able to draw the weapon.

    Hmm a bad seed with a gun. Comforting. And Neildo, your attempts at making all gun owners look good just do not work.

    So do irresponsible gun owners also classify as being in the "bad seed" category?

    That's an interesting point. So you'd respect these law abiding citizens being able to just buy a gun and get a gun licence because hey.. they're law abiding citizens right? But as soon as those people just start carrying the gun on their person because they're paranoid and think they need it for protection and don't have a permit to do so, they become criminals and you claim you're carrying your concealed weapon to protect yourself against these particular people as well as people who commit crimes such as assault, etc? LOL!

    Ironic.

    Ah so now people who carry a gun without a concealment permit are somehow not breaking the law.. merely abusing it.. but hey that's alright right? If they're carrying it to defend themselves.. that's fine right? Hmmm shame it's those people who carry a gun without a permit have done so without any training to do so whatsoever. They are the ones who will simply pull out the gun at any time and shoot first. They are the ones who would not know how to properly defend themselves, instead relying only on the gun, therefore posing more of a risk to the general public. And you think these people should not be prosecuted for breaking the law?

    Mabye the following has something to do with it..

    Hmmm.. so in 80% of cases, it is "generally not necessary to fire the weapon" because the assailant is unarmed.. and so you somehow think they shouldn't be charged if they do fire said weapon even if they didn't need to? So would those people fall into the "bad seed" category or would they simply be classified as stupid gun owners? Ah but you're only going along the premise that all gun owners who have their licence are properly trained and therefore would not do anything stupid and would know how to read a situation so as to not fire the thing unnecessarily.. sooo the 80%, who faced and drew fired their weapon when their assailant was not armed with a gun and therefore such a disparity between the victim and assailant was so huge, slot in there how and where exactly?

    Or he can just purchase it privately and it'd still be legal.
    Comforting isn't it?

    Why? Because I don't need a gun to defend myself and haven't needed one in the past? When I was attacked by my so called friend in the car park, I would not have been able to draw the gun, so it would have been pointless to have one. When stalked, threatened and followed.. again a gun would have done nothing. You have this assumption that no one can defend themselves unless they have a gun, when evidence shows the contrary is true. Even your own links show that a gun is not always necessary and in many instances, it's better to not draw a gun as doing so would have made the situation worse. Why do you assume that people who don't want guns for self defence are somehow unable to defend themselves? Why do you assume that because I don't want a gun, that I somehow want harm to come to myself or that I want to die? I don't have a gun because I don't want need or want one. Do not dare assume that my refusal to arm myself with a deadly weapon somehow means that I want to die or that I want to put myself in harms way. And do not dare assume that one cannot defend one's self unless one is armed with a gun. Your continual assumption and accusations do nothing for your argument. All it does show is the continual parroting by such organisations as the NRA who attempt to scare people into getting a gun for self defence.. when in actual fact, a gun is not the be all and end all of one's self defence.

    And for such a thing in my house to be effective, I'd need to have a gun in just about every room in the damn house. Because if I'm in the kitchen for example, it would mean that I would have to get my son, run to my bedroom, and then do the little scenario you've listed above. Now even in the 10 seconds you've mentioned above when the intruder comes in while we're in bed. Now I don't know about you but those 10 seconds you've mentioned would have been better spent getting my son and just getting out of the house. Instead of getting a gun and then being 'good to go' ignoring the fact that I could shoot the intruder down a hallway, but shame those 10 secs to get the gun ready would mean that we'd not have had time to get our son to safety.

    Hmmmm decisions decisions.. Gee.. defend my home and property (which can be replaced and are just objects) or get my family (who cannot be replaced and are people are love more than life itself) to safety and out of harms way.. What ever shall I do..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh ok. So you'd use a gun to defend your TV and to shoot people who are starving? Nice Neildo.. real nice. So your TV is worth more to you than another person's life? And as for those people who come looking for food. Sharing is a bad thing huh? Well lets see now, in a natural disaster, one would have to imagine that you'd also have no electricity and that you too would be out looking for food. Just hope you dont meet yourself as you're out foraging for food, as you'd probably find yourself shot and killed.

    Refer to above for use of unjustified force and how shooting a fleeing intruder can and will get you into trouble as if the individual is fleeing, they no longer pose a threat to you. If someone is fleeing from you, how in the hell can you justify being scared for your life or feeling yourself still threatened? Your shooting him to prevent him from stealing from another person makes you a vigilante Neildo, not a good samaritan, and being a vigilante goes way beyond taking the law into your own hands. You do not know the fleeing person you are shooting is going to steal from anyone else. You have absolutely no way of knowing that. That my dear man makes you a dangerous and irresponsible gun owner (as well as a vigilante), because you would shoot someone who posed no threat to you at all.

    You know the law but you'd shoot someone as they were fleeing and posed no threat to you and then claiming it to be self defence? Ermm ok..

    Thank you. And yes I do have an alarm, although we don't have a dog yet. We're waiting for our second to be born in March and until both are old enough to not do things that little kids do with dogs (such as pulling on its tail etc) which could result in their being injured by any dog that would defend itself in such a situation. But we do have an alarm and yes I would never stay behind with a gun to defend my home. As I said before my home and the objects in it are just that.. objects that can be replaced at any time. Those few seconds it would take for me to get and load the gun would be better spent just getting my child and getting out, instead of wasting that time on the gun and then getting my child to safety.

    I mean what would you do first if an intruder came into your home? Get to your family first and getting them out and then get the gun if you are so attached to your property, or would you risk running around the house with a loaded gun as you rushed to gather your kids and get them to safety, putting not only yourself but them as well in danger of facing an armed intruder? Because surely they would be your first priority right? And you wouldn't want them anywhere near if you had to engage in a firefight with an intruder.. right?

    My first priority will always.. and I mean always.. be to get my child out of the house first and foremost. Even without an alarm, if I heard an intruder, I'd simply gather my son and get out. A gun does not provide an early warning system of an intruder and never will.
     
  13. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    1: What? Are you thinking that making the decision to defend yourself is somehow any more difficult thatn deciding to hold you breath underwater so you don't drown? That's kind of a silly thought process you got going on there.
    2: You have implied it throughout.

    FIrst of all Carjacking is stealing and since you mentioned you daughters safety I included the possibility. Since of course you are including hypothetical situations yourself.

    See, the problem with your entire argument is you think that the CCW permit holder is going to use the weapon in every encounter. I have carried since I was eighteen here in the state of michigan. I have drawn my weapon five times outside of the firing range. Once was to frighten off a carjacker who was using a sharpened screwwdrive, twice it was to humanely put down deer that had been struck by cars, once it was to stop a mugging of someone else, and the last time it was hiking in the woods and coming across a bear. Now to my credit outside of a firing range I have fired three rounds. Two at deer and one at the ground in front of the bear. The two criminals didn't even need the weapon pointed at them, just the sound of the safety and sight of it was enough. Otherwise I have helped break up one armed robbery, three carjackings, one attempted rape and six muggings. Sometimes it was by just clearly my throat and other times I had to actually fight the guys. I have also been successfully mugged twice, while wearing the gun. Once the mugger even saw it, but since he had a shotgun trained on me I figured I should behave. Now the truth of the matter is carrying a concealed weapon does not make you more prone to shooting, it makes you more prone to being careful.


    This is where that wonderful invention called the brain comes in. Obviously under most circumstances you do not need to shoot someone through a door, or blow a 13 year old away. Having a weapon doesn't mean you use it, it means you have the option of using it.

    Like I said your choice, but I would still be watching. Besides I am sure if you think for 2 tenths of a second you can figure out a safe way of keeping a gun. Lock box, gun safes, and the such. Of course you don't have to, which is the point. But if a mother in my neck of the woods had been carjacked twice and was not considering protecting herself, then in my opinion she is no mother. She's just a woman with a child.

    Now, the above should not be taken that i think parents absolutely must have guns. Considering eearlier statements of yours I am surprised they let you drive somedays. (Not that most people are any better). But a parent should at least educate themselves and their children on all forms of protection, even ones they'll never willingly use. It only makes sense.

    Well, I don't know how old she is, but education is the best prevention. Second best, have the gun, but no ammo.

    The one under the second amendment you know 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 a well regulated militia is mentioned, but it is the people who are told their right shall not be infringed. Which means any blanket gun control law should be. unconstitutional. Any limitation on that is an infringement, otherwise you open a new can of worms that your property may be searched and Seized for no reason and with no paperwork. for example

    Hmmm, so to you a courageous person is one without fear and not one who faces it. Interesting. Doesn't matter. I carry, becuase I want to protect myself in case it happens. Just like a learned CPR to help others, buckle my seatbelt, keep an eppy pen, and a host of other things.

    What do you think the average person uses for home defense, a claymore mine. No, shot gun with birdshot or a .45 with soft lead hollowpoints. Bullet might make it three feet past my wall.

    Are you insane? Oh yeah you are trying to paint me as a paranoid. Hmm, you seem to be saying more ab0out yourself. I've never actually thought of shooting somone for no reason, but it seems you have.

    That's fine, and since the governemtn by design has no commonsense it should keep it's dirty paws off my gun and my rights.

    Well, I am not so worried about thoughts. More like emotioanl stability and mental soundness. At one point or another every human being has thought of suicide or murder, perhaps both at the same time. However a thought is nothing if not acted upon. Now sure, thought can lead to action, but you're asking people to give something up becuase 1% of the population can't handle it. Besides if a person want to kill someone a simple baseball bat will do just fine. Hell if we outlawed everything used to kill someone, we be left with nothing, no clothes, food, water, alcohol, cars, sand, air, ....
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2006
  14. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    So you are not only an idiot, but a delusional idiot. Birdshot form the typical 12 gauge will not penetrate more than single layer of wall board, if that. However it does rip through clothing and flesh rather will. But let's assume your house has been invaded by the type of intruder that likes doing stuff while you are there. You leave the house in your jammies and in an suburban neighborhood you might be fine. What about the ghettoes? What about the rural areas? What if the intruder is not there for your house, but instead is there for you and your kids? Anything you can think of they can think of. Did they come loud through the front? Well hope you are ready for his buddy at the back.

    The point is for the guys you will have to shoot at, your kids are already in harms way. For the guys just looking to steal, the sound of the racking of the shotgun will make them bolt. In both cases you are safer than if you just fled.
     
  15. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    I never said people SHOULD have AK47s and Uzi's for self defense. Quote me precisely or don't bring me up at all.

    Once again, you are accussing me of defending "guns", and not just guns, but now you are getting specific and saying I'm for uzi's and ak47s, thats ridiculous.
    Here is a question, do any gangs in the united states or around the world, own AK47s or Uzi's? Of course, because as long as AK47s and Uzi's are being made, someone is going to own them. You won't, but someone will always own them. Gun control does not prevent people from owning or buying guns, so whats the point? It actually makes it easier for people to own and buy guns. If you had any idea how easy it is to get an AK47, or Uzi. This debate also is th esame as the drug debate, should drugs be legalized or not? Some people say drugs should be illegal, when drugs are illegal, just as many people use drugs than if drugs are legal, and theres no quality testing, no FDA approval, nothing.
     
  16. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Exactly my point, with arguements as ridiculous as this, how can anyone be for gun control? The only arguements which can make sense, does gun control reduce gun violence? does gun control reduce access to guns? does gun control actually control guns?

    What does gun control accomplish?

    No one who is against gun control, is saying "guns are good", or "it's fun to play with uzi"s, or any of the stuff people try to twist out of context. I'm not even a gun owner, if I owned a gun I'd never play with it, andI don't want an uzi. Does this mean no one should have access to uzi's? Of course not, obviously uzi's are being made for people to buy them. So the people who support gun control have to decide who is going to buy and carry the uzi's because someone is 100% for sure going to do it. It's just basic math. Gun's are made to be sold, I suppose, if you support gun control, you can still have security, it just won't be the personal kind.

    If you support guin control, show us how gun control increases personal security, thats what we are asking. People who are against gun control, believe that gun control either has no impact on personal security, or a negative impact on personal security. You have to show us otherwise to create a sane debate. Show us how gun control increases security.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2006
  17. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Wow, I love the question of how I would possibly shoot a criminal who was commiting a felony trying to steal my car and even kill me over it only to repeat the same act on someone else. Nice. But I see you have no problem with a criminal stealing my car and killing me over it only to repeat the act on someone else due to failed action on my part to stop him. Wonderful. Yet again liberals trying to make criminals out to be the victims and law-abiding citizens as the bad guys.

    I thought this was about a carjacking, sorry.

    If I knew for a fact the person was only stealing my radio then no, I wouldn't shoot him unless he actually was trying to steal the whole car or was making an advance on me. If he was carjacking me, then hell yes I would shoot him as carjackings are most of the times violent.

    WTF!? If I would catch a would-be rapist you wouldn't want be shooting them? Fine. Put a neon sign on the front and back of your shirt so I know who you are and if I ever see a someone raping you, I'll let them continue to do so and will ignore it, but then I have to live with that for the rest of my life also knowing that the rapist who got away is gonna rape even more helpless women or even your little girl. That work for you? Un-friggin-believable. I swear to god you gotta be the most insane person I've ever met. You've supposedly been victim to many crimes and you still don't want people having protection for themselves and then you go and say I shouldn't be shooting rapists. What.. the fuck..

    Nice to see you can't read. I said if a person was trying to steal my car and ran away, I said I'd shoot em in the leg, not back.

    I agree, it's just a car stereo, but just a car? Sorry, but I know you have a giant house and all that takes forever to run from one end to the other, but now I see you have the luxury of tossing cars aside. Some people aren't as rich as you seem to be. And it's not just about stopping car thieves or rapists, it's about stopping the future crimes those people WILL try and attempt again.

    Why do I equate not owning a gun with wanting to die? Well your experiences speak for themselves. You say you've been victim to numerous crimes yet you have no protection for yourself. Only an idiotic masochist would be like that.

    Yes, because everyone who owns a gun with children in the house, they just go flat out shooting right away being super quiet to not let their family know they have a gun so that kids can be standing around being shot at. God damn, where's your common sense? Ever hear of "kids, go hide under the bed" to stay out of harms way and also not get shot at without putting fear into them? But I forgot, you live in such a huge home that you have to communicate with speakerphones from one end of the house to the other or something else that seems to take so long to reach them where you can't access a gun either.

    Again, how do you jump from bad seed to all gun owners?


    Sorry, but gonna need more information than that. I have firearms stored and locked away in my safes and I also have firearms not stored in my safe. But guess what? The ones not stored in my safe have trigger locks on them and are also hidden. Nowhere does that survey even mention non-vault safety features. However, I do have one handgun without a triggerlock on it stored in my home, but it's in a false wall so good luck finding it. I also don't have kids so it's perfectly legal. Heck, you can keep your gun on the kitchen table if you don't have kids, but expect to get your ass sued off if a kid gets a hold of it.

    And don't think I'm asking for more clarification for the hell of it on that survey, because the Brady Campaign (the most popular anti-gun lobby group) loves to use misleading surveys such as that where they leave out key things. Hell, a lot of times they still refer to semi-automatic weapons as automatic "pray and spray" weapons. Fully automatic (hold down trigger and let em ooze out) and burst fire (3 rounds per trigger pull) aren't available to citizens -- only semi-automatic is and that's the only type of fire that's left of the bunch.

    Yes, those people are breaking the law if carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. And no, I'm not trying to protect myself from them all because they're breaking the law. It's quite obvious who I'm trying to protect myself from; violent criminals. You know, the same reason why I'm not worried about jaywalkers or tax-evaders even though they're.. gasp.. breaking the law. Not ironic, but rather obvious perspective -- something you seem to lack big time.

    Uh, what? Please show me where I ever said the people illegally carrying a concealed weapon should not be prosecuted. What I will say though is good luck prosecuting them though because you won't know whether or not they're carrying a weapon on them the same reason why you won't know if a person in Finland owns a gun in their home for self-defense. I have said if those people are caught in the act defending themselves without those permits, they will get busted big time, but until then, nothing will happen because ya won't know of it till then. You know, the same reason why the police don't show up until AFTER a crime has been committed which renders them useless and is one of the reasons why people should always have a means of protecting themselves?

    Uh, do you even know what the quote says that you're responding to? I have no idea what point you're trying to make. All I see is that a person warded off an attacker thanks to their gun and didn't need to fire it. So? That's a good thing. Just because a victim owns a gun doesn't mean they have to fire it, but they WILL have to draw it on the bad guy. Do you honestly think that if the victim didn't show their gun that the assaulter would have left them alone? The gun is the reason why the criminal was stopped and fled! That's the whole point of owning a gun to overpower your attacker. Good luck trying to ward off an attacker that has a baseball bat or knife when you don't have jack shit.

    No idea how that went down so I'll go ahead and take your word for it.

    Threatened? It wouldn't have? Stop, turn around, and shout STOP and tell em to leave you alone. If they continue to threaten and stalk you, give em another warning with your hand on your hip and tell em you have a gun and will use it. If they still continue to do so like an idiot, draw on them and they'll finally leave. If they don't, call for help and tell em to call the cops as you keep watch on the stalker.

    Oh, please tell me how you'd defend yourself if attacked. I'd love to hear that one. And what evidence shows you're able to defend yourself otherwise? You can end a confrontation without having to use a gun, sure, and that's what most people do, but when it comes to actually having to defend yourself, 99% of the time a person is gonna draw their weapon if an person is coming at them.

    Well, yes, obviously. A couple of us have already told ya'll numerous times that you don't just draw and fire the moment you sense something happening. You people seem to think we all lack brains. Using a gun is a last resort, but don't expect to never have to use it. One time is too many being caught with your pants down and assaulted.

    So whatcha gonna do?

    Doesn't have to be a gun, I'm talking about any ol' protection. You seem to have been victim numerous times yet still don't want protection so yeah, I'd have to say you have a death wish.

    Believe me, that 10 second jump of fleeing isn't going to give you a large gap between you and the burglar once you've fled because you gotta run to your kid and then run back to your exit which doubles the time. Or hey, run to your kid, try and get out the window in the room you're both currently at, unlock the window (if you have an extra lock), then slide open the thing hopefully not getting all tangled up in the blinds or curtains, then toss your kid out the window cause doing it carefully will take too much time, then having you carefully get out taking up more time or you carelessly hopping out, hoping you two don't get hurt from the careless fall or landing in some bushes. Instead, you could have just spent 10 seconds getting your gun and making your stand knowing you have the upper hand. As you run for the gun, tell your kid to follow, or hey, do whatever combination first whether gettin the kid or gettin the gun first and just yellin STOP I HAVE A GUN even if it may not be in your hands yet. You can even try that bluff also without a gun, just hope you don't get called out on it.

    Yes, I'd shoot someone trying to get my TV because we all know gun-owners just shoot first and ask questions later, huh? Jesus fuggin' Christ Jackie Chan, Do YOU understand the words comin' out of my mouth?!? The gun would be a warning for them to flee and 99% of the time they do. If the person still tries to take em, I'll knock em out with a butt to the head with my rifle or I'll taser them. And why yes, I have non-lethal means of protection too! Different threats call for different weapons.

    As for sharing, yes, it's bad during a natural disaster because once one person knows you have food, they tell everyone else and then you wind up not having anything left. It's not my fault people are careless and put so much faith in their government to protect them even though GWB himself says on radio announcements how everyone should have supplies for at least 3-4 days because it takes awhile to get the ball rolling. Sorry if I'm ONLY an independent and don't sway as far to the left as you where I'd be stupid enough and messiah-like to sacrifice my goods for other people knowing we'd both wind up in shit creek with nothing left. The only people I would share with if they were SOL would be any somewhat nearby family members or a select few friends and they already know where to come if they're in trouble: here. And even then, I'd be in limited numbers and not all of them.

    Being threatened and scared for your life is only in regards to using deadly force. If I killed the person fleeing, I'd be in trouble. If I killed the person attacking me, I wouldn't. If I shot a fleeing intruder in the leg, I'd be fine.

    Heh, or feed whole packages of bologna to em. Guilty.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sounds like you're gonna have your hands more full when your second child comes which results in more time required making you a bigger victim trapped as you fumble around doing whatever you wind up trying to do. Heck, I have three lil dogs that are family to me and no way would I be able to grab em all to flee and no way in hell would I leave em behind so in my case, I'm making a stand.

    It wouldn't be wasted time because odds are, you won't be able to do all you need to do to get out in time. Have you ever tried staging a fake break-in to time how long it would take to do everything? Sounds like something you should at least do.

    As you can tell, people see things differently from one another. If someone were to break into my place, I'd go for the gun first because odds are against me that I'd be able to gather everyone in time to get out of the house. Heck, just even attemping to get everyone, I'd wind up seeing the burglar which I'd then have no gun so not only would everyone else be victim, but myself as well. At least if I took 5-10 seconds to grab a gun, when I got to everyone and the burglar, I'd have a weapon in my hands.

    And besides, there'd be no place for us to go to get away from the burglar anyways. The two rear bedrooms, den, and kitchen doors and windows all lead to the backyard which is fenced in with only one gate that leads out which is to the front of the house which is near the front door. Then there's the living room and one bedroom both at the front door so there goes that idea too. Any direction I'd try to flee, I'd wind up at the burglar or wind up a sitting duck if in the backyard because I have high fences on the left and right of me and straight ahead is a home and fence on raised ground which is more "I don't think so". And also there's no door that leads to the garage so that option is out as well.

    Let's hope you'd be able to get out in time. Not just that, but not wind up having to cross paths with the burglar.

    A gun isn't supposed to be an early warning system, it's supposed to be to defend yourself in a confrontation. The alarm or dogs barking is the early warning system which allows you to get a VERY short jump on things. Kicking or bashing a door in or even window takes a split second. Once you hear that alarm, they're practically already in. Dogs will at least hear them while they approach the house. Alarms only go off after it's too late. The time it takes you to get to your kids, you'll wind up defenseless and in trouble. At least grabbing the gun first (assuming you're in bed and that's the room your gun is in), you'll have a weapon by the time you'll inevitably encounter the burglar. Even if you can't reach your kids in time with the gun in hand, at least you'll be on your way with something in your hand able to yell out things to try and scare the burglar as you approach. The odds are against you of being able to get out in time by just instantly fleeing.

    - N
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    What fun is that? you go somewhere and the government gives you a gun, you shoot a few can's then give it back to them?

    I can remember in HS we would go into the woods and shoot all kinds of firepower, we even had a van where you could jump out with a shotgun and start shooting, i almost brokew my shoulder once

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Those where the day's.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You would seriously expect any responsible parent to engage in a gun fight with their kids in the house? And you call me delusional and insane? The point to me is simple and clear. I would never ever keep a gun in the house with my children. So you assume what? Because my child is already in harms way 'what the hell'? Are you for real? My first priority at any time danger enters my home either by way of intruder or fire, etc, will be to get my children out first. Always. Ever since my son was born and we moved into our new house, the first thing we did was to do the fire drill thing. Our son sleeps in the next room, and we can access his room directly from our room. We have installed a second door into a second room, accessible from our room also, which will be our second baby's room when it is due in March. We have also installed quick release (from the inside only) security screens on all our windows so in the event of a fire, we can get out as soon as possible. If we are unlucky enough to have an intruder, our alarm system will alert us of his/her's/their entry onto not only our property but into our home as well. In the event of such a thing, we have access to not only get out by the side, but also the front through our own windows.

    I grew up around guns. My father hunted. Much to my mothers disgust, my father taught me how to use his rifle when I was a child and he also taught me about gun safety. The gun was kept in the house but in a safe in the attic of the house. We'd had intruders attempt to come into the house and did he even once go for the gun? Nope. He went for the big piece of wood he kept under the bed with nails driven through it (again much to my mothers disgust and horror). Do you know why he never once went for the gun? Because he would never ever use a gun in the house while my mother and I were still in it. He got rid of the gun many many years ago as he realised that hunting an animal was not only cruel but as a sport, he came to find it stomach turning. He does not own one now. They happen to live in the bush, literally in the middle of a forest and he has stated unequivocally that he will never own a gun again as there is no use for it. However he still sleeps with a big piece of timber with nails driven through it under the bed.. still to my mothers disgust and horror..

    So no you git, I do not take risks with my child's life nor with my husband's or my own. Therefore I would NEVER keep a gun in my home and then try to defend said home against any intruder, putting my son in even more danger. The house is insured as are its contents and even if it wasn't, no object is worth more than my child. If someone wants to come in for me or my child, I would simply get out. But good luck to them getting in as we have taken the best security measures to ensure that someone attempting to gain entry would have a bitch of a time doing so.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You are a private citizen yes? Even you have admitted that the police are there to get the people who are breaking the law. You are not a policeman. Your self defence does not include shooting someone who's attempting to steal your car, unless the thief has threatened you directly and personally in doing so. You are irresponsible and basically idiotic if you willingly put yourself in harms way in an attempt to "save" your car. The same would be said for those who's house was on fire and instead of getting out of said burning house, stay inside it and attempt to put it out.

    If the rapist was endangering you personally (then yes you can defend yourself) or say your wife or someone else, then you'd be an arse for just ignoring them. But legally you have NO obligation to save any other individual. If the rapist is running away, it is NOT your role to shoot them in the foot to catch them for the police. Shooting a fleeing assailant means YOU get into trouble as if he is fleeing, he does not pose an immediate danger to you or the person he was attacking when you came upon the scene. You have NO way of knowing for certain that he will offend again. Your argument that you're stopping them from doing it again makes you a vigilante and also a criminal in the eyes of the law. It is NO LONGER self defence if you shoot a person who is fleeing the scene.

    Reasonable and justifiable force in reply to a threat is also looked at. For example if you are sitting in your car with the doors locked and the windows up and someone comes to your window and attempts to car jack you with a pen knife, you shooting them would be seen by the law as being an unjustified and unreasonable response to said threat. If he pointed a gun at you on the other hand, then you would feel duly threatened enough to shoot.

    Shooting any intruder, rapist, threat to you as they attempted to flee is basically against the law. Shooting them in the foot so that you can stop them for the police to arrest them can not only see you arrested, but also possibly sued by the assailant (and knowing your legal system, he could end up winning) as your shooting him "to stop him from doing it to anyone else" is not a valid argument. It makes you a vigilante and a dangerous one as you are armed with a deadly weapon. You have NO way of knowing what this individuals actions in the future will be. It is NOT your job to catch anyone for the police. You are NOT a police officer. Discharging a firearm at a person who no longer poses an immediate threat to you or anyone else can and will get you into a hell of a lot of trouble.

    You seem to equate the fact that because I don't wish to own a gun, I cannot defend myself. In all the times I have been a victim of crime I have NEVER once needed a gun to defend myself. The guy who attacked me in the car park has been rendered infertile by the fact I jammed my car keys into his nuts and literally twisted and ripped them in place so that when the police arrived shortly after, he was lying on the ground with quite a bit of blood pouring from between his legs as well as deep gouges down his face. A gun in such a situation would have been useless because he had me pinned against my car, but I was able to get my hand holding my keys between us and well hurt him enough so that he cried like a baby before he passed out. Had I a gun at that time, he could have very well grabbed it off me and used it to threaten me further and get me into the position he wanted me in.

    So you'd shoot a person who, because he was fleeing, no longer posed a threat to you or your car? Even in the leg or foot, he NO longer posed a threat to you as he was fleeing. Again, you are NOT the police. It is NO LONGER self defence if the guy is fleeing as he no longer poses a threat or danger to you.

    Again. You have NO way of knowing for certain what the future actions of the assailant will be. And the amount of money I happen to have means nothing. A car is a car. It is an object. Insure it. No object is worth putting yourself in harms way to defend. A person sure. I have said countless of times that I would jump in front of a moving truck if it meant saving my son. But if jumping in front of said truck was only to save say an object that was not a life, then the answer would be a big no.

    Neildo, if your house was ever on fire, would you get out of it? Or would you stay inside it and try to get the fire out because you cant imagine wanting to throw something so valuable away and therefore must defend it even if it meant putting your own life in danger. I value my life more than my car or my house. If you were carjacked and the bastard had a gun to your face, hell defend yourself by whatever means that is available to you. But if a guy is stealing your car from the street and you're not in it.. it's just a car Neildo. Not worth you or any other innocent individual who might get caught in the crossfire getting injured or poosibly killed over.

    So because I don't own a gun for "self defence" it means that I want to die? LOL! If that's the only argument you can come up with Neildo, then you are basically not a worthy opponent and the last person who should be argueing against gun control.

    I have said before I have no need for a gun to defend myself. It wouldn't have helped me in the past and I am not one to put myself in dangerous situations where it would be useful in the future. I can and have defended myself against others in the past. I am the type of person who deals with each situation as it arises and am not one to start carrying a gun "just in case". I have a child and no matter what safety precautions I may take with said gun, I would not want my child to be in the vicinity of a weapon that could cause him to kill himself. I know my child and I frankly would never want a gun to be anywhere near him. Therefore I would not want to place one in the very house he lives in.. no matter how well it is locked up. You may feel comfortable bringing a gun into your home, and that is your prerogative and it your responsibility if something ever goes wrong. But I know that I would never be able to live with myself if a gun that I brought into my home ended up in the wrong hands or worse still in the hands of my child and he harmed himself or someone else with it.

    What the hell does the size of my home have to do with this argument?

    Any responsible parent will tell you that their first priority is to get their children out of harms way. And no that does not include telling them to go and hide under the bed. Sure I may have a shotgun that shoots pellets that cannot pierce walls, but the intruder might have a bigger gun, which could have bullets going through the walls and killing or harming my child. My son is one years old Neildo. Do you honestly think he would understand the concept of "hide under the bed so you don't get shot"?? Are you certifiable? It's only in movies that parents make their kids hide under the bed while they face the intruders with a gun. Either in movies or in households where the parents are bloody irresponsible idiots. It is obvious that you do not have children Neildo because no responsible or reasonable parent would ever tell their child to go and hide under the bed while you prowl around the house with a gun looking for the intruders.

    I honestly cannot believe you just said to tell the child to hide under the bed. Really Neildo, I'd always pegged you as a guy with common sense but that statement from you has shown otherwise.

    So you are going against the recommendations from the police and associations such as the NRA in regards to keeping a gun in the home? Didn't you say in another post that people who don't lock up their guns in the home are idiots who break the law? Hmm do as I say and not as I do huh?

    The survey was mentioned in an article by the Connecticut Law Review in 2000 about tort liability and the negligent storage of firearms. Had you read the link, you'd have seen they discussed all forms of safe gun keeping measures in the home.

    Oh and if a child did get one of the guns you seem to keep around the home supposedly "hidden", getting sued would be the least of your worries.

    Yes. This from the man who said to tell the children to go and hide under the bed so they dont get shot? LOL!

    And yet you seem to feel that the only way one has of defending oneself is to have a firearm. I am saying that it is not.

    No Neildo. This was the quote that came to mind:

    "I didn't have a gun on me and I'm glad I didn't. We were better off not engaging these people and I seriously doubt we could have gotten out if I did pull a firearm".Link

    Again, you seem to lack any form of imagination or common sense. You keep argueing the only way you can defend yourself is with a gun. You'd stated before that one shouldn't pull the gun unless it was absolutely necessary but now you've degenerated into saying you'd go so far as to shoot a fleeing assailant even though the fact he was fleeing meant that he no longer posed a threat to you.. but you're doing so out of some warped sense of justice in case he did it to anyone else (without any form of certainty that he/she would reoffend).. failing to realise you are not a police officer and your actions would amount to you breaking the law and also acting like a vigilante.. the very opposite of what you had originally started argueing about.

    Again, this is why gun control is needed. Pulling a gun is not always the only option and sometimes it should not be pulled. You've just admitted that when it comes to defending yourself, 99% of the people will draw their gun even if it might not be needed for that particular situation, but because they have it on them, they will use said gun. You've argued previously that a gun should only be drawn if it is absolutely necessary and now you make this statement? Again, if this is meant to be a valid argument for anti-gun control lobbyist, you are failing badly.

    I would consider someone who says to tell a child to hide under a bed if an intruder enters the house in case they get shot to be lacking in brain cells. You just said above that 99% would draw if someone was coming at them. So now you are ammending that to only if necessary. But not everyone would think that way. The majority would draw their gun just in case things turned bad. I don't have a gun because I don't expect I'd ever have to use it. You may be paranoid in thinking otherwise and again that's up to you as an individual. But all your arguments so far have only reiterated why a need for gun control is needed. Not once have you even made me consider why or where a gun might be needed for self defence. On the contrary, you have only ensured that I never ever bring a gun into my own home. Maybe one day if and when you have children you will understand where Tiassa and I are coming from. Until then, you keep advising parents who have a gun to tell their kids to hide under the bed. I am sure if they are ever unlucky enough to face an intruder who had a gun with bullets capable of piercing walls and their kids were injured or killed, they'll be mighty glad for your advice. Because a responsible parent will never engage an intruder unless they can help it. A responsible parent will do their utmost to get their child out of the house and to safety first. Any parent who tells their kids to hide under the bed while they stalk around with a gun looking for intruders should not be parents.

    Are you kidding me? Shame if the child is a baby huh? Then that child would have to be carried as you're running around the house with a gun shouting "Stop I have a gun". Or if the child is a toddler who cannot understand the concept of follow me and keep quiet or hide under the bed. This little response from you here proves that you do not have children Neildo. I'd take the risk of my son breaking his leg being pushed out the window than I would having him in my arms while I run around the house shouting "stop I have a gun" to an intruder who may have a bigger gun that could shoot my child and myself. Are you for real? This is how kids end up getting caught in the cross fire you twit. Because their parents were irresponsible, stupid and moronic and did what you have stated in your replies for them to do.

    We have tested several escape routes in case of a fire in our home Neildo. In each and every single scenario we have gotten our child and gotten out of the house in about 8 seconds flat. So yes I would rather spend 10 seconds or maybe even 20 seconds getting my son out of the window than run around with him in my arms shouting "Stop I have a gun" like some kind of moron.

    When we moved into the new house, we planned for escape from possible fire risks since our home is an old renovated timber home. And we planned it well. We have gates on both sides of the house that lead to the front and the streets and both gates have quick release mechanisms on the inside of the gate (ie facing into the back yard) which are out of reach of children. Those trying to access said gates from the front of the house (ie from the street) would need a key. We have timber shutters on all the windows so that there are no cords (eg from blinds or curtains) for our son to possibly hang himself on. We also have security screens that have a quick release on the inside so that in the event of a fire, we would be able to get out as quickly as possible. We are not irresponsible people who have never thought of having to make a quick exit from our house. We also took the extra precaution of having our son's room and now a third bedroom (we're expecting our second in March) having doors that are accessible directly from our bedroom in the event of a fire, so that we can get to our children directly. But as I said above, our plans are for a fire and we have not only alarms for intruders in our home, but fire alarms. If an intruder were silly enough to attempt to gain entry (our windows have a special glazing that means smashing them is near impossible and by the time they did get through, we'd be out of the house.. and we have special security screens on all the windows and doors), we'd use the same escape routes as we would if the house were on fire). We've been laughed at by some of our friends for taking the precautions that we have, but when it comes to our child, we will do whatever it takes to ensure his safety. Sure we may have gone over-board with some of the locks and safety precautions we have taken, but again, the children's safety will always come first to us and we will do whatever it takes to make sure they are kept safe in their own home. Hence why I could never keep a gun in my home. And hence why I would never even consider making my child follow me or making him hide under the bed while I walked around the house with a gun.

    My father gave us a big piece of timber with nails driven through it (again much to my mothers horror and my husband's amusement). If we did meet a burglar in the side yard, he'd be in for a bigger shock than we would have in seeing him there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If you feel that a gun is the best way you can defend yourself, then so be it. No amount of gun control will prevent you from getting one in that case. But do not assume that others cannot defend themselves as well without a gun. Do not assume that just because others may not want a gun that they are somehow lacking in any skill or ability to defend themselves. As Tiassa said in a post previously, use whatever the situation calls for. I personally would never keep a gun because I do not see the need for it and I'd never have a gun anywhere in the vicinity of my children. That is my decison to make and no one elses. If you feel the only way you can feel safe is to have a gun then get a gun. Hell get a bazooka. But remember always that in most situations, said gun or bazooka will not be necessary and other means of self defence will probably always be more effective for said situation. And remember if using your gun for self defence you injure someone else, you are directly responsible. If you shoot someone who is fleeing and no longer poses a threat to you, you are directly responsible and will face the fact that you've broken the law.. even if you shoot him in your foot because you want to stop him from committing a crime against another person.. becaues you do not know what the person's actions in the future will be. And if someone is attempting to steal your car while you're not in it. Don't run out with a gun to stop them as they may have a bigger gun than you and no car is worth injury to yourself or to an innocent bystander.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    For those who are against gun control laws, I'd suggest you consider a few facts:

    1,830 children under the age of 19 are killed each year with a firearm, which, taken together with the figures for children killed in suicides and firearms accidents, supports the claim that a child is killed by a gun every three hours in America. Link

    Forty per cent of American households own guns, but those guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, or 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide, than in self-defence. On average, more than 80 Americans are killed by gunfire every day. Link

    States such as Ohio has no legal requirement stating that a person purchasing a gun needs to have a permit. Also:

    The UN have reported that in cases of domestic violence, a gun in the home can put the woman at greater risk by the abuser:

    Anti gun control organisations need to also weigh the balance of the necessity of allowing guns for self defence against figures such as those reported by the UN:

    Proponents of guns for self defence should also consider a report by Injury Prevention (Vol. 9 (2003) as cited in the UN report that:

    Having a gun as a mere "right" simply does not cut it. Proponents of gun control in the US aren't all saying to ban all guns outright. Most are merely saying that stricter controls are needed and looking at the figures of deaths by firearms in the US, it is sorely needed. Pro gun lobby organisations attempting to sell to women who are, for example, victims of domestic violence are placing these women at greater risk because their having a gun in the home could more than likely result in their death or injury from the weapon. At the present time, a person can legally buy a gun from a gun show and any attempt to enforce private sellers in said shows to be licenced to sell such weapons or to have the buyers have to go through a proper police check and get a licence or permit has been waylaid by organisations such as the NRA.

    I am not an idiot who thinks that banning all guns in the public realm will somehow rid society of gun violence. But stricter controls are needed and forcing people to undergo training to get a permit for any firearm they wish to purchase (be it from a licenced gun dealer or from shows for example) would help a lot. I am well aware that if someone really wants a gun they can get one illegally, but it should be a lot harder for a person to get a gun than it already is. Advertising that guns will keep you safer is not always true and it's not always the case that a gun will ensure your safety. The contrary is often the case.
     
  22. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    And I will of course pull the wool form over the eyes.

    This is horrifying but in truth it is that under 19 that gets you Gang related gun death from 14-19 iis more than 1400 of those deaths. Still you have 300 to 400 a year, sometime accidental, sometimes on purpose, and sometimes suicide. While this is still horrific in most of these cases gun control would not have helped one iota.

    I love how they do that. They use only reported incidences, despite the fact that 19 times out of twenty a person does not report when they chase away an intruder by brandishing their gun and not firing.


    Oh, so english must be a third language. Show me where restrictions, gun licensing, registration and all that jazz is NOT infringement.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2006
  23. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Are we not talking about violent carjackings? So yes, that'd be a threat and I'd be justified for shooting the punk.

    As for someone staying in their home trying to push out the fire, I don't see how that's moronic. Do you never attempt to push out a greasefire in the kitchen and instead let it burn and wait for firemen to come and save you? Most people would try and do what they can to try and save their house until it's too late then they get the hell out of there. You know, that thing called judgement that you seem to think nobody has?

    Yes it is if the rapist already commited the act. I can be arrested for not doing anything.

    Even if the person didn't rape the lady but still assaulted her and decided at the last minute to not rape her, I would still wound the bastard so the cops can get him. Even if I get sued for it, that's a risk I'm willing to take. Most likely I'll just get a "you shouldn't have done that, but thank you" and a handshake from the cop and then become friends with the victim for bringing her assaulter to justice.

    How the heck does the criminal not pose a danger to the person he was attacking? Attacking means it happens and is past tense. Do you mean "was attemping to attack" and perhaps decided against it?

    Haha, that's classic liberal thinking for the self-defense of criminals. Sorry, hon, but reality is against you on that. There's a reason why the stereotype saying of "once a crook, always a crook" exists.

    Haven't we already talked about this and agreed upon?

    "Basically". Criminals are scum and the police are on our side. Cops look away all the time to protect us and put the bad guys away. I could very well shoot a thief that broke into my home and never assaulted me or presented a threat to myself, and the cop on the scene would suggest that I say so. This is one of the big reasons why people hate liberals because it's sickening how they defend the wrong sides and them make up bullshit reasons like "oh, you wouldn't know if that bad guy would have commited another crime". Gimme a fuggin' break.

    Sure it is: citizen's arrest. It's just not usually advisble because citizens don't usually have as strong a legal backing as the police do. Citizens are allowed to apprehend anyone commiting a felony (not lesser crimes tho). And yep, carjacking is a felony.

    And we've all agreed that guns aren't required in numerous cases. However, don't think you're Wonder Woman able to try that same act with your keys every single time. Let's hope I never have to tell you "I toldja so".

    It's not about "no longer posing a threat" but rather "posing/poses/posed a threat". And again, the gun would only be used if I wasn't able to use any other means available. If the guy didn't have a gun and I had a taser on me, I'd chase his ass down with that instead.

    Whoops, more whacky liberal logic. How many times have you said that in your post?

    Yes, it means a lot because some people don't have to privelige to just shrug off a car being "oh, just a car". Some people have a car and nothing else. Some people if left without a car are screwed with no way to get to work and can have everything go downhill from there. Sure, if you have the cash, go ahead and not worry about your car being stolen, but some people are broke poor and can't have that happen. And the same is multiplied ten fold when it comes to their home.

    Just living is dangerous. I wouldn't be worried about a freakin' fire. I'd stay there as long as possible until I could no longer do anything to stop it. I would try and gather as many irreplaceable or sentimental items I have. So hey, they may be just "eh, memories" for you, but I'm not alone in doing that.

    Again, that's a risk I'm able to take myself and you're not qualified to make the decision for me. Can I write a contract out for you to sign that says something along the lines that if my car ever gets stolen and I had the opportunity to put a stop to it but didn't thanks to you, you will buy me a new car? If so, I'll be all over that, but I'm sure you won't do it because you're talking out of your ass in regards to my life trying to tell me how to live expecting I'm as wealthy as you are with cars you can easily toss aside and giant homes you don't care about.

    You. You value your life more than your car or house. You, you, you.

    I never said you want to die, that was something I quoted of you making it look like I said it. I have said it makes you very foolish and careless for not doing so. You seem to be a magnet for crimes as you've said. You've supposedly been involved in more victimizing incidents than all of us have. Only a masochist would not care about being a victim of so many crimes and doing nothing to stop them from happening. You've been lucky so far in that you haven't had anything hardcore happen to you, but you seem to not care of it ever happening. When it does, good luck. And it's not just about guns, but protection in general. Don't expect your keys to save you every time.

    What does the size of your home have to do with that argument? Everything. Since you live in a large home, when someone tries to break into your home, it means you have to madly run around the house to do what you need to do. People in smaller homes can quite easily grab their gun and also take care of their kids very quickly. In your home, you say you wouldn't have time to do all that.

    Yes, and grabbing the gun in your room is part of that first priority. I'm not gonna be like you where I run to my children only to wind up confronting the criminal empty handed thereby putting not just myself in jeopardy, but my kid as well. I'd be able to reach my kid with a gun in hand in the same amount of time but this time I won't be empty-handed unable to defend myself and my kid when we wind up meeting the burglar.

    And yes, telling the kids to hide under their bed is part of getting them out of harms way. What, you want me to take them towards the burglar while I'm empty-handed? Real smart. You want me to cause chaos making the kids scared saying "OMG kids we need to get out of here quickly!" only to have them say "I can't leave my teddy!". That'll all really lead to trouble. With the kids under their beds, they're out of harms way and it allows me to confront the burglar on my own, with the odds on my side thanks to my firearm without putting the kids in harms way. And the "get under the bed" is only assuming the burglar is already in the house and the kids are up. If I heard a burglar coming in the middle of the night, I'd keep the kids sleeping and would slowly make my rounds around the house, obviously first checking their room, but at least now they'd be out of the way instead of me running around the house like a madman with kids in hand and no protection for when I do and WILL meet the burglar as I've mentioned with the set-up of my home.

    That's why the size of your home has everything to do with this argument because what may work for me may not work for you and what may work for you may not work for me.

    Oh yes, so if I were you and the criminal had a larger caliber bullet, I'd be screwed either way because you wouldn't want me to grab my gun first. So instead of risking the burglar shooting through a wall and hitting my kid (which the odds are highly against that happening if you took simple geometry), I'd instead have to risk seeing the burglar with a gun while I have my kids in my arms and no gun. Oh yeah, that's SO much better!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Surely you've told your kid special words or phrases since you've mentioned you've done the whole fire drill thing. You don't even have to mention anything about getting shot. Just say "when mommy says you need to go under your bed, it's very important and you need to do so, mmmkay?" or something along those lines.

    I know, which is why I already said I most likely wouldn't even say anything to them because odds are, the burglar would try and come when we're all sleeping. I'm not gonna wake em up while they're sleeping and then put them in a panic and then having to spend which would seem like an eternity at that moment trying to explain what's going on which would then be too late and make us all screwed.

    Oh yeah, tell me Mrs. Common Sense who would run around getting the kids only to confront the burglar empty-handed. Nice big fat group of people right there with a deathwish on their hands.

    How am I going against any gun safety rules? I already told you I keep trigger locks on the guns that are out in the open and that's what the law requires. If they're not in a safe, they have to have a trigger lock or cable on them. Are you referring to the one in a false wall? That's perfectly fine too.

    All they mentioned was safes and nothing about trigger locks and cables. I highly doubt that out of all those people surveyed, none owned trigger locks or cables where all they were left was to show what percentage only had gun safes.

    Not only that, but I don't even know the point in mentioning the suicide part other than to try and make guns look bad. If a person wants to commit suicide, they will. People have the right to, especially if you're a liberal. It's why I wanna move to Oregon because they have the most liberal laws in the nation.. that little thing called freedom. Anyways, someone mentioned suicides and that argument before in this thread for Australia and they complain there's like 5% gun suicides yet an ungodly amount of poison suicides. What the hell's the point in even mentioning that? Hell, if anything, I'd wish all suiciders had guns so they can go out quick and easy for a sure death rather than a slow death slitting your wrists or taking poison that may not work only to leave you braindead and alive like a vegetable in a state where you can't have doctor-assisted suicides.

    No it wouldn't because that's a fine way to store a gun. It's not hidden under clothing or behind a desk, it's in a false wall that can only be opened a certain way.. you know, sort of like how gun safes can only be opened a certain way. The wall storage part is reinforced and is basically a safe, but easier to open than some combination lock safe kind of like finger locks where you put your fingers down in a certain combination to unlock it. The hidden aspect of it makes up for the lack of reinforcement a normal large gun safe would have.

    Huh? What the heck does your comment have to do with in reponse to what you're responding to? If I tell someone to hide so they don't get shot, it's not to protect themselves from getting shot from me, but if the burglar has a gun. Hell, I cound spin around blindfolded and not shoot in the direction of my bedrooms because I know the layout of the house, plus if I did have to discharge a round, it'd be pointed at a downward trajectory where after it hits the perp, it'd go into the ground and not through a wall.

    I've never said a gun is the only way one can protect themself. I have said it's the best means of protection though.

    Yes, and if I remember correctly, that quote was in regards to 8 people storming the person's house who were armed with shotguns and pistols and held the guy down on the ground and the wife at gunpoint and beat his old man in the other room with the butt of their guns. Uh, yeah, obviously it'd be a smart thing not to try and defend yourself when outnumbered like that. This is why I suggest you read those links I posted as you'll get a better understanding as to how situations really go down rather than assuming it thinking gun-owners are nutty people.

    Imagination.. so I can make all sorts of assumptions like you are? And again, no, I never said the only way one can defend themself is with a gun. And yes, I said one shouldn't draw their gun unless absolutely necessary. As for shooting a fleeing assailant, yes, I would if they commited the crime. If the person fled before the crime could be commited, then no, I wouldn't shoot em. If the bastard raped someone or already broke into my home, yep, I would because they already did pose a threat and still continue to do so. You know, kind of like how escaped convicts still pose a threat to everyone even though the crime they did may have been years ago? I mean, nobody knows if they'd do it again, lol. And if someone were carjacking me and ran off without dropping their weapon, they still pose a threat. The reason why they don't get shot most of the time is because once they see that gun, they drop their weapon and split.

    Uh, that 99% thing I said was in regards to having to defend yourself when someone is coming at you.. as in charging you and attacking you. It's not coming at you as in you sense someone following you and draw right then and there. And no, because a person may have a gun on them, it doesn't mean they're going to use said gun. Again, read the damn links of people involved in real life situations and you'll see most of the time having to use the gun wasn't required, but the times it is required, you can be damned sure they used it even tho they wish they didn't have to. At least Tiassa was level-headed enough to hear both sides of the story rather than just talk for the sake of talking. You don't see anyone else not reading the links or stats you post, no?

    Wow, and you say I lack imagination. Hell, you don't even need an imagination but rather come to reality and you'll see numerous examples.

    I'd love to hear how what we've said have made it even more absolute that you'd never bring a gun into your own home. We've already debunked your assumptions of not being able to get your gun and magazine out of your safe in time as flat out wrong as it only takes 10 seconds. We've shown you that there are ammo for rifles, handguns, and shotguns that don't pierce walls. Exactly how have we made your opinion even more concrete?

    Baby, that was one fucking example. Sorry if I can't detail everything out for every various type of encounter possible when I'm already typing enough as it is responding to all this crap. You wanted an example of how to put them out of harms way while I'm in the house with a gun and intruder and I gave you one. As I mentioned in this post, I most likely wouldn't even tell them anything because they'd be sleeping. I'd make a quick check to their room to see that they're okay and the noise isn't coming from there and would proceed to deal with the situation on my own without extra panic coming from kids. By running around trying to grab all your kids, all you're doing is telling the burglar where you are. You need to be calm and quiet in a situation like that not just so you can execute everything, but so you can also find out where the burglar is in the first place so you don't bump into him.

    And speaking of crap to respond to, there's still another screen to read, oy. Man, all we're doing is friggin' repeating ourselves. We're a stubborn lot.

    The "stop I have a gun" is to by you time to get the hell out of there. As for running around with a gun in hand and baby, uh, you don't have to hold the freakin' gun with the baby in your hands. You know what a waistband is for? God damn, do I have to spell everything out for you? Surely you have the common sense to not have to ask a question like that for me to answer when you should know what would have to be done, even if you don't own a gun. And no, I don't have any kids, but I do have people who live here and also have lil' dogs that I consider family who I'd protect just as well as kids and not leave behind. And well, good luck trying to gather all of them and trying to flee. A stand is the only option.

    As for your crossfire comment, that too shows lack of common understanding. If cross-fire is happening, that already means the burglar is shooting at you. What, you'd rather not have a gun and have him shoot at you instead of you being able to defend yourself against that? Even if you continue to haul ass as he's shooting at you, I'd still at least rather have a firearm even if not shooting back. And you WILL need it when you toss your kid out the window if he breaks his leg because you won't be able to drag him very far with a baby in hand. Let's also hope you don't spend too long trying to climb out that window because I wouldn't want you to fall putting the lil baby in your tum-tum in jeopardy.

    Good for you. Nice to see you got a working pattern down. Now have you tried a more realistic one where you do a surprise wake-up on everyone? Wake up your hubby and then also wake up your kid doing the drill? Ain't gonna be no 8 seconds there especially if waking up from a dream being all disoriented.

    Like a moron? Oh yeah, because you don't need to buy any extra time with all that, huh?

    Um, well since we all seem to agree, then what exactly are we arguing for? Us gun-owners say go ahead and not own a gun if you don't need it but then you go ahead and say feel free to own a gun if that's what we need. However, you're still against us owning em and I guess you want to try and stop that?

    And nobody has ever said that because you don't want a gun that you aren't able to defend yourself or find another way to avoid the situation. What we're doing is giving you examples of when you actually may need one, mainly based off first-hand experience the same way you're doing the same telling us how we can avoid certain situations without the need for one. We sure haven't ever said to always use a gun and nothing but a gun, we've said use what the situation calls for as well.

    The only reason why we get so F'in pissed off at you guys is because we give you these examples and many that we've already experienced yet liberals still want to deny our right to owning a gun when we HAVE had that need for them and otherwise if guns were banned from citizens, we wouldn't be talking to you right now because we'd be dead from those encounters. However, you said that you seem to not mind that if we need a gun, so be it, and if that's true and you aren't trying to disarm us, then I don't know what the point is in arguing with you, and in that case, we can direct our argument towards the people that do want to deny us that right.

    - N
     

Share This Page